Is Belief a Moral Construct?

zippy2006 · Jan 14, 2021

Here is a quick overview for @Moral Orel or anyone else who wants to jump in.

First, the various propositions used in the thread:

zippy2006 said:
1. All actions for which we can be punished or rewarded are voluntary actions.
2. God punishes and rewards belief.
3. Therefore, belief is a voluntary action.

4. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5. We do not choose what to believe.
6. Therefore, belief is not a voluntary action.

zippy2006 said:
4a. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5a. Some beliefs are not chosen.
6a. Therefore, some beliefs are not voluntary actions.

zippy2006 said:
1. All actions for which we can be punished or rewarded are voluntary actions. {From post #5}
7. Teachers punish and reward students' beliefs when they grade tests.
8. Therefore, these students' beliefs are voluntary actions (i.e. "chosen" actions).

zippy2006 said:
9. If a belief cannot be arbitrarily changed, then it is not chosen/volitional.
10. The student's belief about the answer to their test question cannot be arbitrarily changed.
11. Therefore, the student's belief is not chosen/volitional.

zippy2006 Paraphrased said:
12. Anyone who rewards or punishes involuntary actions is unjust. {Contrapositive of (1)}
2. God punishes and rewards belief. {From post #5}
6. Belief is not a voluntary action. {From post #5}
13. Therefore, God is unjust.

zippy2006 Paraphrased said:
12. Anyone who rewards or punishes involuntary actions is unjust. {Contrapositive of (1)}
7. Teachers punish and reward students' beliefs when they grade tests. {From post #25}
11. The student's belief is not chosen/volitional. {From post #33}
14. Therefore, teachers are unjust.

@cvanwey holds to (4-5-6), (9-10-11), (12-2-6-13), and (12-7-11).

I hold to (1-2-3), and to (1-7-8).

My reductio says that it is absurd to hold that teachers are unjust for giving bad marks for incorrect answers (and therefore God is also not unjust for punishing unbelief). The technical problem for @cvanwey is that premise (9) forces him to accept (12-7-11), which entails the absurd conclusion of (14). He consistently tries in vain to resist this absurd conclusion, but there is nothing for it. He needs (9) to refute (8) and support (6). Without (9) he ultimately loses (13), which is his goal. So he is in a pickle, to be sure.

I would say that @cvanwey's weakest premise is (9), which I attacked in post #23. @cvanwey seems to read (9) into premises (4) and (5), which makes them similarly problematic. The underlying error says that if drawing a conclusion is not a choice, then it is not volitional, and is not subject to responsibility. That is, some of our beliefs are more or less just conclusions we have drawn from prior deliberations, and are therefore not subject to responsibility, praise, blame, etc.

The key problem with this is that, even if we accept, arguendo, the idea that drawing a conclusion is not a choice, it is still volitional precisely insofar as the prior deliberations were volitional, and is therefore subject to responsibility. We have illustrated this principle over and over again with respect to the student who believes that 12x12=156. Even if we want to say that her final step of drawing the conclusion '156' is not blameworthy, it is still true that many of the prior deliberations and choices may have been blameworthy, and that therefore the student may be held responsible for her belief. For example:

zippy2006 said:
Now, it is perhaps true that once the student has gone through all eight steps leading up to her conclusion, she has only a small choice in drawing the conclusion of '156'. But it is an entirely volitional process. Her decisions about how much to study, how quickly to complete the test, how much effort to apply to this specific problem, how much concentration to give to each of the initial eight steps, whether to check her work and confirm that the answer is a perfect square - all of these are choices that were made. The result '156' is the consequence of a whole host of choices, which is precisely why the teacher is justified in assigning blame to the student for getting the answer wrong.

Obviously this applies to the matter of the OP, for consider God punishing someone for unbelief:

God: You will now be punished for your unbelief.
Person: But I can't believe! You can't punish me for things I have no control over!
God: I am not punishing you for your lack of propositional belief per se, but rather for all of the choices and deliberations that led up to your unbelief. You were very much in control of those choices and deliberations.

(Of course Christians could address this objection of the OP in different ways, but I think my approach in this thread has the advantage of maintaining a maximum number of the atheist's premises--even if these premises are false--while still showing that the argument is unsound. For example, the atheist's conception of belief and judgment may be utterly strange to classical Christian worldviews, and yet it seems that the argument still fails even on the supposition that we accept these conceptions.)

cvanwey · Jan 14, 2021

zippy2006 said:
If you reject the characterization of your OP in post #5 then the obvious solution is to offer a different formalized argument. Something far less wishy-washy than your OP.

