Why Is Knowledge Itself Considered Coercive?

[packermann]

This is an interesting theological point. But is the ultimate goal to have faith, or to act according to God's will? I don't think faith in and of itself is the goal, but rather faith is the means to assertaining God's will - which is the real goal.

Not sure I agree, and I am pretty sure my Protestant friends would definitely disagree. Faith is not just a means for us to obey God. The Bible is very clear that our faith is very precious in God's sight and has great merit for our salvation.

Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness
Gal 3:6

And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend
James 2:23

Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness, in other words, his faith was credited as a meritorious act.

Faith is not just a means to our obedience, and that it is only our obedience that merits our salvation. But Catholics and Protestants would disagree. We Catholics may include the necessity of obedience along with faith for our salvation, and Protestants would see faith as the only things necessary for our salvation, but we both agree that faith is needed.

Perhaps your theological perspective is correct and this answer to god's divine hiddeness is not. Are you agreeing this "free will" argument is without merit, and simply proposing another reason for the hiddeness?

I am not saying it is totally without merit. I realize I may be wrong.

But in my humble opinion, I think it is wrong because there were times in the Bible and throughout history that God has given absolute evidence of His existence to individuals. I gave examples of Thomas, Paul, and Alphonse Ratisbonne. So did God take away their free will? This is the problem with the "free will" argument. It forgets that God has in the past did give absolute evidence of His existence. The Egyptians received absolue evidence. The religious leaders at the time of Jesus also received almost irrefutable evidence.

I think the "faith" argument that I present is more in line with scripture. It is like taking an exam when the teacher gives you all the answers. It is no longer a big deal you passed the test. When God does give someone absolute evidence of His existence, that person then has to go through a much harder test to prove his faith to God.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked
Luke 12:48

The more God reveals to us, the more He demands of us.

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.
John 9:41

The Catholic Church calls this the "invincibility of ignorance". The more a person is blind or ignorant of the truth, the more likely he will receive mercy from God on Judgement Day. The religious leaders leaders of Jesus' time saw Jesus healing all these people and they even saw Jesus raise a man from dead. But still they refused to accept him as their Messiah. Jesus said that since they were not blinded, or ignorant of what Jesus was able to do, the guilt of their sin of not accepting Jesus remained with them. The more the evidence that is given, the more you are culpable before God if you choose not to accept Him.

 

[tcampen]

I have heard the argument you sketch out above in response to those who declare that they would only believe in God's existence if He appeared right before them (C. S. Lewis has used a form of it). Only a face-to-face meeting with God will satisfy such a person's demand for evidence and/or proof. Of course, such a meeting would no longer require the person to exercise faith in God; His appearance would remove the choice to believe He exists; God's presence before them would demand that they admit His existence. In this sense, having tangible, visible proof of God's existence becomes "coercive."

You have a good point here, but is the issue whether there exists a god, or what god's will is for us? I could believe in god, yet still reject what he wants me to do, or reject his salvation plan, or blaspheme him in a thousand different ways. What is the virtue of hiding the ball to the existence issue when it seems like salvation is the real goal (within Christian theology)? They are not one in the same.

I don't quite understand your last question: "Since when is there such a thing as too much knowledge to make an informed choice?" How does this apply to the idea that God's literal, physical presence before someone commands their acknowledgment?

Peace to you.

It goes back to the question of what the real goal is. I might say I accept the existence of God, but reject the christian notion of salvation. The OP was not only about the existence of god, but also god's nature - which includes god's will for us. God could make his existence obvious to all people, but remain completely silent as to his will for us. A lot of good that would do, right?

But even if god made both clear, I still have a choice whether to go along with him or not - regardless of the level of information about that state of reality that I have. Just as the more information I have about the dangers of consuming a certain food, the less likely I mgiht be to eat it. But that is not impacting my free will, it is only making my choice more informed.

