God is "dead"

[Syne]

You and another poster have noted the dangers and threats of belief in God. I'm looking for what your actual concerns are in all this - concerns as they pertain to you personally, not on some abstract level. My inquiry is for the purpose of elucidating a particular epistemological issue that repeatedly comes up in these discussions.

That may make for an interesting new OP, wynn (if you are so inclined). I like the angle of finding out atheists' "concerns as they pertain to you personally, not on some abstract level". That would seem to require more of a testimonial rather than the tired propaganda talking points we usually get from atheists.

 

[Yazata]

Perhaps, to retort in the same curt manner - "God reveals Himself to some people, if and when He so chooses. If you're not one of those people, tough luck."

And the voices in the walls only reveal themselves to schizophrenics. Hopefully God's truth has a stronger epistemological basis than that.

As usual, at least some posters here have tried to make more sense of the problem that the OP hints at than the OP itself does.

There are worse criticisms, I guess.

I think that the OP raised a real (albeit familiar) theological problem: If (for the sake of argument) God exists, and if God really does care what human beings believe about him, then why is God so furtive and so ambiguous? Why doesn't he just reveal himself clearly and unambiguously to everyone? It's theology's problem of the 'hiddenness of God'.

http://faculty.wwu.edu/howardd/hiddennessintro.html

Capracus proceeded to raise a more philosophical, and in my opinion even more fascinating question: Is it even possible for God to reveal himself unmistakeably to finite beings like ourselves? If God exceeds human knowing by definition, then what's to prevent something else that also exceeds our knowing, something with vast power but nevertheless isn't divine, from appearing to beings like us on such a way as to make us think that it's God? How could we possibly distinguish between God and the pretender, given our human perspective and limitations?

I'm skeptical about whether we could. That in turn suggests that perhaps no miraculous appearance or manifestation can ever really be unmistakeable evidence of real divinity.

 

[Dazz]

Have you looked at the analogies I've posted?

Yes I have, have you paid attention to what i said?

Similar often takes place when people discuss theology: they insist on not learning anything more about it, and yet pose questions about it and insist that those questions be answered in terms of their currently existing knowledge. When this doesn't work out, they conclude that God doesn't exist, that theists are all liars and deluded etc.

I agree with that. But that doesn't excludes the fact that religion can't testify for itself.

The OP is making several complex claims and poses a complex question, which I have tried to untangle.

The very words along with the exclamation marks in the OP imply ragequit bullroar if you get what i mean.

You and another poster have noted the dangers and threats of belief in God. I'm looking for what your actual concerns are in all this - concerns as they pertain to you personally, not on some abstract level. My inquiry is for the purpose of elucidating a particular epistemological issue that repeatedly comes up in these discussions.

I do not see how this would be relevant in this thread in particular.

 

[lightgigantic]

The very analogy used is weak. The wind or the air itself would have been a better choice, regarding omnipresence.

How so, since one can play the same so-called "weakness" of the wind and air not being "omnipresent" also ... but actually you are revealing you didn't catch the significance of the analogy. I mentioned the sun to show how an object can permeate an environment while simultaneously having an identity above and beyond the same said environment. It had nothing to do with an example of being "absolutely" omnipresent "just like god is" (an idea that I pointed out at the onset as necessarily absurd ... and infact a misinterpretation of what an analogy is in the first place).

If however one insists that this issue of being omnipresent just like god is a weakness, then all so-called analogies on the subject are just as weak since omnipresence is a unique quality of god ...... although we have already talked at length about how the real problem is a misunderstanding about what analogies actually involve

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

You are not coming back to that "particular subject in a particular environment" kind of reasoning are you?

Epistemology never actually leaves the arena of that sort of reasoning

I am not even considering any other "world view" besides this one, i am totally disregarding it and understanding that it does not exist.

already explained why your clamoring to "one true, complete, absolute world view" (at the expense of all and any others) is totally meaningless for as long as you insist on circumventing standard epistemology issues

The "seer and environment" are feeble attempts of argumentation, if we should accept them, we should accept every other situation that is similar, leading to an anarchy of situations to be analysed that over time will become unpractical. Not to say insufferable.

