Scenario-God's will

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

…Hello, This is my first time posting on these message boards, but have trolled through the messages here quite often. As it turns out, I have just finished reading “Think” by Simon Blackburn. Many readers of this book have stated that Mr. Blackburn leans to the side of Atheism or Agnostic, and I myself agree. The question that has I cannot come to a conclusion on is one scenario that Mr. Blackburn presents in Chapter five, page 188. I wont go into the context, but taken as is, it is hard to dispute the scenario. It is as follows…

"There is indeed a very powerful, very benevolent deity.  He (or she or they or it) has determined as follows.  The good human beings are those who follow the natural light of reason, which is given to them to control their beliefs.  These good humans follow the arguments, and hence avoid religious convictions.  These ones with the strength of mind not to believe in such things go to Heaven.  The rest go to Hell.

Mr. Blackburn is not saying that he agrees with that scenario, but the problem is if we really know nothing, (and considering Descartes’ “Evil Demon” scenario), then we do not know whether the scenario just described is any less likely than the Christian view on God and Heaven.

I have been raised a Christian, and still believe in the classical view of God and His place in our existence, so I come here to these forums asking the philosophy minded people to come shed some light on this subject for me, or point me in the direction of some philosophy that backs up modern Christianity. Thank you.

2

Try looking up the Argument from Design?

3

…My problem is I know all the arguments for Divine Creation, but to believe that it takes a good portion of faith. And if you have faith in Him, above all else in the world (speaking of other religions and other ways of thinking about life), you are granted eternal life. If you choose to believe something or someone else, then your only destination is Hell.

My line of work is law enforcement, and to convict someone to a life sentence or the death penalty, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (about 4% possibility that the defendant did not commit the crime). My position is that in the roughly 70 years or so we as humans have on earth, we are tasked with finding Him and giving our all in devotion of Him, without having any proof of Him being true, or we spend our eternity in the lake of fire. This all seems rather unfair, to me if those were the only options, then we should be entitled to a little more proof before we are to decide which direction to swing our life in. I say that maybe if God wanted this perfect devotion, maybe he should have presented to the humans he created some more concrete evidence. This seems only fair considering where our souls will be spending the rest of eternity. Some believers have told me that I cannot begin to understand God’s mind and/or will, and I agree. But if i am understanding the doctrine that is being taught, God would be hard pressed to defend the scenario and stipulations that he has tasked us with.

4

You are assuming the Christian God values rationality. It seems to me that he values obedience and possibly even denigrates rationality. Martin Luther agrees with this analysis when he says, “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.” You are also assuming that the Christian God is fair, but my understanding is that Christianity puts a heavier emphasis on ‘justice’ as opposed to ‘fairness’. But of course this justice is defined by God, who is a rather capricious individual it would seem.

5

…No not assuming that a Christian god values rationality, just saying that the scenario i presented in the first message is a possibility, considering how much we don’t know. My point is it is hard for God to value obedience and faith when there is not conclusive evidence pointing to him as the shining light in our lives. And in my opinion fairness = justice.

6

I think the critical assumption that you and Blackburn are making is that the rational case for theism fails to such a large degree that a rational person ‘following the arguments’ would be an atheist. If we have to take for granted that the case is that open and shut to even examine your question, then what’s the POINT of your question? It sounds like the argument goes something like this: “Given that Christianity is unreasonable, it follows that Christianity is unreasonable.”
Well, yeah.

7

There is only so much that we can learn from hypotheticals.

you’re asking us to tell you some philosophy that backs up modern christianity.

what if i only know about philosophy that denys christianity?

yop’re at risk of “cherry picking your beliefs”. This is when you only look for specif bits of reasoning or information which fit in to your pre-disposed beliefs.

If you only looked for things that support your beliefs then how would you expect to deal with opposition or criticism? would it not be smart to explore the criticising side of things in order to understand their objections and make an informed judgement?

It seems like you have alreadyd ecided that modern christianity is correct and now you’re looking for philosophy to back your beliefs up.

