May a person resist a theist?

[wynn]

A is a person who does not deem themselves to have full knowledge of God. As far as A is concerned, strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God.

T is a theist, claiming to have proper knowledge of God.

T wants A to believe P.
A does not find P acceptable.

Given A's stance that strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God, on the grounds of what may A refuse P without thereby damaging their chances for doing what is right in God's eyes?

 

[Ophiolite]

On the gournds that:
There might not be a god.
A might not believe in the true god.
A might not have a proper understanding of what P is.
There is no evidence offered to demonstrate that P is valid.
etc.

 

[Adstar]

A is a person who does not deem themselves to have full knowledge of God. As far as A is concerned, strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God.

T is a theist, claiming to have proper knowledge of God.

T wants A to believe P.
A does not find P acceptable.

Given A's stance that strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God, on the grounds of what may A refuse P without thereby damaging their chances for doing what is right in God's eyes?

If T = correct then A = doomed.


All Praise The Ancient of days

 

[Oniw17]

The same grounds that brought A to his/her initial conclusion. Honest humility and logic.

 

[pjdude1219]

If T = correct then A = doomed.


All Praise The Ancient of days

not really but than if your understanding of logic is as a good as your understanding of christianity its no surprise your wrong

 

[wynn]

If T = correct then A = doomed.

Obviously.

But from your above if-clause it does not follow that T is correct.

 

[wynn]

The same grounds that brought A to his/her initial conclusion. Honest humility and logic.

I do not know any theist who would accept that.
And if theists don't, why would God?

 

[Yazata]

A is a person who does not deem themselves to have full knowledge of God.

I should point out initially that most theists believe that they don't have "full knowledge" of God. God is supposed to be transcendent, to exceed human knowing, and so on. Theists typically believe that God has revealed something of himself to mankind, but that revelation doesn't exhaust what God supposedly is.

As far as A is concerned, strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God.

I disagree with that sentence.

Atheists/agnostics (your 'A') typically use the word 'God' to refer to whatever the religious believers in their locality are using the word to suggest. So the A's define 'God' as the T's do, and then express their own skeptical doubts about whether such a thing can be known by humans and/or about whether it actually exists.

If the meaning of the word 'God' was a complete blank, if as you say "anything could be true" of God, then the word 'God' would essentially be synonymous with 'the unknown' or something undefined like that. (Anaximander's 'apeiron' perhaps, primaeval chaos.)

But the word 'God' almost always has more meaning and connotation than a mere 'something'. God is supposedly a giant invisible person, with awareness, intentions and passions like our own. God presumably has plans and those plans involve us somehow. God is supposed to be super-powerful and to be responsible for the creation and continued existence of the rest of reality. We relate to God personally, not just abstractly and conceptually. God is supposed to be utterly Holy in some emotionally evocative but hard-to-precisely-define way, completely unlike a simple question-mark. The precise content of the word 'God' varies according to religious tradition, but additional content is always there.

T is a theist, claiming to have proper knowledge of God.

T wants A to believe P.
A does not find P acceptable.

Given A's stance that strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God, on the grounds of what may A refuse P

Well, if T wants A to believe in God (your proposition 'P'), then presumably T won't just be hoping that A believes something about something. (A already does that, many times over.) In other words, the word 'God' is always going to imply additional content, typically derived from whatever religious tradition T happens adhere to. Belief in God extends far beyond accepting the reality of the unknown. Virtually every A out there will already happily admit that there are many very real things that he or she doesn't know about.

A's response to T's apologetics will depend on the specific claims that T is making and on A's judgement of their credibility and liklihood of actually being true.

without thereby damaging their chances for doing what is right in God's eyes?

That clause seems to veer away from the logical thrust of rest of the argument.

 

[Lori_7]

I do not know any theist who would accept that.
And if theists don't, why would God?

i accept it and i'm a theist. i was going to say on the grounds of sincerity and open mindedness.

 

[NMSquirrel]

A is a person who does not deem themselves to have full knowledge of God. As far as A is concerned, strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God.

T is a theist, claiming to have proper knowledge of God.

T wants A to believe P.
A does not find P acceptable.