If you simply acknowledge what I actually wrote, in my OP, starting with the title, you would see my last response to you still tightly holds to that exact argument.

... But thanks for instead accusing me of either/or being fallacious and/or deceptive.

Recap... I would argue belief is not a moral construct, because you do not control what you believe. If you cannot control what you believe, assigning 'blame', for not believing a man rose from the grave to save me, seems a bit 'absurd'; doesn't it?

cvanwey · Jan 14, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Here is a quick overview for @Moral Orel or anyone else who wants to jump in.

First, the various propositions used in the thread:

@cvanwey holds to 4, 5, 6; 9, 10, 11; and 12, 2, 7, 13.

I hold to 1, 2, 3, and to (1), 7, 8.

My reductio says that it is absurd to hold that teachers are unjust for giving bad marks for incorrect answers (and therefore God is also not unjust for punishing unbelief).

I would say that @cvanwey's weakest premise is (9), which I attacked in post #23. @cvanwey seems to read (9) into premises (4) and (5), which makes them similarly problematic. The underlying error says that if drawing a conclusion is not a choice, then it is not volitional, and is not subject to responsibility. That is, some of our beliefs are more or less just conclusions we have drawn from prior deliberations, and are therefore not subject to responsibility, praise, blame, etc.

The key problem with this is that, even if we accept, arguendo, the idea that drawing a conclusion is not a choice, it is still volitional precisely insofar as the prior deliberations were volitional, and is therefore subject to responsibility. We have illustrated this principle over and over again with respect to the student who believes that 12x12=156. Even if we want to say that her final step of drawing the conclusion '156' is not blameworthy, it is still true that many of the prior deliberations and choices may have been blameworthy, and that therefore the student may be held responsible for her belief. For example:

Obviously this applies to the matter of the OP, for consider God punishing someone for unbelief:

God: You will now be punished for your unbelief.
Person: But I can't believe! You can't punish me for things I have no control over!
God: I am not punishing you for your lack of propositional belief per se, but rather for all of the choices and deliberations that led up to your unbelief. You were very much in control of those choices and deliberations.

(Obviously Christians could address this objection of the OP in different ways, but I think my approach in this thread has the advantage of maintaining a maximum number of the atheist's premises--even if these premises are false--while still showing that the argument is unsound. For example, the atheist's conception of belief and judgment may be utterly strange to classical Christian worldviews, and yet it seems that the argument still fails even on the supposition that we accept these conceptions.)

Or, you can skip the distractor, and look to post #37.

zippy2006 · Jan 14, 2021

So we complete two pages of dialogue on the mutually agreed-upon basis of this argument:

zippy2006 said:
4. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5. We do not choose what to believe.
6. Therefore, belief is not a voluntary action.

Cvanwey accepts (4-6) and therefore concludes that it makes no sense for God to punish and reward beliefs, which are involuntary actions.

Then you realize that your position fails badly and claim that you were mistaken because argument (4-6) does not properly capture your Original Post. When asked to give an alternative argument, this is what you offer:

cvanwey said:
Recap... I would argue belief is not a moral construct, because you do not control what you believe. If you cannot control what you believe, assigning 'blame', for not believing a man rose from the grave to save me, seems a bit 'absurd'; doesn't it?

How is your new argument any different from the old argument!? Seriously man. :sigh:

They are the exact same thing except the new one is less precise and is stated informally.

cvanwey · Jan 14, 2021

zippy2006 said:
So we complete two pages of dialogue on the mutually agreed-upon basis of this argument:

Then you realize that your position fails badly and claim that you were mistaken because argument (4-6) does not properly capture your Original Post. When asked to give an alternative argument, this is what you offer:

How is your new argument any different from the old argument!? Seriously man. They are the exact same thing except the new one is less precise and is stated informally.

LOL.

Maybe you need to re-read the title of the OP, and the content within it again

cvanwey · Jan 14, 2021

zippy2006 said:
How is your new argument any different from the old argument!? Seriously man. They are the exact same thing except the new one is less precise and is stated informally.

My argument never changed. Like I stated prior, I should have placed a halt or clarification, at post #5. As I've been saying, for many posts now, you are "apples", I am "oranges". Rather than address post #37, you instead simply accused me of now being deceptive or fallacious.

My stance is quite clear. God places judgement for condemnation, based upon apprehension - (which we cannot control).

