God if exist , should resign, he is not good enough, god must be upgraded to todays standards. Our definition of god is better than god, Sometimes I feel I am better than god for having those concepts of Utopia.
Why doesn't God just show himself?
- Thread starter moementum7
- Start date
When you think about it why can't god have competition? Why can't we have another opinion of how the universe should be? Of how man should be (physically as well as mentally)? Of how the earth should be? Of how nature should be? Right away as soon as we dare to question god's idea of how everything should be we feel fear. A superstitious kind of fear that we will be punished. Yet the way god created everything is just 'one' opinion. This is just HIS way of thinking. Why can't we have any imput as to what we think it should be like? A one god universe is not very democratic.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
MARIO WRITES: “No...TheERK is not me. But he sees things almost exactly the same way I do.”
Okay! Then you know each other……Before I received this post, I, …via your initiation page, went to your previous posts and read the short comments shown there -from every post you have done on this forum- and what an interesting read. You vacillate a bit, but you have some rather intriguing thoughts, even though you are all over the place. (I mean that only in the nicest way.)
Writing is my thing, and I people interest me. This forum tells me more about people than about what they think, however. Folks do not always say what they think, rather they write/speak for effect, for entertainment, or just as a time filler. Aside from those are the times we try to express something, and are somehow not clear. Whereas casual comments and partial thoughts may suffice with someone you know well, like family, it does not convey so well with folks who do not know the ins and outs of one's thinking. Does this make sense? That was truly my intention.
I am interested in yours (and Erk’s too) points of view, and am sorry if offened Erk in any way.
YOU WROTE: There is no harmony in killer storms (tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons etc) or earthquakes or degenerative genetic diseases or killer viruses and bacteria or anything else that causes us harm that seems to have been created by god for some ungodly purpose. Don't get me wrong.
Then Tiassa was on the right track, (not that I doubted it for a minute, Tiassa). Mario, yours and my definitions of harmony are not the same! Furthermore, why do you say “killer” storms? I know that phrase is used, but usually not in such a general sense. So, tell me why you grouped those acts of nature into a category that seems to make them our enemies. (Please, if you will.) Whatever happens as the result of a storm is not a deliberate result. Storms are not set out to kill anyone, but are caused by variables wrought by nature, or sometimes, -by man.
As for being “created by God,” are you implying that God runs about doing good/bad things to people at will. See, I do not believe this. I believe in cause and effect. God is. Nature is. We are. I was brought up not to be afraid of storms. Generally, that is the case, though, I hesitate to say I would never be afraid. I have been in some rather bad storms, one which lifted me from the ground three or four times. Interesting experience. Years later lightening cornered me in Big Spring, Texas. I truly thought that was it, and accepted it . . . a bit reluctantly, but felt no real fear, just sort of a finality, brought about by my careless thoughtlessness. That was even stranger than being lifted into the air. I think it is because I believe in God and know that nature is His creation, as am I, that I tend not to fear. It seems to be no holy thing--this not fearing, it just is.
I say, if we would use our heads we would not have so many deaths and damage caused by storms and the like. In addition, to answer at least partially regarding diseases, I say again, that man’s ignorance and carelessness has contributed considerably to the spread and the harm caused by these. Also, suffering is part of life, and somewhere in my little pea brain, I understand this. I believe we are here to learn, but it does upset me that so many of us bring misery upon ourselves, particularly when it comes to our health. So, rather than asking why God allows this or that to happen, perhaps we should ask instead: Why do we allow this and that to happen?
YOU: There are many things that are harmonious and pleasant in this universe. But by generalizing that the whole universe is nothing but a harmonious symphony created by god is a bit of a stretch.
I am not familiar with that writing. Who wrote: “the whole universe is nothing but a harmonious symphony created by God?”
YOU: As for finding god in (by) yourself well that's all fine and marvy. It doesn't hurt anything or anyone. But I can't help wondering...what's the difference between having a belief in god and just plain old wishfull thinking? Can you really trust your emotions?