Given A's stance that strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God, on the grounds of what may A refuse P without thereby damaging their chances for doing what is right in God's eyes?

P=Proper knowledge?

it would require A to accept that T's knowledge is Proper..
to argue that,
i say that A's knowledge can be Proper, A thinks anything could be true for god, T limits God..
A does not find P acceptable because T does not consider what else there is to God.

so to be more accurate i would say
T wants A to believe D..
(Doctrine)

 

[wynn]

I should point out initially that most theists believe that they don't have "full knowledge" of God.

In my experience, this is not what communication with theists usually suggests.
In no uncertain terms, theists presume to have a superior knowledge of God. Otherwise, they could not preach, teach and judge (and this is what they do).
Whatever you do, a theist will have a judgment on whether it is in line with God's will or not.

Question is - how can we know they indeed do not have such superior knwoledge? - And that therefore, there is room for our choice as to what to consider proper knowledge of God or not (as opposed to just accepting what we are told)?

God is supposed to be transcendent, to exceed human knowing, and so on. Theists typically believe that God has revealed something of himself to mankind, but that revelation doesn't exhaust what God supposedly is.

Sure, and when confronted on the issue, this is what they tend to say.
But they cannot condemn someone to burn at the stakes, or excommunicate them from their church without presuming to know full well what God's will is in that matter.

As far as A is concerned, strictly logically speaking, anything could be true about God.

I disagree with that sentence.

I meant it like this:
I can not logically exclude the possibility, for example, that the true nature of God is the one as described by Protestants - the angry God who will torture the majority of His children in hell for all eternity.

Atheists/agnostics (your 'A') typically use the word 'God' to refer to whatever the religious believers in their locality are using the word to suggest. So the A's define 'God' as the T's do, and then express their own skeptical doubts about whether such a thing can be known by humans and/or about whether it actually exists.

If the meaning of the word 'God' was a complete blank, if as you say "anything could be true" of God, then the word 'God' would essentially be synonymous with 'the unknown' or something undefined like that. (Anaximander's 'apeiron' perhaps, primaeval chaos.)

But the word 'God' almost always has more meaning and connotation than a mere 'something'. God is supposedly a giant invisible person, with awareness, intentions and passions like our own. God presumably has plans and those plans involve us somehow. God is supposed to be super-powerful and to be responsible for the creation and continued existence of the rest of reality. We relate to God personally, not just abstractly and conceptually. God is supposed to be utterly Holy in some emotionally evocative but hard-to-precisely-define way, completely unlike a simple question-mark. The precise content of the word 'God' varies according to religious tradition, but additional content is always there.

This is an interesting take on the matter, but it is not what I meant.

Well, if T wants A to believe in God (your proposition 'P'), then presumably T won't just be hoping that A believes something about something. (A already does that, many times over.) In other words, the word 'God' is always going to imply additional content, typically derived from whatever religious tradition T happens adhere to. Belief in God extends far beyond accepting the reality of the unknown. Virtually every A out there will already happily admit that there are many very real things that he or she doesn't know about.

A's response to T's apologetics will depend on the specific claims that T is making and on A's judgement of their credibility and liklihood of actually being true.

This is a view from the universe in which A matters, even to God. (Must be very nice where you are!)

My experience of theistic discourse is quite different. Namely, it is a kind of discourse in which I (and other seekers) do not matter; we are just supposed to accept the right doctrine (even though we find ourselves unable to figure out which one that is).

without thereby damaging their chances for doing what is right in God's eyes?

That clause seems to veer away from the logical thrust of rest of the argument.

The whole point of wondering about God is to do that which is right in God's eyes, do you not agree?

 

[wynn]

P=Proper knowledge?

No, just as in "premise" or "proposition".

A does not find P acceptable because T does not consider what else there is to God.

I agree. But A could be wrong.

This is a common problem that emerges when one acknowledges one's fallibility, while at the same time there is pressure to take the correct course of action (and it is not clear to A what this correct course is).

 

[wynn]

i accept it and i'm a theist. i was going to say on the grounds of sincerity and open mindedness.

When people refuse to accept your theistic statements as authoritative, do you not think they are wrong to do so?