Your argument (which is apples), I agree. -- A teacher can place blame, quite often. My response in post #37 again re-affirms your argument.

However, my post is about God. God apparently knows your thoughts. Teachers do not. God knows some do not believe, even though there exists a Bible to assert "He is real". God knows we cannot control what we believe. And yet, God looks to have no problem condemning humans for something they cannot control.

If you wish to address the actual (oranges) argument, rather than to keep doubling down on the (apples) argument, by all means... Have at it... For which I guess we can then part ways, in this thread.

Too bad you appear more concerned with assigning accusations, rather than to address my point(s).

zippy2006 · Jan 14, 2021

cvanwey said:
As I've been saying, for many posts now, you are "apples", I am "oranges".

Yes, you do keep saying that. I don't know what you mean. I don't think you do either.

If there is anything meaningful behind your assertion, then spell out my "apples" argument. Spell out the premises, inferential reasoning, and conclusion of this "apples" argument. Then spell out your "oranges" argument. Spell out the premises, inferential reasoning, and conclusion of this "oranges" argument. After these two mysterious arguments are explicated and placed side by side, perhaps they can be compared and evaluated.

Honestly, I've given rigorous and transparent argumentation all throughout this thread. It's not hard to see, or confusing, or opaque. In response I get a repeated assertion about "apples and oranges." In response I receive a healthy serving of smoke and mirrors. The writing is on the wall, and it is perfectly legible. Go back and read it.

cvanwey · Jan 14, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Yes, you do keep saying that. I don't know what you mean. I don't think you do either.

If there is anything meaningful behind your assertion, then spell out my "apples" argument. Spell out the premises, inferential reasoning, and conclusion of this "apples" argument. Then spell out your "oranges" argument. Spell out the premises, inferential reasoning, and conclusion of this "oranges" argument. After these two mysterious arguments are explicated and placed side by side, perhaps they can be compared and evaluated.

Honestly, I've given rigorous and transparent argumentation all throughout this thread. It's not hard to see, or confusing, or opaque. In response I get a repeated assertion about "apples and oranges." In response I receive a healthy serving of smoke and mirrors. The writing is on the wall, and it is perfectly legible. Go back and read it.

Post #37. Rather than address it, you accused me. And now, you continue to insinuate I'm confused as well.

Last chance. Please address my argument, as was presented in the OP, or please go away.

zippy2006 · Jan 14, 2021

cvanwey said:
Post #37. Rather than address it, you accused me. And now, you continue to insinuate I'm confused as well.

I already did address it. I pointed out that your use of scare quotes around words such as "correct" insinuates that the math problem we have been considering (12x12) has no correct or incorrect answer, and that the only two choices available to the student are to write '156' or else to write the "correct" answer of '144'. Such is an incredibly strange argument. It ignores the obvious fact that there is a truly correct answer to the math problem. It is, as I noted there, sophistical.

cvanwey · Jan 14, 2021

zippy2006 said:
I already did address it. I pointed out that your use of scare quotes around words such as "correct" insinuates that the math problem we have been considering (12x12) has no correct or incorrect answer, and that the only two choices available to the student are to write '156' or else to write the "correct" answer of '144'. Such is an incredibly strange argument. It ignores the obvious fact that there is a truly correct answer to the math problem. It is, as I noted there, sophistical.

Um, did you happen to see the quote, from the Bible in the OP? Mark 16:15-16. It pretty much invokes a dichotomy. -- Believe [or] do not believe. Apparently, belief awards you salvation. Unbelief awards you condemnation. Believe = correct. Unbelief = incorrect. Belief = reward. Unbelief = punishment.

As eluded to in post #3, someone comes up to you, and proselytizes "Jesus resurrecting to save you" as true. God now knows you have been presented with this information. Just like a teacher might 'educate' you on evolutionary biology (i.e.) post #37. If you do not actually believe this is true, He will punish you. Pretty axiomatic. But I would reckon God also knows you cannot control what you believe. You can get 100% on the evolutionary biology test, while not believing in it. Your teacher analogy does not coincide with God. God does not care what you profess or how you answer a test question; God cares what you think.

God knows the 'correct answer' is that He is real. But some do not and cannot believe in this claim. And yet, God's meter-stick or gauge for condemnation is an attribute humans cannot control.