Perhaps I need to explain it another way.

Suppose there is a criminal investigation that requires the skill of a forensic scientist.
What is the value of them sending a janitor to the scene (aside from saving 25 times the expense of hiring one)?
What is the value of the forensic scientist's opinion if they never actually investigate the environment or any data extracted from the crime scene?

IOW in all cases at all times for all and any issue that has absolutely anything to do with mere smelling distance of anything epistemological (or on what a basis something is said to be "known") the first most essential question (one that you are consistently failing to address in your discussion of theistic issues) is that of seer and environment (or on what basis "who" is saying "what"). It requires a helluva lot more than merely trying to fill this empty slot in your philosophical presentation than merely creatively writing questions that are begged (eg: "when a theist says they believe in god they are simply deluded because its a claim that is not part of the real world")

I am understanding that there is no such thing as a transcendent world, any claim that there is cannot succeed when it falls into valid skepticism, as far as it can go, the claim itself (or the individual acting or claiming) belongs within this realm, and his claim was claimed within the possibilities of our experiences within this realm of reality, the object of the claim goes beyond our scope, and, as far as observed, such claims rely on transcendent projections from our experiences within this realm of reality, this projected object is out of reach and, the only tangible thing we have at our grasp is the claim itself, and that is what we should analyse, not the object.

And my point is that because this so-called understanding of yours has an inherent aversion to essential issues of seer and environment (the #1 essential question of any epistemoligical claim/refutation), all your ideas of valid skepticism and experiences in the realm of reality are simply constructs of faith ... the very thing you designate as abhorrent in theistic claims.

IOW (leaving aside the question for just a moment of whether theism has recourse to anything other than faith) you are simply talking about your beliefs about how the world "really" .... and needless to say, its poor form to play theism as some how lesser for the exact same reason.
:shrug:

How? Explain this to me.
The only thing i stated is that, by cold skepticism, an answer based on faith is not entirely valid (to say the least), whether i have myself that faith or not.

because you never leave the arena of faith while simultaneously establishing that faith based knowledge has no value.
IOW by your own standards, you degenerate your own argument.

 

[wynn]

And the voices in the walls only reveal themselves to schizophrenics. Hopefully God's truth has a stronger epistemological basis than that.

It sure does. And as it is with epistemology, there can be no knowing without a knower. IOW, de facto excluding all issues that pertain to the particular person doing the epistemological inquiry is a sure way to arrive at no actionable epistemological insights.
All contemplation that does not lead to action is useless.

There are worse criticisms, I guess.

It was a criticism of the OP and those who wish to keep this thread strictly within the bounds proposed by it.

I think that the OP raised a real (albeit familiar) theological problem: If (for the sake of argument) God exists, and if God really does care what human beings believe about him, then why is God so furtive and so ambiguous? Why doesn't he just reveal himself clearly and unambiguously to everyone? It's theology's problem of the 'hiddenness of God'.

Sure. Which is what some of us here were addressing, foregoing the OP's narrow scope.

Capracus proceeded to raise a more philosophical, and in my opinion even more fascinating question: Is it even possible for God to reveal himself unmistakeably to finite beings like ourselves? If God exceeds human knowing by definition, then what's to prevent something else that also exceeds our knowing, something with vast power but nevertheless isn't divine, from appearing to beings like us on such a way as to make us think that it's God? How could we possibly distinguish between God and the pretender, given our human perspective and limitations?

I'm skeptical about whether we could. That in turn suggests that perhaps no miraculous appearance or manifestation can ever really be unmistakeable evidence of real divinity.

Enter issues that pertain to the particular person doing the epistemological inquiry.



-----

Yes I have, have you paid attention to what i said?

