Are Any Objections to Christian Faith Successful?

[Tree of Life]

True, but as I posted in another related thread: "You're basically claiming that the laws governing Reality which we perceive & experience do not apply to God - which is fine to claim - but it goes beyond the realm of reason & observation into the realm of imagination where really anything can be possible with "God". Then, anything is possible in the realm of imagination - there is no reason to not imagine it as the flying spaghetti monster (it's possible!), or a being which rides a sun chariot across the sky daily (it's possible!)."

I am fine claiming that God is not governed by the sense we've made of the world. And I agree that we cannot reason our way to God. If we are to know God he must reveal himself to us. We cannot ascend to him by reason or empiricism. He must "come down" to use because he is the transcendent creator.

What makes the flying spaghetti monster and the sun chariot god impossible to me is that these contradict the revelation given by the God of the Bible. I don't disbelieve them because of some logical impossibility. I disbelieve them because their existence does not cohere with the true God's revelation.

 

[ananda]

I am fine claiming that God is not governed by the sense we've made of the world. And I agree that we cannot reason our way to God. If we are to know God he must reveal himself to us. We cannot ascend to him by reason or empiricism. He must "come down" to use because he is the transcendent creator.

What makes the flying spaghetti monster and the sun chariot god impossible to me is that these contradict the revelation given by the God of the Bible. I don't disbelieve them because of some logical impossibility. I disbelieve them because their existence does not cohere with the true God's revelation.

What if the true God came down to us and revealed himself as the sun chariot God? What was your reasoning behind how you decided to choose one revelation as more true over another?

 

[Tree of Life]

What if the true God came down to us and revealed himself as the sun chariot God? What was your reasoning how you decided to choose one revelation as more true over another?

There are a number of ways to respond to this that are all equally true. I'll sketch two responses:

1. God's revelation is self-attesting and is attested by the Holy Spirit himself. This means that faith in God's revelation is engendered by exposure to that revelation and is a result of God's putting faith in the heart and mind of the believer. As such, it does not require any further rationale. Some people believe because God gives them faith. Faith is just something that they find themselves having. It has and needs no rationale.

2. The Christian worldview is the only internally consistent worldview. Every other worldview actually borrows from the Christian worldview and subtly assumes the truth of the Christian worldview in order to criticize the Christian worldview. In that sense, when we compare worldviews we can see that every other worldview is self defeating except the Christian worldview.

 

[ananda]

There are a number of ways to respond to this that are all equally true. I'll sketch two responses:

1. God's revelation is self-attesting and is attested by the Holy Spirit himself. This means that faith in God's revelation is engendered by exposure to that revelation and is a result of God's putting faith in the heart and mind of the believer. As such, it does not require any further rationale. Some people believe because God gives them faith. Faith is just something that they find themselves having. It has and needs no rationale.

2. The Christian worldview is the only internally consistent worldview. Every other worldview actually borrows from the Christian worldview and subtly assumes the truth of the Christian worldview in order to criticize the Christian worldview. In that sense, when we compare worldviews we can see that every other worldview is self defeating except the Christian worldview.

"faith in the heart" sounds like a degree of empiricism, and deciding that the "Christian worldview is the only internally consistent worldview" sounds like reason.

I found similarly in Buddhism - things which appealed to both my reason & empiricism which I found superior to Christianity, and caused me to convert.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Actions are always done to remedy an experienced discontentment caused by a perceived problem. Therefore, a deity who acts cannot be perfect, as action means that that deity experiences discontentment.

I don't think this would really qualify as some kind of logical defeater for Christianity. You're really only throwing your own personal interpretive gloss over existence.

I could equally say, and people have:

Actions are always done in pursuit of pleasure, if someone is discontent with something in their life, it simply means they find it less pleasurable.

or

Actions are always done to find meaning. If you didn't find meaning in an action, you simply wouldn't pursue it.

or

Actions are always done whether knowingly or not as expressions of mechanisms that evolved to enhance reproductive fitness. This is basic evolutionary biology. In other words, everything is motivated ultimately by the desire for sex.

We can play that game with almost anything.

So you've interpreted the entire world through the feeling of discontentment, and judged this to be an imperfection, then indicted God on it.