 

[tcampen]

But in my humble opinion, I think it is wrong because there were times in the Bible and throughout history that God has given absolute evidence of His existence to individuals. I gave examples of Thomas, Paul, and Alphonse Ratisbonne. So did God take away their free will? This is the problem with the "free will" argument. It forgets that God has in the past did give absolute evidence of His existence. The Egyptians received absolue evidence. The religious leaders at the time of Jesus also received almost irrefutable evidence.

.........The religious leaders of Jesus' time saw Jesus healing all these people and they even saw Jesus raise a man from dead. But still they refused to accept him as their Messiah. Jesus said that since they were not blinded, or ignorant of what Jesus was able to do, the guilt of their sin of not accepting Jesus remained with them. The more the evidence that is given, the more you are culpable before God if you choose not to accept Him.

I think you do an excellent job here of showing how information does not diminish one's free will to accept or reject. But would you agree that when making an important decision, the more informed your choice is, the better that choice is likely to be?

I appreciate your thoughts about faith, and understand it within a particular theological context. Considering very few people will ever have the benefit of personally witnessing the direct supernatural authority of
God, I can understand the scriptural need to exhault those who have just as much devotion to God without the benefit of this direct evidence. This clearly makes sense of Abraham's faith being considered so righteous in scripture. This is a point that needs to be made for the benefit of 99.99999% of believers if that belief system is to endure at all.

But from a rational standpoint, it makes no sense to limit information to see if people will accept a proposition as true anyway, and then call that a virtue - as if there is something wrong with making a more informed choice. If it is better to make a more informed choice than a less informed choice, it only stands to reason god will prefer the former over the latter.

This all may be getting off the OP, but I can see how you are providing an alternative reason for faith than the argument of coercive knowledge.

 

[Chesterton]

I agree it would be highly persuasive. But I'm not sure why that's necessarily a problem. If god could interact with people for thousands of years displaying the most amazing of supernatural asbilities for them, why is such so off limits for us today?

Maybe it just wouldn't do any good in the long run. According to the Old Testament stories, the Jews would believe and remain faithful for a time after a miraculous intervention, but eventually, within a few generations, sometimes a large number would become disloyal anyway.

If all the resurrections in the gospels were not unduly coercive to the first christians, why would knowledge of our reality be for us?

Maybe they were coercive, since the first Christians believed strongly enough to undergo torture and death instead of denying the faith. Maybe God did coerce at that time in order to build His church, but I think he couldn't keep holding our hands forever, you know.

Your point about fear is a good one, but any such fear would result from knowledge of the state reality. If something about that state of reality reasonably warrants such fear, then what is the purpose of hiding it such that a vast majority of people do not see it and cannot react to it?

That something about reality warrants fear is not hidden from us, it's only overlooked by us; forgotten most of the time.

The fear caused by the state of reality is still felt in the form of "awe" by even non-religious people. Ancients would have felt it when contemplating the vastness of the ocean, or the powers of nature, and we feel it when we contemplate the size of the universe. But it's really present everywhere. In our mundane lives, we get used to things, but that doesn't mean we should. I think the Psalmist had it right when, referring to his own body, he said "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

Of course the atheist will just write off "awe" as an irrational emotion, but that doesn't answer the question of why we universally feel reality to be awesome, if it isn't actually, literally, "awe-some."

Like I said before, more information about the state of reality as it affects us personally and our ability to make choices concerning that reality cannot be considered so coercive as to interfere with one's free will. It might make certain choices clearer, but the choice still remains.

I don't know, but I think of verses like these: "Seek and ye shall find", "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled", and "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you." God doesn't openly cast Himself before humanity. We must seek, we must hunger, we must draw near to Him for Him to make Himself known. There's something inherent in the grand scheme which now requires something from us.

 

[aiki]

You have a good point here, but is the issue whether there exists a god, or what god's will is for us?

Issue? I'm not sure what you mean...I suppose the "issue" is whatever you'd like it to be.

