May a person resist a theist?

[Yazata]

In an earlier post, I wrote that most theists don't claim to 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.

"Superior", sure. But that's different. (It isn't necessarily true either.)

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.

That's nice. I have opinions about them too.

Question is - how can we know they indeed do not have such superior knwoledge?

I don't think that I can know with 100% certainty. (I can't know anything with 100% certainty.)

But I think that I can be reasonably confident that they don't know what they are talking about. For example, if the only justification that they can provide me for their very detailed and elaborate religious assertions is to bleat - "It's my faith!"

Ok, but so what? The question that interests me what kind of reasons they can provide me for why I might want to start believing the same things that they do. If there's no convincing reason or credible justification, then their evangelism isn't going to be very persuasive among those of us who don't already believe the same things to begin with. (I think that a lot of evangelism is more concerned with strengthening the evangelist's own faith than it is about actually winning converts. Heathens like me are just their foils, the punching bags they work out on.)

Another reason why I'm reasonably confident in being an 'A' is the reason that I gave in my response to NMSquirrel. If the evangelists' purported "superior knowledge" appears intellectually and morally crude to my my best and most sincere judgement, then I'm reasonably confident that their purported revelations probably aren't what they think they are.

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.

That's the God of the Old Testament (and implicit in some passages of the New, as well). It isn't just a Protestant thing. The Protestants just introduced the fundamentalist-textualist 'sola-scriptura' doctrine, the idea of basing one's entire faith on the Bible alone and rejecting the 1500 years of church tradition that came along afterwards. That kind of pushed Protestant religiosity back to a cruder and less sophisticated level and reemphasized the nastier bits of Biblical tradition all over again.

As to whether I can "logically exclude" the nastier visions, no I can't. But of course, I can't logically exclude the idea that God is actually Satan and that all of us are simply fucked no matter what we do. (Actually, the idea of eternal torment in hell does kind of collapse God together with Satan.) Nor can I logically exclude the possibility that the Quran is correct, or that the Hindus are right about Vishnu, or that the Taoists have the answers, or that any religion on this or 16 other planets might be the true one. Maybe Thor and Odin are the way to go. (I like Dionysius myself.)

Just about every Christian and Muslim that I've met simply shrugs off all the other religions besides their own as false and irrelevant. That's not all that different than my own attitude, except that I extend that confident complacency to one more religion than they do.

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

No, I don't agree. I don't imagine the ultimate unknown explanation for all of reality as if it was some kind of super-powered invisible person. So your "whole point" doesn't even arise for me.

 

[Lori_7]

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?

generally speaking, no two people are going to approach god the exact same way, or have the exact same experience, even though those people are both sincere in their approach and experience the same god. i'm not sure why you would think they would be the same.

many times when i listen to what you say i get the impression that you don't trust yourself, and honestly, my experience with god has almost forced me to trust myself.

 

[Yazata]

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'd agree, if I thought that the ultimate answers existed in human religious mythology somewhere. While I can't exclude that possibility with 100% certainty, I don't think that its very likely that any of our religions is the one true freeway to the divine. (Whatever the 'divine' is supposed to be.)

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

One advantage that I have is that I wasn't raised in a religious home and didn't have any religion pushed on me at a formative age.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Yazata:

the analogy of a car wreck is the best way i can communicate my ideas about God..several witnesses will report different ways as to what had happened in the car wreck (each according to what they see) ,just because one story does not match the others does not mean he is wrong, it just means he seen it different.

God is the same way, I believe he shows each of us the piece of him that we need to see.(he even shows atheist,but they don't believe..)
The bible authors have tried to show us the piece that they seen, and yes it was written ages ago, and what they needed to see is different then what we need to see..government (romans) got ahold of it and tried (did?) to turn it into a tool to manipulate the masses..

how i tend to approach churches, when i am looking for one, is to sort out what i think god has done in my life and see if that church lines up,
if i think god told me to do it X way, and some pastor tells me to do it 'Y' ...IOW i'm gonna listen to god not man. sure man can help me to understand god better than i could without (he works through others), but i MUST remember that it is what they see (speaking about the ones i believe are closer to 'getting it right',not the parrots) and what god has shown them, what god wants me to see and learn is different then what they need..
IOW god is not one size fits all..

your best bet to educate yourself is to find a church bible study group (historical focus can be very illuminating), if you checked out the largest churches you would not learn much..go with a smaller group, they don't get offended as easily, (BTW that is a red flag in my book, if they are too quick to offend, then they are making it about themselves and not God, i run from those types)

I personally feel most comfortable in a church where i can contribute my ideas about God and not be made to feel worthless ..IOW they tend to have the attitude 'yeah we know your messed up, so are we.)