It perhaps required a little shoehorning, after all, the view requires every expression of gratitude to be an expression of discontentment on the basis that one would be "more content" expressing oneself therefore they must currently be discontent which is debatable.

In the end though, if you view the world through a color tinted lens, the entire world will be tinted in that color. The problem isn't with the world, it's with the view.

I have a great respect for Christian's defense mechanisms. If you are asking, is there anything I can say to convince you that the man you are madly in love with is a cheat and a liar... (to refer back to my analogy earlier) - then no, not really. Anything I say, you'll just tell me he's been misunderstood, or that he was like that before, but not with you, or that I'm just jealous of your love, or that you can't understand why I'm being so mean.

* God is obviously a made-up figure similar to Odin or Baal or Zeus. The Bible clearly shows that he began life as a tribal deity with a jealous love for his people.
* How could God possibly exist, anyway? How can an immaterial being exist in the real world?
* What evidence is there that anyone survives death? And how could a person survive death? What is a soul made of?
* Why did God create hell? How could a being of perfect love possibly create such a horrible torture chamber as described in the Bible and believed by Christians today and throughout history?
* People are really, really good at fooling their senses. God is just a grown-up version of an imaginary friend.

What do you think of those?

There is a lot of discussion and debate surrounding those questions and arguments. I think the OP was looking for something like a widely acknowledged unanswerable objection.

 

[ananda]

I don't think this would really qualify as some kind of logical defeater for Christianity. You're really only throwing your own personal interpretive gloss over existence.

I could equally say, and people have:

Actions are always done in pursuit of pleasure, if someone is discontent with something in their life, it simply means they find it less pleasurable.

This is just another way of saying the same thing I said.

or

Actions are always done to find meaning. If you didn't find meaning in an action, you simply wouldn't pursue it.

As I see it, I find meaning in action, because acting in meaninglessness ways would manifest discontentment, which then supports my original statement.

or

Actions are always done whether knowingly or not as expressions of mechanisms that evolved to enhance reproductive fitness. This is basic evolutionary biology. In other words, everything is motivated ultimately by the desire for sex.

As I see it, not everything is motivated ultimately by the desire for sex. Do I post here because I am motivated by a desire sex? No.

Even if it were the case, "desire" is the key word here, which is another way of saying we seek pleasure, or the cessation of discontentment, which supports my original statement.

We can play that game with almost anything.

So you've interpreted the entire world through the feeling of discontentment, and judged this to be an imperfection, then indicted God on it.

It perhaps required a little shoehorning, after all, the view requires every expression of gratitude to be an expression of discontentment on the basis that one would be "more content" expressing oneself therefore they must currently be discontent which is debatable.

In the end though, if you view the world through a color tinted lens, the entire world will be tinted in that color. The problem isn't with the world, it's with the view.

Your interpretive glosses were merely alternative ways of saying what I was saying, IMO.

There is a lot of discussion and debate surrounding those questions and arguments. I think the OP was looking for something like a widely acknowledged unanswerable objection.

I don't know if my objection is "widely acknowledged", but I have not heard a good rebuttal to it after presenting it to many knowledgeable Christians and other theists. The rebuttals I have heard usually goes like this: "God can do anything, or is not subject to the same rules regarding existence as we are", which wanders into the realm of imagination where anything is possible, and not grounded in experiential reality. If that is indeed the case, then the imaginative belief that god is the flying spaghetti monster would be equally valid.

 

[PhantomGaze]

This is just another way of saying the same thing I said.

Or maybe decreasing "discontentment" is just a poor way of saying what I said.

By your argument that I am saying the same thing, your entire indictment of God is based upon a semantic game wherein you prefer to refer to action as "decreasing discontentment" rather than Freud's "pursuit of pleasure", and one merely needs to choose different wording to answer the objection.

As I see it, I find meaning in action, because acting in meaninglessness ways would manifest discontentment, which then supports my original statement.

I could conversely argue that people find meaning in acting in ways that bring about contentment, so perhaps your view only goes to support Viktor Frankl's view which is the basis of logotherapy.

As I see it, not everything is motivated ultimately by the desire for sex. Do I post here because I am motivated by a desire sex? No.

Even if it were the case, "desire" is the key word here, which is another way of saying we seek pleasure, or the cessation of discontentment, which supports my original statement.