Then your criticism of the analogies is misplaced, and you don't understand the dichotomy being - its potency.

I agree with that.

It doesn't look like it, though.

But that doesn't excludes the fact that religion can't testify for itself.

On principle, nothing can testify for itself. (Except one being, namely, God.)

I do not see how this would be relevant in this thread in particular.

Again, de facto excluding all issues that pertain to the particular person doing the epistemological inquiry is a sure way to arrive at no actionable epistemological insights.

 

[wynn]

Yes I have, have you paid attention to what i said?

Then your criticism of the analogies is misplaced, and you don't understand the dichotomy being - its potency.

I agree with that.

It doesn't look like it, though.

But that doesn't excludes the fact that religion can't testify for itself.

On principle, nothing can testify for itself. (Except one being, namely, God.)

I do not see how this would be relevant in this thread in particular.

Again, de facto excluding all issues that pertain to the particular person doing the epistemological inquiry is a sure way to arrive at no actionable epistemological insights.

 

[wynn]

Without considering the typical Jewish and Islamic focus on piety, focusing on their apparent impersonalism and anti-anthropomorphism can be a bit problematic.

Serving a god is different from having a relationship with a god, just as doing your duty at work differs from having a personal relationship with your boss. It could be argued that not having a personal relationship shows more reverence or respect for said authority.

In roundabout, yes. It's essentially about not assuming more familiarity than is warranted.

If someone were to say "I won't believe Barack Obama is president of the US until he comes to visit me and personally proves to me that he is" - probably nobody would take such a person nor their request seriously.

But when people say "I won't believe God exists until he comes to visit me and personally proves to me that he exists and has the qualities traditionally attributted to him" - this is often considered a perfectly sane request. In fact, considered so sane that it is often deemed taboo to question it.

That may make for an interesting new OP, wynn (if you are so inclined). I like the angle of finding out atheists' "concerns as they pertain to you personally, not on some abstract level". That would seem to require more of a testimonial rather than the tired propaganda talking points we usually get from atheists.

This same thing comes up all the time in these discussions.

Like I said, de facto excluding all issues that pertain to the particular person doing the epistemological inquiry is a sure way to arrive at no actionable epistemological insights. And so these threads go on and on ...

Sometimes, the pain of learning new things is simply bigger than the pain of remaining the same.


EDIT:

To give some examples to illustrate what I mean by "concerns as they pertain to you personally, not on some abstract level" -

- "I work at a company whose boss is a Christian, and is so openly. Some employees there are Christians, some are not. Recently, there has been a restructuring and budget cuts and several people lost their jobs. Strangely though, none of them were Christians. I suspect that religious discrimination is going on, and that I may be next to lose my job. I am very worried about that."

- "My husband recently got involved with a religious group. He wants me and our three young children to join, but I don't want to and I don't think it is right to push our children into that group. I've tried to talk to him about my desires and concerns, but he doesn't want to listen to me. I am worried that I will lose my husband and children, and I feel helpless about it all."

These are examples of real-world concerns that can push people into thinking about religious topics.
When one's concerns are formulated like above, there is usually some way to address them directly (such as beginning to look for a new job, making sure one doesn't erupt with anger and bitterness when it becomes apparent one was fired because of religious discrimination; consulting a lawyer, making preparations for a potential divorce, etc.).
But people often formulate their concerns (even though they are based on actual problems in their lives) in more abstract philosophical terms, which seems to help only rarely, and often just riles them up and doesn't help them to take productive action.

 

[Magical Realist]

If someone were to say "I won't believe Barack Obama is president of the US until he comes to visit me and personally proves to me that he is" - probably nobody would take such a person nor their request seriously.

But when people say "I won't believe God exists until he comes to visit me and personally proves to me that he exists and has the qualities traditionally attributted to him" - this is often considered a perfectly sane request. In fact, considered so sane that it is often deemed taboo to question it.