Mario, whether you can trust your emotions has much to do with you. Emotions and imagination get a bump rap, because their misuse is usually obvious. Well, guess what? Intellectualism guarantees nothing. Even if we manage to keep both oars in the water, our intellect is only part of who/what we are. Without emotions we would not appreciate; without imagination, we would not learn?
YOU: Getting back to god not showing himself for fear of taking away our free choice for believing in him, well when the second coming of christ happens you might as well kiss your free choice goodbye. And didn't god interfere with our free choice all along? He parted the red sea in front of everyone and sent all kinds of plagues and turned the nile into blood just to name a few instances.
I do not know how to respond. What is your premise? The first sentence I do not understand. As for the red sea, I tend to believe the scientific/historical explanation for that; however, I also believe that the people of that time believed God did it. Timing is a strange thing. I have noticed this on many occasions. Maybe the timing was right. They knew no differently, so why not give God the praise. FYI: The Jews of that time tended to give God credit for everything. Even when they had a thought, they, otherwise not knowing from whence it came, would say God told them. (from Spinoza...Hebrew historian, scientist, philosopher). Science also has a theory about that blood. (I think those interesting revelations were on either A&E or the Discovery channel, a few years back.)
Mario, when you write: “Heck he proved his existence many times in the past. So why did it stop?” Is that a sincere question, or are you being facetious? I am just not sure how to take it, okay? Regardless, I hope some of the information above helps. It is from reliable sources.
YOU: “And btw, aren't we born with sin ("no one is without sin"/original sin)? Didn't god make that a fundamental part of our nature? So who really is to blame if we have all these temptations that we're not supposed to act on? It almost sounds like some kind of lab experiment. And we're the test subjects.”
First, what is "btw?" As for the rest of that paragraph, here again I have to wonder if you are serious. You make a good point. I can see where you would get that, if you truly do think that. So! Guess I will assume that you are serious and tell you what I think. Okay? [The reason I question, is because of the "mixed messages" you send, judging from your other posts.]
I have always thought that God knew me better than anybody else did. Understand, if you can get my meaning here, that God is no more with me that He is with you, and no more with either of us, than He is with someone else. What may make it seem so, it our connecting with the mind of God, the Spirit of God, and the purpose of God. This, I believe is what is meant by, “Draw nigh unto God and He will draw nigh unto you." We do not find God; He is never lost. The guys who wrote the Bible, were limited as are we, by the times in which they lived, as well as their language and their understanding. Even Paul said “we see through a glass darkly/dimly.” (Pick your translation.) There again, we have to translate. Much can be lost or misunderstood.
What I am saying is that they did not know everything, and we do not know everything. All I know for sure about such things is that God is, and I know this because of the witness within me.
“Did not God make sin a fundamental part of our nature,” you asked. Let me tell you what I think sin is. I think sin is anything that does not serve us well. By “not serving us well,” I mean anything that hinders us from knowing or performing our purpose. There is an interesting little verse in the book of James that says: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17 Obviously, this is from the King James Version. The statement makes all kinds of sense, and this is how I judge what I read. If it makes sense, if it works, -then I buy it.
It is difficult for me to tell whether you are trying to make the Bible make sense to you, or if you are trying to show how ridiculous it is. It matters not. Whatever you do, without harming anyone, to find your purpose and to know what works for you, is okay. Doubt, spit and swear, if you must, but if you are seeking then you had best seek sincerely, focused and open, but always the skeptic, because seeking indiscriminately can get you in all kinds of messes. Clever does not count. What counts, and the only thing that counts is “real.” Real is that child-like eagerness; it is that open acceptance, and it is a willingness to increase our knowledge and understanding and to be willing to take responsibility for it! There is a tremendous responsibility that comes with knowledge, and I think the best part . . . is that it is never-ending. The more we know the more we realize how far we have to go to know anything. Make sense?
pmt
Okay! Then you know each other……Before I received this post, I, …via your initiation page, went to your previous posts and read the short comments shown there -from every post you have done on this forum- and what an interesting read. You vacillate a bit, but you have some rather intriguing thoughts, even though you are all over the place. (I mean that only in the nicest way.)