Actually, desire was the wrong word. It is more of an unconscious drive than a conscious desire. Evolutionary Psychology (rooted of course in Evolutionary Biology) is a field of study that interprets human choices as a result of the unconscious drive toward reproductive fitness.

Of course I could add some more.

Like Nietzsche's Will to Power. Everything is about ambition and the attempt to reach the highest possible position in life.

or

The idea that identity defines the choices that we make which is also held by some psychologists.

So bottom line, what is superior about viewing actions as motivated by avoiding discontentment as opposed to pursuing meaning, power, identity, reproductive fitness, etc? What reason is there to put on your particular lens?

Your interpretive glosses were merely alternative ways of saying what I was saying, IMO.

None of those words are synonyms of each other. Meaning is different from power which is different from contentment, and so on. One could interpret your perspective just as well through those perspectives as those could be interpreted through yours. Is there any reason that one should choose your perspective above the others?

I don't know if my objection is "widely acknowledged", but I have not heard a good rebuttal to it after presenting it to many knowledgeable Christians and other theists.

I've heard that from good and bad arguments though.

The rebuttals I have heard usually goes like this: "God can do anything, or is not subject to the same rules regarding existence as we are", which wanders into the realm of imagination where anything is possible, and not grounded in experiential reality. If that is indeed the case, then the imaginative belief that god is the flying spaghetti monster would be equally valid.

Well... Divine Command might make any ethical indictment of God suspect, but that's not a response I like to throw around.

In fact, I'd like to dig a little deeper perhaps into the fundamental disagreements a Christian and a Buddhist may have. What is it about discontentment that you believe would make God imperfect? You've argued discontentment is a sin right? I think a Christian ethical view would hold that it is more perfect, or greater and more righteous to be discontent with injustice than to be content with it. As such, even if your preceding argument was successful, that we have to interpret all action as a result of discontentment (and I don't think it is successful) I don't think discontentment is necessarily less perfect, just contextually dependent.

Would you be content with horrors like rape or the torture of children? Should you be?

 

[ananda]

So bottom line, what is superior about viewing actions as motivated by avoiding discontentment as opposed to pursuing meaning, power, identity, reproductive fitness, etc? What reason is there to put on your particular lens?

None of those words are synonyms of each other. Meaning is different from power which is different from contentment, and so on. One could interpret your perspective just as well through those perspectives as those could be interpreted through yours. Is there any reason that one should choose your perspective above the others?

All of those different perspectives you presented are merely different ways of saying the same thing in my eyes. We find satisfaction by engaging in activities which allows us to avoid or decrease dissatisfaction/discontentment, some by pursuing meaning, power, identity, reproductive fitness, etc.

What is it about discontentment that you believe would make God imperfect? You've argued discontentment is a sin right?

I don't believe in sin (transgressing a deity's commandments), so no, I don't recall arguing that discontentment is a "sin". I was putting forth the argument that a perfect God would be completely content, and would find no need to act at all. The need to act reflects an inner discontentment with an existing situation which prompts a response to reorder things in that situation in order to experience greater contentment; therefore, a God who acts must experience discontentment, and is thus imperfect.

I think a Christian ethical view would hold that it is more perfect, or greater and more righteous to be discontent with injustice than to be content with it. As such, even if your preceding argument was successful, that we have to interpret all action as a result of discontentment (and I don't think it is successful) I don't think discontentment is necessarily less perfect, just contextually dependent. Would you be content with horrors like rape or the torture of children? Should you be?

First: the root problem of any unskillful behavior is that the person who engages in such unskillful actions are expressing delusion in consciousness, mind, and/or body, in an delusional attempt to find satisfaction in his own way, or to attempt to quiet some kind of discontentment in himself.

Second: I would try to be compassionate towards both criminal and victim, because they are both truly victims, one a victim of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator a victim of his own delusions.

Finally, helping such victims through wisdom & by setting an example of contentment is the most powerful way of guiding them towards healing, and also to remain in our own state of contentment at the same time. (Experiencing agitation only introduces more unskillfulness into the world, and does little to nothing to truly change the root problem in the perpetrator, especially after the fact.) That is the ideal goal in Buddhism, and is fully accomplished only by the fully awakened ones.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

An objection to the Christian faith is a reason to believe that the Christian worldview is false.