“people should search for what is, and not what they think should be” - Albert Einstein.

Don’t get me wrong, there is much to be learned by exploring the ramifications of hypotheticals, but looking to support a hypothetical before you have even begun to examine that hypothetical is a very messy way of comming to a conclusion.

You would be better off doing some thinking on your own about the issue.

ask yourself what the differences would be concerning the evil demon possibility and the benevolent diety scenario. why would one seem more plausible than other? what inconsistencies are there? what ramifications does each scenario have?

you must probe all areas equally if you wish to come to an informed conclusion.

8

…Your post provided a lot to me on this subject. I disagree with you that I have already decided that modern christianity is correct. I have been raised as a christian, and as of late (the past 5 years or so) begun pondering the possabilities that the beliefs I have grown up with might be false, or at least not entirely true. The reason I brought this subject to these message boards is not to prove some point, but instead ask you to help me find a point. From the reviews I have read on Mr. Blackburn’s book, he is Agnostic. I agree with that view point. The information provided in “Think” only points to agnostic views, not even Atheist views. Considering that an authors beliefs will ultimately come out in his works, I would like to read some philosophies from thinkers who believe in the Christian God.

And after I read and ponder on these ideas I’m asking for, that wont be the end of my search, but rather more information to compute to ultimately come to my own conclusion. The problem is that as of yet, I only have read philosophy that, as you said, denies christianity.

I did not come here asking for your view points that I might take to be my own view points, because they support whatever agenda I might have, but rather I came here asking for your view points that I might consider them and come closer to my own view point, whatever it may be.

And yes I might hope that ultimately I will find evidence supporting the beliefs that I have held for most of my life, but if that is not the case, then I deny myself to hold blindly onto a lie. What is the term? Dispassionate search for the truth?

Thank you all for the replies.

9

a dispassionate search for truth might be better than a passionate one; our emotions often get in our way.

Your reply cleared up a few assumptions i made. just so you know i am an against. i have read a fair amount of amateur and classical philosophy from many different sources. to be brutally honest i have not found any philosophy that rationally justifies the existence of god.

On that same token, i have never found a philosophy that rationally denies the existence of god; hence my being agnostic.

Rene Descartes unfortunately lived in a time when the Christian church controlled just about everything. If you examine Descartes meditations closely you will be able to pick out hundreds of mistakes. He was forced to find a way to justify the existence of the Christian god, and it really does show.

Leo Tolstoy is another example of someone who supports Christianity, claiming that it is the only absolute answers in existence. Again unfortunately, Tolstoy was incredibly depressed (he was not unlike a spoiled child). He wondered why peasants thought suicide was a great sin and atrocity when he often wanted to commit suicide himself. He owned many slaves, lots of land, had kids, and was a famous writer. Yet with all his accomplishments he found his life devoid of true meaning. in the end he turned directly to Christianity.

though he did not rationally justify Christianity, he showed that it is sensible to “believe” simply to make yourself happy. This of course does nothing for the harsh skeptic except to reinforce skepticism.

Pascals wager is a particularly bad omen for the rational justification of Christianity. pascal said that “it would be better to believe in god than to risk hell” of course we know that this does not justify anything outside of fearing god.

to be honest i have never read philosophy that can give rational reasons as to why god exists, but also there are no rational reasons for doubt.

At this point in my life i see it as a moot point. when i die i will find out, and not before then, so for now i decide not to pester myself about it.

Most meta-physicians have a hard time getting philosophical respect for the simple reasons that metaphysics has no solid base in reality. in essence it is the philosophy of considering hypotheticals.

Keep looking for philosophy that supports Christianity, but don’t limit your search there. if you find something decent i would be interested to read it, give me a PM if you ever do find something.

As for now, like i have explained, i have only encountered what i consider failures at a justification for gods existence. i mean, if there was a logical proof for gods existence then we would have less atheists right? :smiley:

You would think that since this is not the case, we would have less theists, but it is not so. people don;t seem to need rational foundations for their metaphysical beliefs which i daresay border the esoteric. I honestly don;t believe that it’s possible for us to understand “god” or prove gods existence or non-existence.