I could believe in god, yet still reject what he wants me to do, or reject his salvation plan, or blaspheme him in a thousand different ways.

People do this all the time. The Bible says that this is precisely what demons do, too. While their knowledge of God is more certain than ours, while it is sufficient to make them "tremble," they nonetheless continue to defiantly pursue wickedness and destruction. Though they cannot deny the fact of God's existence, they aren't, as a result, constrained by that knowledge to obey Him. It seems this is true in somewhat the same way for humans as well.

What is the virtue of hiding the ball to the existence issue when it seems like salvation is the real goal (within Christian theology)? They are not one in the same.

If God has hidden Himself it seems to me He has done so in plain sight!

It goes back to the question of what the real goal is. I might say I accept the existence of God, but reject the christian notion of salvation.

What God would that be, exactly? If He (or She, or It) isn't the God revealed to us in the Bible, why wouldn't you reject the Christian (or, rather, the biblical) notion of salvation?

The OP was not only about the existence of god, but also god's nature - which includes god's will for us. God could make his existence obvious to all people, but remain completely silent as to his will for us. A lot of good that would do, right?

Yes, I suppose He could. As you say, that would, from our limited human perspective, appear to be a rather useless thing to do. The reality for the Christian, though, is that He hasn't left His will for us a mystery.

But even if god made both clear, I still have a choice whether to go along with him or not - regardless of the level of information about that state of reality that I have.

Well, if demons, with their first-hand knowledge of God, can decide to reject Him, why not humans, too?

Just as the more information I have about the dangers of consuming a certain food, the less likely I mgiht be to eat it. But that is not impacting my free will, it is only making my choice more informed.

Uh huh.

Peace to you.

 

[tcampen]

People do this all the time. The Bible says that this is precisely what demons do, too. While their knowledge of God is more certain than ours, while it is sufficient to make them "tremble," they nonetheless continue to defiantly pursue wickedness and destruction. Though they cannot deny the fact of God's existence, they aren't, as a result, constrained by that knowledge to obey Him. It seems this is true in somewhat the same way for humans as well.

I think it would be quite disengenuous to assume that everyone knows (a particular christian concept of) god exists, but just rejects that god for whatever reason. Just as honest you might be about your beliefs, so are others about theres, right?

If God has hidden Himself it seems to me He has done so in plain sight!

When presented with this assertion, I often think of Jews. They are perfectly aware of the Christian claim of Jesus being the messiah, and the reasons for it, yet still find those claims to be unconvinciing. I don't think they are liars or uninformed or stupid. I think they see the evidence differently. Thus getting back to my OP. Why would knowledge be conserdiered coercive?

What God would that be, exactly? If He (or She, or It) isn't the God revealed to us in the Bible, why wouldn't you reject the Christian (or, rather, the biblical) notion of salvation? Yes, I suppose He could. As you say, that would, from our limited human perspective, appear to be a rather useless thing to do. The reality for the Christian, though, is that He hasn't left His will for us a mystery.

Try to understand from an empathetic perspective how it is reasonable for others to think differently than yourself. People can honestly and sincerely look at the evidence and conclude differently than you. The apologetic assertion as expressed in the OP acknowledges God provides enough lack of information to doubt.

Well, if demons, with their first-hand knowledge of God, can decide to reject Him, why not humans, too?

This reinforces my point of questioning how more information would not seem to be coercive, only allow one to make a more informed choice.

Peace to you.

and to you. thanks!

 

[aiki]

I think it would be quite disengenuous to assume that everyone knows (a particular christian concept of) god exists, but just rejects that god for whatever reason. Just as honest you might be about your beliefs, so are others about theres, right?