Many will say that they don't believe in Christianity because there is no reason to believe in Christianity. But this is not a positive objection in the sense that I want to explore here. A real objection to Christianity might be something like the problem of evil. The problem of evil seeks to provide a reason to believe that the Christian worldview is false.

Are any objections to Christian faith successful?

Emotional objections based on life's experiences can often be successful. Even when a person has no doubt on an intellectual level, the heart, the seat of emotions may be so discouraged and downtrodden as to all but loose the ability to care. For the person experiencing apathy due to life's experiences, being right may not feel right or even matter. Is being right worth the daily heartache and grief from every direction? This sort of objection is the stuff of Screwtape Letters. Why do we ever knowingly and willingly disobey God? It's not because we have an immutable faith, it is for weakness of the "flesh", conflicting desires, and the emotions from experiences chipping away at trust. If we could trust in God infallibly with an immutable faith by the Spirit, we could perpetually rise above emotional objections from life's onslaught of fiery darts. But the Christian journey is not always like this, it is riddled with mountain and valley's and life can become quite dim in the valley below where the fog is dense and the vision is limited. Emotional struggles and impatience alone are enough to reveal what is in the heart when the attitudes of the heart are manifested in ways which contradict our faith. Many years ago I listened to the late Dr. Nash give a lecture on the problem of evil, and despite his somewhat arrogant attitude in other lectures, he had genuine sympathy for people experiencing the problem of evil, that is on an emotional level. I do not remember him giving a one-size fits all answer, and I think he had good reason. To quote the prophet Jeremiah; "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

 

[PhantomGaze]

Ananda, you haven't really given any arguments as to why 'discontentment' in the sense that you understand it is an imperfection. In the sense you seem to use it, I see discontentment as perfect or imperfect in a contextually dependent sense, and see little reason to think otherwise.

All of those different perspectives you presented are merely different ways of saying the same thing in my eyes. We find satisfaction by engaging in activities which allows us to avoid or decrease dissatisfaction/discontentment, some by pursuing meaning, power, identity, reproductive fitness, etc.

or, we pursue meaning by pursuing things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
or we unconsciously pursue reproductive fitness by things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
or we pursue the greatest possible achievements for ourselves by pursuing things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
or we pursue the greatest pleasure for ourselves by pursing the things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
etc.

Again you've got just one lens among a myriad. You might have thought that your view was unique in it's ability to 'explain everything' through it, but it is simply one lens among a thousand others. Even if you don't allow yourself to question this lens through which you've chosen to view the world, you can see no reason, or at least can't appear to articulate a reason why anyone should chose yours over all the other options out there.

I don't believe in sin (transgressing a deity's commandments), so no, I don't recall arguing that discontentment is a "sin". I was putting forth the argument that a perfect God would be completely content, and would find no need to act at all. The need to act reflects an inner discontentment with an existing situation which prompts a response to reorder things in that situation in order to experience greater contentment; therefore, a God who acts must experience discontentment, and is thus imperfect.

The underlying assumption you have there is that discontentment is an imperfection. But like I said, discontentment is contextually dependent. I would argue contentment with rape, murder, and torture would be a horrible imperfection so in an existing situation of rape, murder, and torture, a perfect God should be discontent, and opt to reorder things.

First: the root problem of any unskillful behavior is that the person who engages in such unskillful actions are expressing delusion in consciousness, mind, and/or body, in an delusional attempt to find satisfaction in his own way, or to attempt to quiet some kind of discontentment in himself.

Second: I would try to be compassionate towards both criminal and victim, because they are both truly victims, one a victim of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator a victim of his own delusions.

Finally, helping such victims through wisdom & by setting an example of contentment is the most powerful way of guiding them towards healing, and also to remain in our own state of contentment at the same time. (Experiencing agitation only introduces more unskillfulness into the world, and does little to nothing to truly change the root problem in the perpetrator, especially after the fact.) That is the ideal goal in Buddhism, and is accomplished only by the fully awakened ones.