It’s like asking someone if they believe in the devil… Some people believe in the devil and are content to lump all the bad things in the world as being caused by the devil. It’s like a default answer; a belief.

The only difference between a theist and an atheist is that the theist will stop asking questions once they get to the cause; god or sometimes the devil. the atheist is simply more fussy, being more concerned with deeply specific reasons for things.

So if we use god as an answer, it works. if we make that leap of faith.

The atheist would counter this by looking for answers, but as it is, we have only ever found more questions.

the atheist cannot prove the theist wrong, and the theist can never prove his beliefs to the atheist.

there is nothing wrong with being of either belief, the theist claims it to be of utmost importance, the atheist claims it to be a laughing matter, and the against claims it to be a matter of opinion.

Not to get all sentimental on you, but i think that in these types of cases people just have to ask what makes them happier. i believe the meaning for every life is to try and find a path to happiness. for some people theism is the best path, for others merely asking questions will make them happy.

For me the easiest and most rational thing seems to just be agnostic.

10

…I have come to a place that uses that as it’s center. ‘If’ there is a God, then I doubt that He would be upset at an individual coming to this conclusion considering the impossible task of proving His existence or non-existence. Maybe a stipulation would be that the individual did not just come to that conclusion just to rationalize his way into a life of comfort.

…This too applies to my theory of God’s desires, and if a person can come to this place in his life, then in God’s eyes he has done right.

…That might be my ultimate philosophical resting point on this subject, but as of right now I feel compelled to go through the paces, search for ideas, and ponder them. Probably the same steps that you have taken.

11

'You seem worried.

Expelling fear is important if you want to come to a rational conclusion.

As you seemed to hint to, don;t do it just so that you can let go of the notion of god easier, but so that you aren’t irrationally stuck there.

Good luck,

W.

12

If you want to find philosophy that supports Christianity, it’s not TOO hard. You’d want to look up names like Alvin Plantinga, Eleanor Stump, Richard Swinburne, William Alston, and etc. Those are all professional philosophers that happen to be believers in God. Essays, audio lectures, and so on abound from these people on the net, and of course they’ve all written books too. The more modern you get, the more compelling the arguments get- theistic philosophy is pretty cutting edge. The stuff that Wonderer talks about like DesCartes is mostly weak because there wasn’t any criticism to respond to back then- even Hume stopped short of denying theism directly, as far as I’ve ever heard.
Largely on this forum, you’ll find people who aren’t Christians, and who are outspoken against it- As an administrator here, and one-time manager of the religion section, I’d point out that you’re stuck in a common paradigm:

1.) Person is raised Christian
2.) Person begins to question what they were raised with,
3.) Person finds a bunch of criticisms/alternatives.

Most people stop at step 1, maybe with a LITTLE dabbling in step 2. Since people who engage in Step 3 tend to be rare, it’s hard for them to avoid feeling superior, and getting sense that their journey is over. But there’s a Step 4, and that’s what you’re on the verge of:

4.) Person finds a bunch of rebuttals to those criticisms, and arguments that support the original belief.

Your problem is going to be that when you begin to engage in step 4, a lot of people will mistake you for someone that hasn’t engaged in Step 2 yet. At the level I’m working at, I’ve likely looked at every argument that a common internet-mouthpiece is likely to throw out, and I STILL get that all the time from people who don’t know me. Something you’ll just have to accept is that in the current paradigm, anybody who defends a mainstream view is a sheep, and anybody who rejects it is wise, regardless of the actual work they’ve put into developing their ideas. You CAN reject that paradigm, but it’s going to be uphill every step of the way. Your first step is to get connected with people who actually know what they’re talking about, instead of folks who operate on the fringes, mumble something they think they saw attributed to Bertrand Russell, and move on with the whole thing. Read books- actual books- by actual professionals, and use the internet primarily as a way to test your own shitty ideas, and as a suggestion point for finding more books to read.