Moral Orel · Jan 15, 2021

@zippy2006
I was following along for a while, but I got bored too, lol. I won't jump in deep, but I'll add a bit. First let me say that although our last discussion on free will has me settled pretty firmly in the "all free will is an illusion camp" for the sake of this discussion, I'll merely take the stance that @cvanwey has that belief is not a choice, but actions are.

I don't think a teacher giving a bad mark is really giving the mark because the student holds a wrong belief. (12x12=255 or whatever it was). That wrong belief is indicative that the student didn't do the work, because if he had, he would hold the right belief, and that lack of work is what the student is really getting punished for.

So okay, feel free to apply that to belief in God which is totally fair. You would possibly claim that if we just did the work, or just read the right material, or were just exposed to the right evidence then we would believe but we choose not to do that work. And we can be held accountable because we haven't done that work. That would be my guess anyways, from what I've read (which isn't all of it).

Now the question would be whether such work, material, evidence exists that such a thing could be proven as well as 12x12=144, otherwise you've got yourself a false equivalency. And even if we assume there is in fact such material out there but I don't believe it is, why should we be held accountable for the belief that material isn't out there? What if I'm an apatheist and I just don't care to know, why should I be held accountable for that?

Seems to me that there just can't be any good reason for doubt in the existence of God to be a good thing. If God created and designed all of reality, He didn't need to allow for that.

Chris35 · Jan 15, 2021

cvanwey said:
However, if belief is not a moral action, and is instead an amoral action, then why does this look be God's criteria for condemnation?

18He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light.

zippy2006 · Jan 15, 2021

Moral Orel said:
@zippy2006
I was following along for a while, but I got bored too, lol. I won't jump in deep, but I'll add a bit. First let me say that although our last discussion on free will has me settled pretty firmly in the "all free will is an illusion camp" for the sake of this discussion, I'll merely take the stance that @cvanwey has that belief is not a choice, but actions are.

I don't think a teacher giving a bad mark is really giving the mark because the student holds a wrong belief. (12x12=255 or whatever it was). That wrong belief is indicative that the student didn't do the work, because if he had, he would hold the right belief, and that lack of work is what the student is really getting punished for.

So okay, feel free to apply that to belief in God which is totally fair. You would possibly claim that if we just did the work, or just read the right material, or were just exposed to the right evidence then we would believe but we choose not to do that work. And we can be held accountable because we haven't done that work. That would be my guess anyways, from what I've read (which isn't all of it).

Okay, thanks. I was basically wondering if a third party could see prima facie parity between the two things, and that confirms my hunch. Like you said, it is a bit boring. There's not a great deal being said.

Now the question would be whether such work, material, evidence exists that such a thing could be proven as well as 12x12=144, otherwise you've got yourself a false equivalency.

Yeah, I don't think the religious propositions in question can be proven as easily as 12x12=144. That's certainly true. Of course it should go without saying that I think the broader analogy still holds.

And even if we assume there is in fact such material out there but I don't believe it is, why should we be held accountable for the belief that material isn't out there?

What we are talking about is someone being punished for negligence, and negligence is a slippery beast. It should be noted that invincible ignorance is held up as a real possibility in modern Christianity, so where to draw that line between negligence and invincible ignorance is always arguable.

What if I'm an apatheist and I just don't care to know, why should I be held accountable for that?

And why should the student be forced to care twopence about mathematics anyway?

Without getting too deep my answer would be that there is a sort of inherent responsibility for important existential issues built in to our humanity. To hearken back to our previous conversation, the human person is not only naturally desirous of happiness, but is also naturally responsible for seeking happiness and truth (in some rather mysterious way). That is, to be apathetic towards the most important things in life is itself a kind of culpable mistake.

Seems to me that there just can't be any good reason for doubt in the existence of God to be a good thing. If God created and designed all of reality, He didn't need to allow for that.

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying, "Why would God ever allow for doubt?"

Moral Orel · Jan 15, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Yeah, I don't think the religious propositions in question can be proven as easily as 12x12=144. That's certainly true. Of course it should go without saying that I think the broader analogy still holds.

It holds so broadly that I'm only okay with it being used for illustrative purposes. It wouldn't be apt to say, "It's okay to punish because of a wrong math answer, so it's okay to punish for a wrong God belief".

zippy2006 said:
What we are talking about is someone being punished for negligence, and negligence is a slippery beast. It should be noted that invincible ignorance is held up as a real possibility in modern Christianity, so where to draw that line between negligence and invincible ignorance is always arguable.