Noone questions the existence of Barack Obama simply because he is publically seen and known to be seen. We see him on TV all the time. God otoh doesn't even show up that way. Here he is reputed to be the most important person that exists, full of magic and wisdom and love for mortals, but conspicuously he is universally absent from the world in all but the most mystical and metaphorical respects. Why is it too much to demand that a being demanding our worship and service show himself to everyone? Why must the existence of said being remain so iffy as to make atheism a sane and rational alternative to theism? Do you realize how many converts he'd have to his cause if he did this? What would be so bad about that?

Here's one explanation for the hiddenness of God that hasn't been considered here. I personally find it inadequate. A God in the very least should be able to reveal himself physically to all humans no matter how allegedly "wretched" humans become.

[Mod note: Quote snipped for being gratuitous. Be more specific when quoting.] - http://www.philosophynews.com/page/Table-Talk-The-Hiddenness-of-God.aspx

 

[Yazata]

It seems to me that there are at least three different approaches to the problem of divine hiddenness. They aren't mutually exclusive and many writers address all of them, sometimes without distinguishing them.

First, there's the impact that divine hiddenness has on many people who are already theistic believers thoroughly embedded in their own theistic tradition. This one definitely seems to be a theological problem as opposed to a strictly philosophical one.

Jewish and Christian theists believe that their flourishing as persons depends on their being in a personal/social relationship with God. For many such theists, however, there is no such discernible relationship. God is hidden, if not in fact at least in their experience. Perhaps their existence has no personal guidance from God after all. Perhaps their lives simply blow with the winds of an impersonal nature. If God exists, God seems not to care for them. God seems too hidden to care at all. So the world appears as an uncaring, inhospitable place. Despair over life itself is, then, a natural result of divine hiddenness.

Engaging with this one seem to largely be a matter for religious ministry and pastoral counseling. It's probably one of the more important problems that pastoral counseling faces.

A second approach explores what divine hiddenness seemingly tells us about God's motivations and moral nature, bringing the problem of divine hiddenness into contact with the problem of evil. This one is still basically a theological issue, it seems to me, because it still seems to presupppose the deity whose nature and motivations are being probed, if only in a literary sort of way. It's still taking place within the thought-world of theistic tradition.

Nietzsche expresses this one:

A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intentions —could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? Would he not be a cruel god if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth?

A great deal of the academic discussion of divine hiddenness, particularly when it's written by theists, seems to concern it self with the countless speculative permutations of trying to figure out why God behaves as he seemingly does.

The third approach is the least theological, since it doesn't really draw upon the doctrines and presuppositions of any of the theistic traditions (even if only to criticize them, a la Nietzsche). This one is more strictly epistemological and ontological. It interprets divine hiddenness not as a personal problem of divine abandonment, or as an occasion for speculating about God's nature and motivations, but simply as lack of evidence for the existence of God. This approach suggests that if evidence for X is weak or lacking, then arguably there isn't a whole lot of justification for believing in the existence of X. This is the interpretation of divine hiddenness that atheists often find most natural. Academic discussion of this one typically revolves around the pros and cons of various proposed theistic responses to the difficulty.

It seems that a great deal of theistic discussion of divine hiddenness tries address all three problems together, typically by concentrating on the problem of God's motives. If God's motives for hiding are properly understood, so arguments seem to go, then suffering individual theists need not feel so abandoned and an explanation is supposedly at hand for the lack of clear and unambiguous evidence.

(The quotations are taken from the introduction to a recent academic text on the problem of divine hiddenness, located here: http://faculty.wwu.edu/howardd/hiddennessintro.html)

 

[wynn]

Noone questions the existence of Barack Obama simply because he is publically seen and known to be seen. We see him on TV all the time. God otoh doesn't even show up that way. Here he is reputed to be the most important person that exists, full of magic and wisdom and love for mortals, but conspicuously he is universally absent from the world in all but the most mystical and metaphorical respects. Why is it too much to demand that a being demanding our worship and service show himself to everyone? Why must the existence of said being remain so iffy as to make atheism a sane and rational alternative to theism? Do you realize how many converts he'd have to his cause if he did this? What would be so bad about that?