 

[Oniw17]

I do not know any theist who would accept that.
And if theists don't, why would God?

How does it follow that if theists don't accept it, God doesn't accept it? Especially since we're not even assuming that said theist has the correct belief. Even if you do assume those two things, you can't assume that no theist would accept. In fact my experience proves the opposite to me. Not all theists are like the ones on the internet. Some theists believe in god as an all-pervading entity who causes everything to be as it is, and accept that I believe as I do for some divine purpose. Many theists believe in being humble as a divine quality.

 

[Yazata]

P=Proper knowledge?

it would require A to accept that T's knowledge is Proper..

My reasons for not believing in God (for being one of Signal's 'A's in other words) are largely epistemological, I think.

But I'm also influenced by the sort of issue that you raise. It suggests a whole different line of argument:

Speaking hypothetically, if God does exist, and if God is the sort of being that many theists imagine "him" to be, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and so on, ultimate source and sustainer of all of the rest of reality, then whatever religious tradition purports to be a special revelation of that God would have to be worthy of its supposed divine Object.

And frankly, I perceive scriptures such as the Bible and Quran be intellectually and morally crude, expressive of their ancient (or early medieval in the Quran's case) human cultural origins. In other words, if there really is a unique special revelation of the theistic sort of God out there (I don't believe that there is, but speaking hypothetically), then I'm confident that the Bible and Quran aren't it. I can't help believing that if the kind of God exists that truly deserves our worship, then "he" could do a hell of a lot better than these supposedly "holy" books.

The point that I'm trying to make takes the form of a theological assertion:

Not only is God said to judge us, just as necessarily, and probably a lot more truly, we judge God.

Our concept and image of God, our stories of what God does, desires and commands, need to rise to the level and be worthy of the kind of ultimate divine Being that they purportedly reveal. (Whether that revelation is mythological or factual.)

Idolatry is supposed to be one of the gravest sins, and idolatry is worship of something that isn't God in the place of God. So it seems to me that imagining that an image so intellectually and morally crude, so lacking in compassion, totally egoistic and wrath-filled, as if that image was actually God himself, can only be idolatry, an idolatry more sacrilegious in its way than sincerely worshipping a golden calf. (The golden calf didn't try to project nearly as many imperfections onto God.)

 

[wynn]

How does it follow that if theists don't accept it, God doesn't accept it? Especially since we're not even assuming that said theist has the correct belief. Even if you do assume those two things, you can't assume that no theist would accept. In fact my experience proves the opposite to me. Not all theists are like the ones on the internet. Some theists believe in god as an all-pervading entity who causes everything to be as it is, and accept that I believe as I do for some divine purpose. Many theists believe in being humble as a divine quality.

I am coming from the perspective of worst-case-scenario reasoning. This is because I find it is prudent to prepare for the worst option in order to ensure maximum safety.

(A bad/worst-case-scenario for theism would be that God sends each person only one messenger in their whole lifetime to tell them about what they need to do, or they will be doomed, whereby the person has no idea what that messenger would be like (could be a post-it) and how to sort out the true one from the fakes.)

This approach of wrost-case-scenario is perfectly justified when it comes to preparing food for human consumption or building houses, for example (although this is mostly just bad-case-scenario reasoning, not worst-case).

Of course, the argument can be made that when it comes to God, such an approach in effect takes for granted that God and the individual persons are on essentially inimical terms (and it also furthers those inimical terms) - namely, that God is a threat to humans and humans need to seek safety from God's wrath.

But apart from the worst-case-scenario, I don't know what other approach there could be. Do you have any suggestions?

 

[Lori_7]

When people refuse to accept your theistic statements as authoritative, do you not think they are wrong to do so?

no, i don't think they're wrong.

i mean, i would consider myself the 2nd best authority on my own experience and interaction with god and the spiritual realm (2nd to god of course), and i may question why someone might arbitrarily decide to discount my opinion on these things. but i don't consider my experience, or my opinion, an adequate basis of proof for anyone else. but on the other hand, unless someone knew that i was some compulsive liar, or had some malicious agenda, i wouldn't see why my experience, opinion, and testimony wouldn't lead them to question or endeavor to be open to their own experience.