It's only negligence if these religious propositions can be proven easily, which they can't. If we try a good deal, and still come up atheist, we still get judged as bad.

zippy2006 said:
And why should the student be forced to care twopence about mathematics anyway?

Don't ask me "should" questions. I haven't abandoned my stance on subjective morality for the sake of argument

zippy2006 said:
Without getting too deep my answer would be that there is a sort of inherent responsibility for important existential issues built in to our humanity. To hearken back to our previous conversation, the human person is not only naturally desirous of happiness, but is also naturally responsible for seeking happiness and truth (in some rather mysterious way). That is, to be apathetic towards the most important things in life is itself a kind of culpable mistake.

Okay, I'll admit apatheist goes to far. In our other discussion I agreed that at least some sort of "quasi-should" can be crafted from "it'll make you happy". But each person has to weigh the likelihood that the answer will turn out to be, "Yep, there is a God!" versus wasting a lifetime searching for something that was never there to begin with.

zippy2006 said:
I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying, "Why would God ever allow for doubt?"

More specifically, "Why would God ever allow for doubt in His existence and in what He wants from us?" If God exists, those things can just magically be known while still allowing doubt in other areas.

Is it okay to judge a person for uninformed decisions? Would it not be more just to ensure that all their decisions are informed? It certainly isn't just to judge someone for being uninformed about things they don't have access to solid information about.

cvanwey · Jan 15, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Okay, thanks. I was basically wondering if a third party could see prima facie parity between the two things, and that confirms my hunch. Like you said, it is a bit boring. There's not a great deal being said.

It's "boring" for him likely because he was not one of the two interlocutors directly engaged -- where you are arguing for one thing, and I'm arguing another....

It all boils down to belief. Again, a teacher instructs you that the correct answer is "Jesus rose from the grave." I'm then held accountable for this information during a test. For which, I'm to 'blame' if I answer incorrectly. However, internally, I may still not believe this answer is actually true. But again, this is the vast difference between the teacher and God analogy. The teacher does not know my true belief. The true belief is what God judges, according to Mark 16:15-16.

zippy2006 said:
Yeah, I don't think the religious propositions in question can be proven as easily as 12x12=144. That's certainly true. Of course it should go without saying that I think the broader analogy still holds.

Mathematics is not really a good analogy.... The one provided in post #37 seems a little more relevant:

A classic "young earth creationist" takes an evolutionary biology course. (S)he teaches the 'correct' material. Though the student believes virtually none of what is being taught, the student is still assigned 'blame', or might be held accountable, if not providing the correct answers during the test.

In conclusion, the Y.E.C. could believe nothing of what the teacher taught, and yet still get 100% on the test, because (s)he answered how the teacher taught.

zippy2006 said:
What we are talking about is someone being punished for negligence, and negligence is a slippery beast. It should be noted that invincible ignorance is held up as a real possibility in modern Christianity, so where to draw that line between negligence and invincible ignorance is always arguable.

I answered this already. Mark 16:15-16 is about believers whom proselytize to unbelievers. Once the unbeliever hears the words of the believer, it is the unbelievers responsibility to then ultimately believe. But some cannot... And this is not a choice... What you believe is not a choice. If belief is a choice, get yourself to believe Jesus is not the way - (without some sort of newly presented catalyst for which you apprehend/discern one way or the other).

zippy2006 said:
Without getting too deep my answer would be that there is a sort of inherent responsibility for important existential issues built in to our humanity. To hearken back to our previous conversation, the human person is not only naturally desirous of happiness, but is also naturally responsible for seeking happiness and truth (in some rather mysterious way). That is, to be apathetic towards the most important things in life is itself a kind of culpable mistake.

Great. So someone, such as myself, whom wanted Christianity to be true for over 3 decades, but does not believe it to be true, will apparently be send to an eternity of condemnation, via Mark 16:15-16.

Which keeps creating a necessity to ask the question...

If belief is not a choice, (and by belief, I mean what we apprehend after being given new information), why is this God's criteria for condemnation?

zippy2006 · Jan 15, 2021

Moral Orel said:
It holds so broadly that I'm only okay with it being used for illustrative purposes. It wouldn't be apt to say, "It's okay to punish because of a wrong math answer, so it's okay to punish for a wrong God belief".

Well it surely is being used for illustrative purposes. I am not claiming that the math example is univocally equivalent. On the other hand I don't have much of a problem with the conditional you oppose.

It's important to distinguish between man's judgment and God's judgment. It is wrong for man to punish for a wrong God belief, but not for God to punish. This is because man is not knowledgeable enough to punish with any sort of accuracy. Let me come back to this distinction.