Here's one explanation for the hiddenness of God that hasn't been considered here. I personally find it inadequate. A God in the very least should be able to reveal himself physically to all humans no matter how allegedly "wretched" humans become.

q.e.d.

 

[Trooper]

You and another poster have noted the dangers and threats of belief in God. I'm looking for what your actual concerns are in all this - concerns as they pertain to you personally, not on some abstract level.

How about something figurative, for instance, a figurative sacred cow?

An overly sensitive mod theist is a little creeeeepy.


[Mod note: Warning issued for reposting deleted off-topic & inflammatory post.]

 

[Magical Realist]

Noone questions the existence of Barack Obama simply because he is publically seen and known to be seen. We see him on TV all the time. God otoh doesn't even show up that way. Here he is reputed to be the most important person that exists, full of magic and wisdom and love for mortals, but conspicuously he is universally absent from the world in all but the most mystical and metaphorical respects. Why is it too much to demand that a being demanding our worship and service show himself to everyone? Why must the existence of said being remain so iffy as to make atheism a sane and rational alternative to theism? Do you realize how many converts he'd have to his cause if he did this? What would be so bad about that?

Here's one explanation for the hiddenness of God that hasn't been considered here. I personally find it inadequate. A God in the very least should be able to reveal himself physically to all humans no matter how allegedly "wretched" humans become.

[Mod note: Quote snipped for being gratuitous. Be more specific when quoting.] - http://www.philosophynews.com/page/Table-Talk-The-Hiddenness-of-God.aspx

Reported to the real moderator of the religion subforum for unwarranted snipping of posted relevant material.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well suppose god did reveal himself as an undeniable absolute authority of the universe to all and everyone. Can any of our atheist contenders think how that might infringe on their values and goals in life?

Iow the very nature of existing in a universe where acceptance of God is optional is that it affords the opportunity to perform acts that are simply impossible in a universe totally socialized around God's existence .... even if those opportunities borrow from the estate of illusion in order to manifest.

Iow having the option of existing in the material world (as opposed to the spiritual one) is a prime requisite for living entities equipped with free will . If it was otherwise, what medium would one have recourse to for the expression of desires separate from God's will?

 

[Syne]

Reported to the real moderator of the religion subforum for unwarranted snipping of posted relevant material.

This guideline will be enforced in the Religion forum:

IX. Cutting and Pasting, Plagiarism, Citation

How and what text a poster includes from various sources is important:

(A) Posting large verbatim extracts of text from other sites is undesirable for several reasons:

• It uses up storage space on SciForums.
• It duplicates information that is easily accessible elsewhere.
• It can disrupt the flow of a thread, because posters have to scroll through large amounts of text that they may not wish to read.
• It may breach copyright laws.​

Therefore, we ask that posters abide by the following guidelines:

• Quoted text should be restricted to a few lines or a paragraph unless the poster is quoting the text along with his or her, own detailed analysis (interspersed with the text).
• Avoid verbatim reproduction of entire posts of other posters (e.g. from earlier in a thread). If you want to dissect a post, it is fine to split it into different parts, but do not simply quote the entire post and then add a one or two line comment.​

Posts which deviate from these guidelines will be edited or deleted.

(B) Quoting Texts

(B.1) Long quotes from sources available online will be edited or deleted.

(B.2) All textual quotations require some form of citation; see IX(C), "Plagiarism".

(B.2.1) Please provide a hyperlink citation for online sources.