 

[wynn]

no, i don't think they're wrong.

i mean, i would consider myself the 2nd best authority on my own experience and interaction with god and the spiritual realm (2nd to god of course), and i may question why someone might arbitrarily decide to discount my opinion on these things. but i don't consider my experience, or my opinion, an adequate basis of proof for anyone else.

but on the other hand, unless someone knew that i was some compulsive liar, or had some malicious agenda, i wouldn't see why my experience, opinion, and testimony wouldn't lead them to question or endeavor to be open to their own experience.

See, your approach does not allow for the possibility of there being significant and valid variation in how people approach God.

I am sure that, for example, Lightgigantic wouldn't (and didn't) take your way of approaching God.
Still, he doesn't consider you a compulsive liar, nor does he have a malicious agenda. Nor do you think he is a compulsive liar or has a malicious agenda, right?

 

[wellwisher]

if you have even been to the bible belt of the US (south) there are more theists than you can shake a stick at. One thing that is required of each other, is that everyone is expected to be able to back up what they claim, using bible quotes.

Whether you believe in the bible or not, they will use the bible like a reference book, with their claims having to be backed by this data. Since there are so many bible toters, there is often much discussion and debate, with the expectation everyone has to quote the bible reference book, with the preponderance of data sort of deciding who is who. Everyone is well versed, so it is hard to fudge the bible data.

I used to live down south in the heart of the bible belt. It was the friendliest place I had ever lived. Since people were so friendly (southern hospitality), in the middle of the bible belt, the subject of God would inevitably come up.

I was by no means a bible expert, but I knew the gist of some different things. However, since I could not quote any supporting bible data, my ideas were not considered fully acceptable. In many ways, it was lot unlike science discussions, but in the context of the bible being the chosen reference book. Usually the preacher is the most knowledgeable, with elders right up there in ability. Often a peer review process would occur, in group discussion, where they would work you as a team checking your data.

In the spirit of sport and improvement, I started to do some research to get my bible data in order, so I could have more say within the animated discussions. In the end I made friends but remained uncommitted. The atheist should try to beat the bible toters at their own game, using bible data, since there are quotes for anything. They are good competitors but will submit to hard data.

 

[wynn]

My reasons for not believing in God (for being one of Signal's 'A's in other words) are largely epistemological, I think.

But I'm also influenced by the sort of issue that you raise. It suggests a whole different line of argument:

Speaking hypothetically, if God does exist, and if God is the sort of being that many theists imagine "him" to be, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and so on, ultimate source and sustainer of all of the rest of reality, then whatever religious tradition purports to be a special revelation of that God would have to be worthy of its supposed divine Object.

And frankly, I perceive scriptures such as the Bible and Quran be intellectually and morally crude, expressive of their ancient (or early medieval in the Quran's case) human cultural origins. In other words, if there really is a unique special revelation of the theistic sort of God out there (I don't believe that there is, but speaking hypothetically), then I'm confident that the Bible and Quran aren't it. I can't help believing that if the kind of God exists that truly deserves our worship, then "he" could do a hell of a lot better than these supposedly "holy" books.

The point that I'm trying to make takes the form of a theological assertion:

Not only is God said to judge us, just as necessarily, and probably a lot more truly, we judge God.

Our concept and image of God, our stories of what God does, desires and commands, need to rise to the level and be worthy of the kind of ultimate divine Being that they purportedly reveal. (Whether that revelation is mythological or factual.)

Idolatry is supposed to be one of the gravest sins, and idolatry is worship of something that isn't God in the place of God. So it seems to me that imagining that an image so intellectually and morally crude, so lacking in compassion, totally egoistic and wrath-filled, as if that image was actually God himself, can only be idolatry, an idolatry more sacrilegious in its way than sincerely worshipping a golden calf. (The golden calf didn't try to project nearly as many imperfections onto God.)

In that case, it is simply necessary to read various scriptures from various religions and then choose the one where God is described in terms you find sufficiently elevated, or better yet, scriptures that give you such an elevated account of God that you would even be surprised, an account that would surpass your expectations.


(I must say I am quite in awe of your confidence! )