Writing is my thing, and I people interest me. This forum tells me more about people than about what they think, however. Folks do not always say what they think, rather they write/speak for effect, for entertainment, or just as a time filler. Aside from those are the times we try to express something, and are somehow not clear. Whereas casual comments and partial thoughts may suffice with someone you know well, like family, it does not convey so well with folks who do not know the ins and outs of one's thinking. Does this make sense? That was truly my intention.
I am interested in yours (and Erk’s too) points of view, and am sorry if offened Erk in any way.
YOU WROTE: There is no harmony in killer storms (tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons etc) or earthquakes or degenerative genetic diseases or killer viruses and bacteria or anything else that causes us harm that seems to have been created by god for some ungodly purpose. Don't get me wrong.
Then Tiassa was on the right track, (not that I doubted it for a minute, Tiassa). Mario, yours and my definitions of harmony are not the same! Furthermore, why do you say “killer” storms? I know that phrase is used, but usually not in such a general sense. So, tell me why you grouped those acts of nature into a category that seems to make them our enemies. (Please, if you will.) Whatever happens as the result of a storm is not a deliberate result. Storms are not set out to kill anyone, but are caused by variables wrought by nature, or sometimes, -by man.
As for being “created by God,” are you implying that God runs about doing good/bad things to people at will. See, I do not believe this. I believe in cause and effect. God is. Nature is. We are. I was brought up not to be afraid of storms. Generally, that is the case, though, I hesitate to say I would never be afraid. I have been in some rather bad storms, one which lifted me from the ground three or four times. Interesting experience. Years later lightening cornered me in Big Spring, Texas. I truly thought that was it, and accepted it . . . a bit reluctantly, but felt no real fear, just sort of a finality, brought about by my careless thoughtlessness. That was even stranger than being lifted into the air. I think it is because I believe in God and know that nature is His creation, as am I, that I tend not to fear. It seems to be no holy thing--this not fearing, it just is.
I say, if we would use our heads we would not have so many deaths and damage caused by storms and the like. In addition, to answer at least partially regarding diseases, I say again, that man’s ignorance and carelessness has contributed considerably to the spread and the harm caused by these. Also, suffering is part of life, and somewhere in my little pea brain, I understand this. I believe we are here to learn, but it does upset me that so many of us bring misery upon ourselves, particularly when it comes to our health. So, rather than asking why God allows this or that to happen, perhaps we should ask instead: Why do we allow this and that to happen?
YOU: There are many things that are harmonious and pleasant in this universe. But by generalizing that the whole universe is nothing but a harmonious symphony created by god is a bit of a stretch.
I am not familiar with that writing. Who wrote: “the whole universe is nothing but a harmonious symphony created by God?”
YOU: As for finding god in (by) yourself well that's all fine and marvy. It doesn't hurt anything or anyone. But I can't help wondering...what's the difference between having a belief in god and just plain old wishfull thinking? Can you really trust your emotions?
Mario, whether you can trust your emotions has much to do with you. Emotions and imagination get a bump rap, because their misuse is usually obvious. Well, guess what? Intellectualism guarantees nothing. Even if we manage to keep both oars in the water, our intellect is only part of who/what we are. Without emotions we would not appreciate; without imagination, we would not learn?
YOU: Getting back to god not showing himself for fear of taking away our free choice for believing in him, well when the second coming of christ happens you might as well kiss your free choice goodbye. And didn't god interfere with our free choice all along? He parted the red sea in front of everyone and sent all kinds of plagues and turned the nile into blood just to name a few instances.