If you're 'seeking to guide' even by literally refusing to intervene, and 'set an example', aren't you also being discontent? After all, why not just accept nature for what it is? To be philosophically consistent wouldn't you have to intentionally ignore the suffering of others? After all, you shouldn't be discontent with knowing someone else is suffering and you can prevent it right?

Also a thought, by any action at all, that is, even to make other human beings aware of your own existence aren't you by your argument not only practicing, but fully demonstrating discontentment?

And in the case where injustice would continue or even increase indefinitely without intervention, your argument is (and has to be) that God should continually allow not only suffering, but possibly the increase of suffering with no attempt to change it?

Finally, if every action means dissatisfaction, or discontentment, and discontentment is the enemy Aren't you essentially saying your own life is in essence your enemy?

 

[ananda]

Ananda, you haven't really given any arguments as to why 'discontentment' in the sense that you understand it is an imperfection. In the sense you seem to use it, I see discontentment as perfect or imperfect in a contextually dependent sense, and see little reason to think otherwise.

or, we pursue meaning by pursuing things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
or we unconsciously pursue reproductive fitness by things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
or we pursue the greatest possible achievements for ourselves by pursuing things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
or we pursue the greatest pleasure for ourselves by pursing the things that satisfy us/give us contentment.
etc.

Again you've got just one lens among a myriad. You might have thought that your view was unique in it's ability to 'explain everything' through it, but it is simply one lens among a thousand others. Even if you don't allow yourself to question this lens through which you've chosen to view the world, you can see no reason, or at least can't appear to articulate a reason why anyone should chose yours over all the other options out there.

Do you see how your phrase "give us contentment" (as you put it) is merely another way of saying "avoiding discontentment" (as I put it)? Such as how "increasing heat" is another way of saying "decreasing cold"?

Discontentment is an imperfection in my eyes, because we are constantly driven to remedy it through various means, and suffering is involved while it is not remedied.

The underlying assumption you have there is that discontentment is an imperfection. But like I said, discontentment is contextually dependent. I would argue contentment with rape, murder, and torture would be a horrible imperfection so in an existing situation of rape, murder, and torture, a perfect God should be discontent, and opt to reorder things.

Let's go back one step further. I would argue that a perfect God that is fully content and lacked nothing within itself would find no need to create, much less create imperfect things & beings who in turn perpetuate imperfections in creation.

If you're 'seeking to guide' even by literally refusing to intervene, and 'set an example', aren't you also being discontent? After all, why not just accept nature for what it is? To be philosophically consistent wouldn't you have to intentionally ignore the suffering of others? After all, you shouldn't be discontent with knowing someone else is suffering and you can prevent it right?

Also a thought, by any action at all, that is, even to make other human beings aware of your own existence aren't you by your argument not only practicing, but fully demonstrating discontentment?

And in the case where injustice would continue or even increase indefinitely without intervention, your argument is (and has to be) that God should continually allow not only suffering, but possibly the increase of suffering with no attempt to change it?

Finally, if every action means dissatisfaction, or discontentment, and discontentment is the enemy Aren't you essentially saying your own life is in essence your enemy?

The only way for unskilled individuals to fully and thoroughly change ourselves for the better is if and when we recognize our own delusions and replace it with wisdom, under our own insight and volition, without external force.

The Buddha and other Arahants are the prime exemplars in Buddhist psycho-cosmology. Experiencing the final goal - perfect contentment - in parinibbana, they neither act nor intervene, and are neither alive nor dead as we understand it (from a physical standpoint).

When less skilled individuals like myself understand that they were individuals who have achieved the highest goal in life of perfect contentment, and I realize in myself that literally all my actions in life are done to approach that condition, I then find compelling reason to take after their example, and work to change myself for the better. That is how they effect skillful changes in me in the deepest, most profound way, even though they do not act directly in my world.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Do you see how your phrase "give us contentment" (as you put it) is merely another way of saying "avoiding discontentment" (as I put it)? Such as how "increasing heat" is another way of saying "decreasing cold"?

But that was exactly MY point. You've been arguing that pursuing meaning, power, pleasure, etc. was just a way of pursuing less discontentment. I've been trying to help you see that pursuing less discontentment is just a way of pursuing any of those other ends depending upon which one you wanted to shoehorn into the argument.

The Buddha teaches about pursuing less discontentment.