The Bible tells me that all of us do have a fundamental awareness that there is a God. Both from the nature of Creation and the nature of ourselves (intellectual, emotional, moral, spiritual) we may understand that there is a Creator. The Bible declares that people suppress their knowledge of God, consciously or unconsciously, so that they may feel more comfortable about rejecting His authority. Many do this so thoroughly that they believe they are being completely honest about their skepticism. Consequently, it won't be by my pointing these things out that others who are presently convinced there is no God will reverse their view. It takes God's divine power to break through the rationalizing, the justifying, the convoluted reasoning that people wrap themselves in to escape acknowledging their Maker. All men, the Bible says, are bent by nature away from God toward Self-worship. It requires a work of God to overcome this bent, not merely "the right evidence" or an impenetrable argument.

When presented with this assertion, I often think of Jews. They are perfectly aware of the Christian claim of Jesus being the messiah, and the reasons for it, yet still find those claims to be unconvinciing. I don't think they are liars or uninformed or stupid. I think they see the evidence differently. Thus getting back to my OP. Why would knowledge be conserdiered coercive?

Not all Jews are so convinced. There are a growing number who do believe that Christ is the Messiah.

Jews see the evidence for Christ being the Messiah differently as much for reasons of cultural pride, and history, and tradition as for any other. Not all of the reasons why a Jew rejects the gospel have to do with logic or a conviction of the insufficiency of the evidence. Again, because this is so, it takes God at work in the heart of a person to overcome such prejudices. Evidence and argument are not, by themselves, sufficient to change one's beliefs in this matter.

Try to understand from an empathetic perspective how it is reasonable for others to think differently than yourself. People can honestly and sincerely look at the evidence and conclude differently than you. The apologetic assertion as expressed in the OP acknowledges God provides enough lack of information to doubt.

This seems to me to be a matter of seeing the glass half-full or half-empty. We may look at the same evidence and see two very different things. Why is it that you remain unconvinced while I do not? I believe that it has everything to do with what I've said above. If a person does not wish to believe, no amount of evidence will be convincing. Only God can turn a half-empty cup into a half-full one.

Peace to you.

 

[packermann]

I think you do an excellent job here of showing how information does not diminish one's free will to accept or reject. But would you agree that when making an important decision, the more informed your choice is, the better that choice is likely to be?

But from a rational standpoint, it makes no sense to limit information to see if people will accept a proposition as true anyway, and then call that a virtue - as if there is something wrong with making a more informed choice. If it is better to make a more informed choice than a less informed choice, it only stands to reason god will prefer the former over the latter.

This all may be getting off the OP, but I can see how you are providing an alternative reason for faith than the argument of coercive knowledge.

I am glad that you see what I am driving at.


I believe that God has given us an informed choice but He has not given us an obvious choice. Our choice to choose God has merit before Him. But if that choice is so obvious that everyone would choose Him, then it no longer has any merit.

He has given us informed choice. According to Christian though He has revealed His will to us through Revelation. An uninformed choice would be if God had never revealed Himself to us. The issue is not that our choice is not informed, but how do we know that information is from God.

God has revealed that his information is valid through several different ways. First, He revealed His information is valid by prophesies in the Old Testament being fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Second, He revealed the validity of the information by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from dead. Third, He revealed its validity by how the Christian Faith was able to grow with the hostile Roman Empire without the followers resorting to violence. Fourth, He showed its validity by the Western culture, which is founded on Christian principles, being the most advanced culture, far above the other non-theistic cultures in science, charity, and morals.

But all this evidence does not prove absolutely that it is true. It only show that is more reasonable to believe that is true than it is to believe that it is false. There is still a possibility that it is false. But the probability is that it is true.

The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. It is reasonable that it is true. It is not an absurd faith. It is logical. It is not contradictory. It is not just based on speculation, but on historical events that can be validated by witnesses. Now, this is not absolute evidence. It is possible that all the witnesses lied. Possible, but not likely.

God willed that we receive some evidence, but not absolute evidence. If the evidence was absolute evidence, there would be no merit in our choice.