EDIT: One more thing- beware universal statements. A person who treats the issue like it’s not controversial, on either side - that is, somebody who says It’s obvious there’s no God, or it’s obvious that Christianity is true- these people are not your friends, and they don’t know what they’re talking about. Or, they’re speaking emotionally, off the cuff.

13

…Huh? Mind elaborating on this? I am not worried, whatever the outcome we might find out.

14

Ouch Ucci… ouch… :smiley:

I don’t know if you found my responses to be callous or unjust in any way. strictly speaking Rene and Leo never really were celebrated for their rational skills, in the modern world anyway.

i did basically give my philosophies on the matter however, taking that into consideration, which theist philosopher in particular would you point me too?

15

sorry if i made a misjudgement, but from what i was reading of you it seemed like you were concerned with justifying what would be acceptable in gods eyes, sort of like a safety net.

i’m secretly guilty of this myself though, in order to reassure myself i reason that if god exists and he made me, then he ought not to be dissapointed, and if he is, it’s not my fault :smiley:

I’ve already said what i wanted to say though, i didn’t mean much by it. it’s just that in my experience imagining a world without god can be a scary thing.

16

Wonderer- you weren’t callous or unjust, you were just par for the course. This guy wanted to know about pro-theistic philosophy, and he got the “You need to be an impartial quester after the truth” routine, 'cause it’s so obvious he didn’t already know that. If he would have been asking for pro-atheistic philosophers, he would have just been given some, not given a psyche-eval.
I don’t know you, and I don’t know your intentions, but your end actions just happened to fit in with a pattern I see all the time, and that he should be prepared for.

17

I think the best apologetic response to your first objection would be that God doesn’t need to provide a rational system to lead people to theism. Christianity is a revealed religion, God’s already come and told people what he expects. Plenty of parents use the “because I said so” argument in raising their children; indeed, that is often a better path than trying to rationally explain everything to children. For one thing, it takes a long time and isn’t always the best use of one’s time. But more importantly, children lack the frame of reference to fully understand most arguments as to why they ought do certain things. If the Christian God is real, I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to suggest that he is at least as far above humanity as a parent is a child. Most likely considerably more, infinitely more even.

As for “justice as fairness” I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, but I don’t think it is terribly Biblical. That famous Hebrew king that was gonna chop the baby in half didn’t suggest some sort of a time-sharing agreement between the two women. He gave full custody to one and not the other. Hardly fair. I’m sure Ucci could better describe the Christian concept of justice, but I’m not convinced fairness is central to it.

18

i thought i said more than “be an impartial quester” i thought he was looking for opinions. despite me not quite being pro-theistic i am not atheistic. i tried my best ti give him a first hand opinion instead of a book.

is that really all you got out of my responses? :smiley:

19

I agree completely with your assessment Ucci, in fact I’ve probably been guilty of accusing theists of missing out step 2. But it’s an infinite regress. I would quite easily add to your steps, step 5: Read the rebuttals and disagree with them.
I’ve read Plantinga, Stump and Swinbourne amongst others and I disagree with a lot of what they say. For me all Plantinga proves is that it is not possibly to show God as illogical. But nothing I have read on the theistic side, both modern and classical, convince me of the rationality of God. The problem I feel theistic responses have is that the further away they get to the original claims, the more unrealistic they become.

20

Yeah, I agree with your point about the infinite regress, humegotitright. I think after you get to step 5 or so, you’ve either made up your mind, or you’re just a philosophy nerd who’s going to be studying this stuff forever, from both sides, regardless of the decisions you may or may not have come to. So there’s a point where it all sort of smears in together. I also agree with your assessment of Plantinga, except that I would add that he’s also shown that believe in God is not irrational, which is a much bigger thing. This:

I think that religious philosophers these days are making a big mistake in that they seem to forget they are defending a religion and not a single premise. “Theism is not necessarily irrational” is good progress from the philosophy of yester-year, but it still isn’t terribly interesting or useful to the religious seeker.