(B.2.2) There are various "official" forms of citation, known by names such as "MLA", "APA", and "Turabian/Chicago". Sciforums is not so exacting as to require a specific form of citation, but the author at least must be acknowledged, and we also ask for titles when appropriate.
(B.2.2.1) Famous and well-known quotations, such as those that can be found in Bartlett's, need only be attributed to the original speaker/writer. We encourage but do not require further information for this kind of quotation.​

- http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?42971-EM-amp-J-Forum-Posting-Rules-Dec-2004​

Specifically pertaining to your post:

"• Quoted text should be restricted to a few lines or a paragraph unless the poster is quoting the text along with his or her, own detailed analysis (interspersed with the text)."
"(B.1) Long quotes from sources available online will be edited or deleted."​

This guideline will be equally applied to all quoted sources, whether religious text or not.

 

[Magical Realist]

Despite some obscure rule you dug out of your ass, everybody posts articles and excerpts of articles in this forum, even Tiassa, without consequence. You will again be reported in the future if you ever do this to me again.

 

[Syne]

Magical Realist, you are free to repost what parts of that source you think are especially significant to this discussion, preferably with explanation as to why you feel they are. I could not guess at what part(s) you may have found most relevant, since you did not comment directly on specific content. Hence the problem with posting lengthy quotes.

It could be taken as propaganda, just like a theist posting length quotes from religious text with as little comment.

 

[wynn]

Well suppose god did reveal himself as an undeniable absolute authority of the universe to all and everyone. Can any of our atheist contenders think how that might infringe on their values and goals in life?

Not sure how much of a typical atheist contender I am, but I think the consequences of God unmistakeably revealing Himself would be utterly deflating for many people, to put it mildly.

For comparison, I am a very amateur soccer player, and pretty confident in it nevertheless. But if by some chance I were to meet Christiano Ronaldo, I would be extremely embarrassed. I am sure that the one thing I would not talk about or want to do with him, is play soccer. I would try to focus on some interest we have in common and in which we are comparably proficient.
As an amateur musician, meeting Yo-yo Ma by chance would be embarrassing to the utmost. I would try to talk to him about everything other than music. Maybe gardening or cooking, but definitely not music.
Etc.

Of course, things would be different if for some soccer- or sport-related project, I would deliberately contact Christiano Ronaldo (or Yo-Yo Ma for some music-project). In that case, I would agree to all the terms he and his manager would pose, and the meeting would be conxtualized by a number of formalities which would significantly reduce my discomfort.


Now to imagine what it would be like to just out-of-the-blue meet someone who is perfect in everything I am trying to do, and being simultaneously aware that this person is perfect in everything I am trying to do, and there would be no interest or activity left that we could do at which we would both be comparably good or comparably bad - that would be overwhelming. I'd probably pass out.

Similary as above, though, if I were to prepare for such a meeting, that would significantly change things, both in terms of arranging the meeting, as well as in terms of my experience of the meeting.

Iow having the option of existing in the material world (as opposed to the spiritual one) is a prime requisite for living entities equipped with free will . If it was otherwise, what medium would one have recourse to for the expression of desires separate from God's will?

In a Universe ruled by God, everything happens according to God's will anyway (not even a blade of grass moves without God's will), so how can it be possible to have desires that are separate from God's will?

Or do you by "God's will" in the sentence above mean "the spiritual" - "Iow having the option of existing in the material world (as opposed to the spiritual one) is a prime requisite for living entities equipped with free will . If it was otherwise, what medium would one have recourse to for the expression of desires separate from the spiritual"?

 

[Capracus]

Indeed, more importantly, this same could be going all along in all other matters anyway, so independent validation could be nothing but a pipe dream.

We could entertain all kinds of speculation on the nature of imagined entities, but until their existence can be reasonably expected or demonstrated, other than fanciful curiosity they have no practical relevance.

As stated in the OP, God is dead, at least in the sense that it has no identifiable life signs.

You presuppose an ability to "manipulate human thought", which would violate free will.

You presuppose the existence of free will.

 

[wynn]

As stated in the OP, God is dead, at least in the sense that it has no identifiable life signs.

Do define the underlined term.