 

[Tzaousios]

The view put forth in the OP sounds like a Foucauldian analysis of God's sovereignty to me.

Well, if God is ultimately sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, and his choice in predestination and foreknowing is linked, and he created our very being and the environment into which we are born, then he does know a great deal about and has a good measure of control over us.

The knowledge of his revelation is coercive to the ones who are granted repentence and believe, finally having faith and being born again. For the ones who do not want to believe, the knowledge of the Law makes sin known to them and increases its "sweetness." Their greatest desire, therefore, is to pursue sin, although they know better because of the Law. Paul speaks about this in Romans 7.

 

[tcampen]

The Bible tells me....

I respect your faith and your personal adherence to your bible. But making an argument based on what you personally find athoritative is not going to be particularly convincing here.

Not all Jews are so convinced. There are a growing number who do believe that Christ is the Messiah.

I am aware of "Jews for Jesus" and Messianic Jews who are Christians, but there are still millions of Jews that adhere to their faith - which does not recognize Jesus as the messiah, nor the christian concept of the messiah or the claims about Jesus.

Jews see the evidence for Christ being the Messiah differently as much for reasons of cultural pride, and history, and tradition as for any other. Not all of the reasons why a Jew rejects the gospel have to do with logic or a conviction of the insufficiency of the evidence. Again, because this is so, it takes God at work in the heart of a person to overcome such prejudices. Evidence and argument are not, by themselves, sufficient to change one's beliefs in this matter.

Whatever flawed basis some Jews may have for their unacceptance of Christianity would equally apply to Christians in favor of their faith as well. No one is exempt from having "cultural pride, and history, and tradition" influence their beliefs at least to some extent, yet no one seems to want to admit it about themselves. Fascinating, isn't it? It's always the other guy.

This seems to me to be a matter of seeing the glass half-full or half-empty. We may look at the same evidence and see two very different things. Why is it that you remain unconvinced while I do not? I believe that it has everything to do with what I've said above. If a person does not wish to believe, no amount of evidence will be convincing. Only God can turn a half-empty cup into a half-full one.

I appreciate the religious point your making as faith in your god applies to you. When you ask why you are convinced of something I am not, I think the answer lies directly with you and me as individuals. Why are there thousands of different Christian denominations? Because people as individuals believe what the choose to believe, ultimately. Certainly God is not commanding the wide variety (and often contradictory) ideas about him within Christianity. People are resonsible for this, yet still look at everyone else within thier own body of believer just a little bit more wrong than they are. Let's be honest, nobody thinks they're wrong about god, do they?

It's not that I do not wish to believe, I've just chosen something different from what you have chosen. The question is whether either of us are closer to the ultimate truth on the issue - which gets back to my OP: Why would more information about God be coercive? I don't see the logic in this argument.

Peace to you.

And to you.

 

[tcampen]

The view put forth in the OP sounds like a Foucauldian analysis of God's sovereignty to me.

Well, if God is ultimately sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, and his choice in predestination and foreknowing is linked, and he created our very being and the environment into which we are born, then he does know a great deal about and has a good measure of control over us.

The knowledge of his revelation is coercive to the ones who are granted repentence and believe, finally having faith and being born again. For the ones who do not want to believe, the knowledge of the Law makes sin known to them and increases its "sweetness." Their greatest desire, therefore, is to pursue sin, although they know better because of the Law. Paul speaks about this in Romans 7.

That's interesting, but how does additional information itself (about god) become coercive? Take the person who believes just as sincerely as you, but in something different. This is not a desire to pursue sin, but just as pure of a desire to do good as any believing Christian. This is an undisputable reality. Just as the obvious nature of a blue sky is not coercive to accept the sky is blue, neither should an obvious demonstration from god to all people of all time of his existence and his will.

The apologetic argument in the OP is that God hides the ball just enough to maintain free will to freely accept or reject his existence and will. My questions remains: why would more information be coercive? Since when is a more informed choice undesireable?