I do not know how to respond. What is your premise? The first sentence I do not understand. As for the red sea, I tend to believe the scientific/historical explanation for that; however, I also believe that the people of that time believed God did it. Timing is a strange thing. I have noticed this on many occasions. Maybe the timing was right. They knew no differently, so why not give God the praise. FYI: The Jews of that time tended to give God credit for everything. Even when they had a thought, they, otherwise not knowing from whence it came, would say God told them. (from Spinoza...Hebrew historian, scientist, philosopher). Science also has a theory about that blood. (I think those interesting revelations were on either A&E or the Discovery channel, a few years back.)
Mario, when you write: “Heck he proved his existence many times in the past. So why did it stop?” Is that a sincere question, or are you being facetious? I am just not sure how to take it, okay? Regardless, I hope some of the information above helps. It is from reliable sources.
YOU: “And btw, aren't we born with sin ("no one is without sin"/original sin)? Didn't god make that a fundamental part of our nature? So who really is to blame if we have all these temptations that we're not supposed to act on? It almost sounds like some kind of lab experiment. And we're the test subjects.”
First, what is "btw?" As for the rest of that paragraph, here again I have to wonder if you are serious. You make a good point. I can see where you would get that, if you truly do think that. So! Guess I will assume that you are serious and tell you what I think. Okay? [The reason I question, is because of the "mixed messages" you send, judging from your other posts.]
I have always thought that God knew me better than anybody else did. Understand, if you can get my meaning here, that God is no more with me that He is with you, and no more with either of us, than He is with someone else. What may make it seem so, it our connecting with the mind of God, the Spirit of God, and the purpose of God. This, I believe is what is meant by, “Draw nigh unto God and He will draw nigh unto you." We do not find God; He is never lost. The guys who wrote the Bible, were limited as are we, by the times in which they lived, as well as their language and their understanding. Even Paul said “we see through a glass darkly/dimly.” (Pick your translation.) There again, we have to translate. Much can be lost or misunderstood.
What I am saying is that they did not know everything, and we do not know everything. All I know for sure about such things is that God is, and I know this because of the witness within me.
“Did not God make sin a fundamental part of our nature,” you asked. Let me tell you what I think sin is. I think sin is anything that does not serve us well. By “not serving us well,” I mean anything that hinders us from knowing or performing our purpose. There is an interesting little verse in the book of James that says: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17 Obviously, this is from the King James Version.
The statement makes all kinds of sense, and this is how I judge what I read. If it makes sense, if it works, -then I buy it.It is difficult for me to tell whether you are trying to make the Bible make sense to you, or if you are trying to show how ridiculous it is. It matters not. Whatever you do, without harming anyone, to find your purpose and to know what works for you, is okay. Doubt, spit and swear, if you must, but if you are seeking then you had best seek sincerely, focused and open, but always the skeptic, because seeking indiscriminately can get you in all kinds of messes. Clever does not count. What counts, and the only thing that counts is “real.” Real is that child-like eagerness; it is that open acceptance, and it is a willingness to increase our knowledge and understanding and to be willing to take responsibility for it! There is a tremendous responsibility that comes with knowledge, and I think the best part . . . is that it is never-ending. The more we know the more we realize how far we have to go to know anything. Make sense?
pmt
mario said:
Let's actually SEE what the Bible says:
Ezekiel 33
10 "Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of [2] them. How then can we live?" ' 11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'
AND AGAIN:
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
Meaning: Why do you say the children are suffering because of the actions of their fathers/ancestors? Therefore DO NOT blame your sins, and or the sins of mankind, on Adam and Eve. Neither should you blame sin on the Father of lights.
3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
You may read the rest of the chapter to see the point I am trying to make.
9 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD . Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
And to show you that sin does not "go back to the creator."
32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD . Repent and live!
----------
Chapter's a bit long so I didn't include everything but you see, we have NO reason whatsoever to blame our downfalls on anyone else.
mario said:Oh no, not the debate about freewill again. hahaha. Hi okinrus. Haven't heard from you in awhile. If we really have freewill then god should not know how we are going to choose. Only we know what is going on inside our heads. Only we know what we are going to choose. And sometimes even WE don't know how we are going to choose. Our minds can change at any second. Spontinaeity. Spur of the moment. That sort of thing. And especially under times of stress we can lose control of our minds and make irrational choices that we would normally not do. So when god says that man has a sinful nature then he is making a broad generalization based on knowledge that he should not even be aware of. Individual freewill is just that. Individual. And subject to change at any given moment.