 

[Big Chiller]

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?

First of all theism isn't religion. Perhaps A and T are identical if we're talking about one omnipotent God and not gods...

 

[wynn]

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.

Heh.

I have always felt it to be somehow beneath my dignity to learn scriptures just for the sake of being able to attack others and defend myself in debate.
(There is even a Buddhist sutta that chastises such behavior - the Water-snake simile )
But I still don't like the fact that I continually lose debates.

 

[wynn]

generally speaking, no two people are going to approach god the exact same way, or have the exact same experience, even though those people are both sincere in their approach and experience the same god. i'm not sure why you would think they would be the same.

I am just pointing out how difficult it is to deal with people who are ambivalent as you are. Namely, you said:

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.

In the blue part, you say you are do not deem yourself an authority. In the red part, you say you see no reason why others wouldn't deem you an authority (and thus they should see you as an authority).

many times when i listen to what you say i get the impression that you don't trust yourself, and honestly, my experience with god has almost forced me to trust myself.

What "trusting oneself" means will depend on the theology or religious philosophy we view things from.

You seem to treat the notion of "trusting oneself" as a given, something apriori, something that is independent of any particular theology or religious philosophy you might accept.

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

How about on the grounds that it is none of their fricking business? I don't see how anyone can force you to accept any authority - even if you say yes to them and go through the motions, your mind and your faith is entirely personal and untouchable.

 

[wynn]

How about on the grounds that it is none of their fricking business? I don't see how anyone can force you to accept any authority - even if you say yes to them and go through the motions, your mind and your faith is entirely personal and untouchable.

As far as I see, this applies only if you already have the faith that God loves you and such.

(One of the first things I have learned from theists is to consider that God doesn't or wouldn't love us, or at least not me - and that therefore, provisions must be made to either make Him love us, or to learn to live without that love.)

 

[S.A.M.]

As far as I see, this applies only if you already have the faith that God loves you and such.

(One of the first things I have learned from theists is to consider that God doesn't or wouldn't love us, or at least not me - and that therefore, provisions must be made to either make Him love us, or to learn to live without that love.)

Someone whose name I cannot remember once said: a theist does not believe in God, a theist has faith in God.


I think you need to realise that regardless of what anyone tells you [including me], its your faith in God that should be your focus.

 

[wynn]

In an earlier post, I wrote that most theists don't claim to have "full knowledge" of God.

"Superior", sure. But that's different.

I use the terms "proper", "full" and even "superior", "necessary" and "sufficient" only provisionally here, and inconsistently, because it's not clear which it is to begin with (and this is part of the problem).

(It isn't necessarily true either.)

My quest can also be stated like this: How can one acknowledge one's fallibility, imperfection, without becoming vulnerable to exploitation?

Where is the guarantee that acting on what you deem to be your best knowledge will not backfire at you in some irrepairable way?

(I can't know anything with 100% certainty.)

Heh. This is a paradox.

But I think that I can be reasonably confident that they don't know what they are talking about. For example, if the only justification that they can provide me for their very detailed and elaborate religious assertions is to bleat - "It's my faith!"

Ok, but so what? The question that interests me what kind of reasons they can provide me for why I might want to start believing the same things that they do. If there's no convincing reason or credible justification, then their evangelism isn't going to be very persuasive among those of us who don't already believe the same things to begin with.

But if they ask you why you believe what you believe, you will also say that "it's your faith", will you not?


Hoping or aiming for "convincing reasons or credible justifications" is an attempt to externalize the whole issue of faith and belief in God. Such externalizing is extraneous, as issue of faith and belief in God are primarily internal.
Wellwisher made a good point elsewhere on this.

Another reason why I'm reasonably confident in being an 'A' is the reason that I gave in my response to NMSquirrel. If the evangelists' purported "superior knowledge" appears intellectually and morally crude to my my best and most sincere judgement, then I'm reasonably confident that their purported revelations probably aren't what they think they are.

The thing is - where do you think that your "best and most sincere judgement" comes from? Can you really claim ownership of it?

As to whether I can "logically exclude" the nastier visions, no I can't. But of course, I can't logically exclude the idea that God is actually Satan and that all of us are simply fucked no matter what we do. (Actually, the idea of eternal torment in hell does kind of collapse God together with Satan.) Nor can I logically exclude the possibility that the Quran is correct, or that the Hindus are right about Vishnu, or that the Taoists have the answers, or that any religion on this or 16 other planets might be the true one. Maybe Thor and Odin are the way to go.