It's only negligence if these religious propositions can be proven easily, which they can't. If we try a good deal, and still come up atheist, we still get judged as bad.

Oftentimes people convicted of negligence deny the conviction and believe that theirs was a case of invincible ignorance. Those who accept the conviction accept it only with hindsight. That is, they see only in retrospect that they were negligent and are therefore culpable.

I may be wrong, but I think the damned will accept the conviction, at least in certain senses. I don't know how anyone can say with confidence that their seeking necessarily does not involve negligence. Paul says the exact opposite in 1 Corinthians 4:3-5. It is God's judgment that matters, not man's.

If you try your best and come up atheist you will not be condemned. If you are condemned for being an atheist then it may well be due to negligence. Who can say with certainty whether they have truly tried their best?

Don't ask me "should" questions. I haven't abandoned my stance on subjective morality for the sake of argument

Haha

Okay, I'll admit apatheist goes to far. In our other discussion I agreed that at least some sort of "quasi-should" can be crafted from "it'll make you happy". But each person has to weigh the likelihood that the answer will turn out to be, "Yep, there is a God!" versus wasting a lifetime searching for something that was never there to begin with.

Okay.

More specifically, "Why would God ever allow for doubt in His existence and in what He wants from us?" If God exists, those things can just magically be known while still allowing doubt in other areas.

It's a big topic, but a very safe answer would say that even if religious doubt does not have inherent value, it is nevertheless the byproduct of valuable realities such as trust, freedom, love, and free relationships.

Is it okay to judge a person for uninformed decisions? Would it not be more just to ensure that all their decisions are informed? It certainly isn't just to judge someone for being uninformed about things they don't have access to solid information about.

Right, but this is the same question of invincible ignorance vs. negligence. The question always comes back to whether their ignorance is in their control or whether it is not. The student who studies hard is less culpable for his false mathematical belief than the student who chooses to watch Netflix rather than study.

cvanwey · Jan 15, 2021

zippy2006 said:
I may be wrong, but I think the damned will accept the conviction, at least in certain senses. I don't know how anyone can say with confidence that their seeking necessarily does not involve negligence. Paul says the exact opposite in 1 Corinthians 4:3-5. It is God's judgment that matters, not man's.

Though varying degrees of belief can exist, many do not believe. This includes ex pastors, minsters, priests, etc... Their lack in belief was not by choice, but instead by apprehending the provided evidence.

But you are correct in one point... If God exists, then He will judge, and it will be the only one that actually matters.

But I continue to ask, doesn't God know that belief is not a choice? Assuming He does, then I see a 'problem'. An irreconcilable one...

zippy2006 said:
If you try your best and come up atheist you will not be condemned. If you are condemned for being an atheist then it may well be due to negligence. Who can say with certainty whether they have truly tried their best?

Nope, that's not what Mark 16:15-16 implies.

zippy2006 said:
Right, but this is the same question of invincible ignorance vs. negligence. The question always comes back to whether their ignorance is in their control or whether it is not. The student who studies hard is less culpable for his false mathematical belief than the student who chooses to watch Netflix rather than study.

And yet, we still have many whom fell away from their former beliefs, whom studied at length in the Christian faith. Are we then to instead cleave to the argument, 'once saved always saved?"

Moral Orel · Jan 15, 2021

zippy2006 said:
It's a big topic, but a very safe answer would say that even if religious doubt does not have inherent value, it is nevertheless the byproduct of valuable realities such as trust, freedom, love, and free relationships.

This would be a tangent that would interest me enough for further discussion. Doubt in God's existence and what He wants from us is not required for things such as trust, freedom, love, and free relationships to exist.

cvanwey · Jan 15, 2021

Chris35 said:
18He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light.

If belief is not a choice, then the ones being saved are not being saved by their own "free will" / choice.

zippy2006 · Jan 15, 2021

Moral Orel said:
This would be a tangent that would interest me enough for further discussion.

Is that a bid for a new thread?

Doubt in God's existence and what He wants from us is not required for things such as trust, freedom, love, and free relationships to exist.

The low-hanging fruit is trust, which God commands. Can there be a world in which trust is possible but doubt is not possible?

Edit: After thinking on it I would say that doubting God's existence and doubting God's commands are rather different. Focusing on one at a time would probably be helpful.

Is Belief a Moral Construct?

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Active Member

Dragonsworn

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Similar threads