Which now leads us to the old (and tired) debate that if god knows the future then there is no such thing as randomness or spontinaeity. Only predestined fate.
Your turn....
No, there is no such thing as randomness. The Bible says so.
God knew you was going to say that.....(though i get the feeling the rest of us did aswel).
Wait, you said there was no randomness, so if theres no randomness then god controls everything, good and bad, i see a circle forming here....
Also if anything bad isnt traced back to him, why should anything good be traced back to him?
Lemming3k said:
:sighs:
13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
16Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
Never heard anything in there about sin or evil, did you?
Your own words, no randomness, meaning god controls everything, meaning we have no free will to cause randomness therefore he controls all we do including when we sin.
You can stop quoting that same part now as by your own words we have no free will to sin and arnt responsible for it.
Also just to keep you thinking, who created sin and evil? If god is the creator of everything he made sin and evil, so yes he is responsible as he didnt need to create them.
Well if you want to get technical yes, god gives everyone a purpose therefore he gave him the purpose to build the first ford, and if we have no free will because god controls all then he couldnt refuse to build that ford, so god invented the ford, you learn something new about god everyday.
This is of course all based on the earlier quote that there is no randomness(free will).
There is a certain amount of randomness inherent to our world, a certain amount of freedom, and a certain amount of fixed furniture. It doesn't help to become all theoretical about it.
Having a purpose and having a purpose to build a Ford are two different things. I think you should distinguish between having an ability and using (or abusing) it. God does not control your hands any more than your "DNA" controls it. We have free will - that includes the freedom to abuse it, and hence, to sin.
Having a purpose and having a purpose to build a Ford are two different things. I think you should distinguish between having an ability and using (or abusing) it. God does not control your hands any more than your "DNA" controls it. We have free will - that includes the freedom to abuse it, and hence, to sin.
Of course if we take that into account everything else you say makes sense(assuming you also accept this freedom you have can also be used to do good which is not controlled by god, im trying to point out he controls both or neither), i was going by somebody elses quote from earlier that according to the bible there is no such thing as randomness, if there is a certain ammount then this quote is wrong. There needs to be randomness for the bible to be accepted, there are scientific errors in the bible which can only be accounted for by somebody writing the bible wrong(human error instead of gods error).
Aha. But good and evil aren't concrete concepts. Let me put it this way: the ability to separate good from evil comes from God, and the raw material necessary for both also comes from God. However, God created life, structure, order - all within a framework of "good" (i.e. He set its limits). Even randomness itself can fit in this framework. When a terrorist randomly selects his next target, he is operating against God's wishes, but random numbers can help a security system that blocks terrorist attacks. In each case, good and evil is the destinction that categorizes - not the variable itself.
Don't confuse "being in control" and actually controlling. When a president is aware of everything that goes on in his country, good and bad, and able to instate effective measures to condemn bad and reward good, is "in control" of his country, but he isn't controlling it. It's an oversimplification, but it will do.
The same with the Bible. God wasn't controlling the hands of the writers, or dictating to them, they were acting in the Spirit that reports and leads to the truth. An abundance of "scientific accuracies" as we understand it at this moment might have been detrimental to its message all the way until this moment, and all the way after this moment, binding it to time instead of something much more worthwhile: truth.
Last edited:
Thats what i was getting at, and why i've said before i wouldnt blame god for anything bad but wouldnt say 'praise the lord' for anything good, even if i did believe, and like i say for the bible to be true there needs to be randomness and error(though not necessarily gods error), i was merely pointing out the earlier quote is contradictory to everything else that was being said, if the quote is wrong as you say it is then its irrelevent.