Well, yes ...

Just about every Christian and Muslim that I've met simply shrugs off all the other religions besides their own as false and irrelevant.

I suppose this is what I would like - to be able to shrug things off as false and irrelevant.

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

No, I don't agree. I don't imagine the ultimate unknown explanation for all of reality as if it was some kind of super-powered invisible person. So your "whole point" doesn't even arise for me.

What is your motivation for inquiring about God?

 

[Lori_7]

I am just pointing out how difficult it is to deal with people who are ambivalent as you are. Namely, you said:

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.

In the blue part, you say you are do not deem yourself an authority. In the red part, you say you see no reason why others wouldn't deem you an authority (and thus they should see you as an authority).

well i think some logic could be applied to say that i would be an authority on my own experience, but i'm not looking to be an authority for anyone else. imo, you should attempt to be an authority regarding your own experience, and not look to others to do that. but that doesn't require you to ignore everyone's testimony. it can be considered. i think all things should be considered. but ultimately, this is a personal responsibility. there's just no way to escape that. i actually think it's an important, empowering, and enlightening experience to learn to trust yourself and rely on yourself, particularly regarding spiritual matters. remember that i'm not coming at this from a religious standpoint, but a spiritual one.

What "trusting oneself" means will depend on the theology or religious philosophy we view things from.

You seem to treat the notion of "trusting oneself" as a given, something apriori, something that is independent of any particular theology or religious philosophy you might accept.

but the question becomes why do you accept it?

 

[Yazata]

My quest can also be stated like this: How can one acknowledge one's fallibility, imperfection, without becoming vulnerable to exploitation?

By not letting yourself be exploited.

I don't really understand you. How does somebody admitting that he or she doesn't have all the answers make that person vulnerable to exploitation? You seem to be suggesting (in multiple threads now) that if a person doesn't already know the answer to some question, then he or she is somehow obligated to believe whatever anyone who boasts of having the answer wants to tell them. But that obviously doesn't follow.

When it comes to the ultimate questions, the kind of questions where the theistic concept of "God" is typically invoked, I'm confident (but not absolutely certain) that no human being has the answers and that no religious tradition is in a position to 'reveal' it. In other words, not only do I not know what the answers are, I don't really think that you, our discussion board evangelists, the Bible, Jesus, Mohammed, the Quran, the Buddha, the Vedas, or any of it, has the answers either.

That attitude results in a moderate skepticism, not in the sort of open credulity that arguably would make a person easy prey for the first crap that comes along.

Where is the guarantee that acting on what you deem to be your best knowledge will not backfire at you in some irrepairable way?

I don't have that kind of guarantee. Nobody does. We're all just bozos on this bus of life and the best that any of us can do is to simply call'em the way we see'em.

But if they ask you why you believe what you believe, you will also say that "it's your faith", will you not?

I don't really need any reason to not believe something. That's my default condition. There's an unbounded and effectively infinite number of things that I don't believe in, precisely because I don't have any reason to. (Just think of the number of stars in the sky and everyhing that might be happening right now on all the planets that they might be sheltering.)

I can typically give reasons for the things that I do believe. They might not be the best reasons and they rarely if ever rise to the level of a logical proof. (Even proofs are dependent upon their assumptions.) I consider some of my beliefs to be almost certain, others of them are more along the lines of speculations, with probabilities not a whole lot higher than chance.

I'm typically willing to change my beliefs, provided that somebody can provide me with reasons to believe something new that are more persuasive than my reasons for holding on to my old belief. But that bar is highly adjustable, with the height of the necessary rhetorical burden dependent on the nature of the issue in question. And once again, if I change my mind, my estimation of the likelihood of my new belief can range from speculative-at-best to highly certain.

Hoping or aiming for "convincing reasons or credible justifications" is an attempt to externalize the whole issue of faith and belief in God. Such externalizing is extraneous, as issue of faith and belief in God are primarily internal.

If you are insisting that I need to believe in this God of yours without any convincing reason why, then I can only shake my head and say, "Yeah, right".

The thing is - where do you think that your "best and most sincere judgement" comes from? Can you really claim ownership of it?

It derives from the same cognitive process that generates my sense of self, I guess. I don't understand what point you are trying to make there.

I suppose this is what I would like - to be able to shrug things off as false and irrelevant.

But you do. I suggested that God is really Satan. I pointed to Islam and Hinduism. I waved my rhetorical arm at Thor, Odin, Dionysius and at all the religions of this and 16 other planets.

And your only response was... "Well, yes..." You didn't seem all that interested. Like I said before, you and I are very much alike. You apparently already are quite comfortable without belief in all religions except one, and I just lack belief in one more religion than you. My lack of belief in whatever it is that has you so stirred up is no more troubling or threatening to me than your lack of belief in Cybele is to you.

 

[jayleew]

A must love and respect T, even if T does not love and respect A. So long as T does not go killing A again. What do you mean by resist/refuse?

 

[jayleew]

Someone whose name I cannot remember once said: a theist does not believe in God, a theist has faith in God.


I think you need to realise that regardless of what anyone tells you [including me], its your faith in God that should be your focus.

That's fair. It's hard to tolerate sometimes because some theists are so zealous to the point of becoming a danger (more emotionally, than physically), but fair.

 

[wynn]

How about on the grounds that it is none of their fricking business? I don't see how anyone can force you to accept any authority - even if you say yes to them and go through the motions, your mind and your faith is entirely personal and untouchable.

Moreover, things change dramatically once one attempts to become a member of a congregation.

I find it is easy to have a sense of satisfaction about one's faith when one is all by oneself or with people who do not share the same religious convictions as oneself.

But try surviving in a group of people who nominally have the same religious convictions as yourself!

 

[wynn]

but the question becomes why do you accept it?

Uh ...

For example, from the perspective of the doctrine of predetermination, there is no question of accepting or rejecting ...

Perhaps there is no meta-philosophy of religion ...

 

[wynn]

I don't really understand you. How does somebody admitting that he or she doesn't have all the answers make that person vulnerable to exploitation?

Everyone who has a computer knows (or should know) that what you don't know can and does hurt you.

You seem to be suggesting (in multiple threads now) that if a person doesn't already know the answer to some question, then he or she is somehow obligated to believe whatever anyone who boasts of having the answer wants to tell them. But that obviously doesn't follow.

Actually, for example, the norm in science is that we must accept as true/valid/obligatory each theory unless/until it is refuted.

The fact that we ourselves have no way of repeating the studies makes no difference to science; we are just expected to accept their norms, basically on hearsay.
This is no different than if a person boasts to know something and expects us to believe it.

When it comes to the ultimate questions, the kind of questions where the theistic concept of "God" is typically invoked, I'm confident (but not absolutely certain) that no human being has the answers and that no religious tradition is in a position to 'reveal' it. In other words, not only do I not know what the answers are, I don't really think that you, our discussion board evangelists, the Bible, Jesus, Mohammed, the Quran, the Buddha, the Vedas, or any of it, has the answers either.

I'm in the you-can't-prove-a-negative camp, so I am open to the possibility that someone has the Answer or knows the way to it.

That attitude results in a moderate skepticism, not in the sort of open credulity that arguably would make a person easy prey for the first crap that comes along.

It gets better!

"P is true. You think it is false because you are in delusion. You must therefore accept P."

How do you propose to resolve such double binds?

If you are insisting that I need to believe in this God of yours without any convincing reason why, then I can only shake my head and say, "Yeah, right".

I am pointing at a logical problem of double binds, as above.

The thing is - where do you think that your "best and most sincere judgement" comes from? Can you really claim ownership of it?

It derives from the same cognitive process that generates my sense of self, I guess. I don't understand what point you are trying to make there.

That epistemic autonomy is not possible, and this makes one vulnerable.

I suppose this is what I would like - to be able to shrug things off as false and irrelevant.

But you do. I suggested that God is really Satan. I pointed to Islam and Hinduism. I waved my rhetorical arm at Thor, Odin, Dionysius and at all the religions of this and 16 other planets.

And your only response was... "Well, yes..." You didn't seem all that interested. Like I said before, you and I are very much alike. You apparently already are quite comfortable without belief in all religions except one, and I just lack belief in one more religion than you. My lack of belief in whatever it is that has you so stirred up is no more troubling or threatening to me than your lack of belief in Cybele is to you.

But I don't find myself able to shrug things off as false and irrelevant, not at all. Nor do I consider myself a theist or a member of a religion.

My earlier point that it only makes sense to wonder about God for the sake of doing that which God deems right is not a religious one, but rather simply an abstract one.
If personhood (God's and/or our own) is merely provisional or illusory, then all notions of happiness, suffering, knowledge, ignorance, desire, motivation, value, love, hate etc. are merely provisional or illusory too; and if they are provisional and illusory, why bother with anything, why put effort into anything? And it's not like one can really sit still.

 

[Big Chiller]

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.

Your position is not clear, what do you mean strictly logically speaking anything could be true about God?