Praising God goes far beyond that. He gave you life, after all, so actually you have everything to praise Him for. Even our ability to experience pain can be a "gift" - one that we can either let defeat us, or which we can learn from and apply towards good. If we praise God only for what we consider good, we are really just praising our good fortune, being "fair-weather friends". Then we should rather say nothing.
As Job said: "If we accept the good that comes from God, shouldn't we also accept the bad?"
As Job said: "If we accept the good that comes from God, shouldn't we also accept the bad?"
My opinion is he didnt give me life, or create anything, i have nothing to praise him for but equally nothing to blame him for, im far happier when i dont worry about pleasing or praising an omnipotent being that may not even be there, i shall make my own life and good fortune and be responsible for my happiness.
I know I said that I was out of this discussion ... I'll participate from a totally different angle, I hope:
I think that the religious definition of isness is hiding in here.
In religious terms, God makes something be; but *what characteristics* this will have is another issue.
Namely, when something *is*, we perceive 2 inseparatable things:
1. that it is,
2. what it is.
Usually, we get fixed to the "what it is", and the "that it is" is somehow forgotten.
Yet this distinction is crucial if we want to change something:
"I took an apple and peeled it."
"I used to smoke but now I don't anymore."
The result is a "peeled" apple or a "non-smoking I".
How come that we still call it an 'apple' or 'I'-- when we changed it? Some idea of conservation/continuity of identity must be at work, or conservation/continuity of identity would not be possible.
In philosophic terms, this is explained as I just did -- with the abstractum of "conservation/continuity of identity".
In terms of the Christian religion, this so intangible and yet immanent ability of the human mind is connected to the existence of God.
There is an important difference between the two:
The philosophic approach tries to be value neutral, while the religious approach is deliberately accompanied by a certain value. (For the sake of simplicity I'll call it the "philosophic" approach, and I mean the logical-rational scientific approach.)
Why?
The religious apporach combines two things: explanation + explicit evaluation of the explanation.
The philosophic approach consists only (in an ideal case) of an explanation. The evaluation of the explanation is something that the philosopher has to do via his attitude.
Needless to say, the religious approach is much easier to do and to follow, as with the philosophic approach it is obvious that that needed attitude, too, is a matter of change, and choice. And as soon as someting is a matter of choice, it is also a matter of doubt. Doubt, when applied to basic terms, is counterproductive when it comes to survival, hence doubt is rejected -- hence religious belief is favoured -- that is, by some.
Jenyar said:
I think that the religious definition of isness is hiding in here.
In religious terms, God makes something be; but *what characteristics* this will have is another issue.
Namely, when something *is*, we perceive 2 inseparatable things:
1. that it is,
2. what it is.
Usually, we get fixed to the "what it is", and the "that it is" is somehow forgotten.
Yet this distinction is crucial if we want to change something:
"I took an apple and peeled it."
"I used to smoke but now I don't anymore."
The result is a "peeled" apple or a "non-smoking I".
How come that we still call it an 'apple' or 'I'-- when we changed it? Some idea of conservation/continuity of identity must be at work, or conservation/continuity of identity would not be possible.
In philosophic terms, this is explained as I just did -- with the abstractum of "conservation/continuity of identity".
In terms of the Christian religion, this so intangible and yet immanent ability of the human mind is connected to the existence of God.
There is an important difference between the two:
The philosophic approach tries to be value neutral, while the religious approach is deliberately accompanied by a certain value. (For the sake of simplicity I'll call it the "philosophic" approach, and I mean the logical-rational scientific approach.)
Why?
The religious apporach combines two things: explanation + explicit evaluation of the explanation.
The philosophic approach consists only (in an ideal case) of an explanation. The evaluation of the explanation is something that the philosopher has to do via his attitude.
Needless to say, the religious approach is much easier to do and to follow, as with the philosophic approach it is obvious that that needed attitude, too, is a matter of change, and choice. And as soon as someting is a matter of choice, it is also a matter of doubt. Doubt, when applied to basic terms, is counterproductive when it comes to survival, hence doubt is rejected -- hence religious belief is favoured -- that is, by some.