Nietzsche teaches about pursuing the will to power.

Freud teaches about pursuing pleasure.

Frankl teaches about pursuing meaning.

etc.

The Buddha's version is the only one in which you seem to find a capability to indict God with imperfection, yet you haven't demonstrated why his teachings (and hence the indictment) is a superior perspective than the ones which lack the indictment. If these are really all saying the same thing, then you should be able to make the same indictment from any one of these perspectives.

Discontentment is an imperfection in my eyes, because we are constantly driven to remedy it through various means, and suffering is involved while it is not remedied.

So in other words, under Buddhism, one would view willingness to suffer for the benefit of others to be an imperfection?

Let's go back one step further. I would argue that a perfect God that is fully content and lacked nothing within itself would find no need to create, much less create imperfect things & beings who in turn perpetuate imperfections in creation.

A desire is not necessarily a need. I may desire a million dollars, or to be a movie star, or to have an apple orchard, but I can be perfectly fine without any of them.

As far as creation, according to pretty basic Christian theology, it's being perfected through a process.

The only way for unskilled individuals to fully and thoroughly change ourselves for the better is if and when we recognize our own delusions and replace it with wisdom, under our own insight and volition, without external force.

So if there were an individual who had a kind of anomaly in their brain that caused them to experience horror incessantly, and one operation, or a short interval with a regimen of drugs could fix it entirely, and permanently, you would advise them not to do it?

The Buddha and other Arahants are the prime exemplars in Buddhist psycho-cosmology. Experiencing the final goal - perfect contentment - in parinibbana, they neither act nor intervene, and are neither alive nor dead as we understand it (from a physical standpoint).

I've had an ego death man. It doesn't really live up to the hype.

When less skilled individuals like myself understand that they were individuals who have achieved the highest goal in life of perfect contentment, and I realize in myself that literally all my actions in life are done to approach that condition, I then find compelling reason to take after their example, and work to change myself for the better. That is how they effect skillful changes in me in the deepest, most profound way, even though they do not act directly in my world.

Only of course because they opted to act within the world to aide others to understand, and therefore achieve the goals that they have set up as enlightenment. According to the philosophy I am hearing, they were inconsistent in that they must have been discontent as they opted to act rather than let people endure their suffering, and not teach them.

 

[ananda]

But that was exactly MY point. You've been arguing that pursuing meaning, power, pleasure, etc. was just a way of pursuing less discontentment. I've been trying to help you see that pursuing less discontentment is just a way of pursuing any of those other ends depending upon which one you wanted to shoehorn into the argument.

The Buddha teaches about pursuing less discontentment.

Nietzsche teaches about pursuing the will to power.

Freud teaches about pursuing pleasure.

Frankl teaches about pursuing meaning.

etc.

"Pursuing meaning", for example, is merely one manifestation of "pursuing satisfaction/pursuing less discontentment". I see the latter as the root; the examples you gave are just more external manifestations of the innermost drive to seek satisfaction, which is why I place priority on the latter.

The Buddha's version is the only one in which you seem to find a capability to indict God with imperfection, yet you haven't demonstrated why his teachings (and hence the indictment) is a superior perspective than the ones which lack the indictment. If these are really all saying the same thing, then you should be able to make the same indictment from any one of these perspectives

The indictment can be seen from all of those perspectives. "Pursuit" of anything is a demonstration of a lack of "X", whatever "X" might be, and to lack something means something is not perfected.

So in other words, under Buddhism, one would view willingness to suffer for the benefit of others to be an imperfection?

Yes (in the highest sense). It does not ultimately help one's self (the self suffers), and it does not benefit others to the highest degree. (This is with the understanding that quality of actions is seen in a continuum of degrees)

So if there were an individual who had a kind of anomaly in their brain that caused them to experience horror incessantly, and one operation, or a short interval with a regimen of drugs could fix it entirely, and permanently, you would advise them not to do it?

If they (their higher consciousness) recognize a flaw in their lower mind, and they accept the wisdom of changing or fixing that flaw, that fully aligns with what I wrote.

I've had an ego death man. It doesn't really live up to the hype.

I don't recall writing anything about ego death.

Only of course because they opted to act within the world to aide others to understand, and therefore achieve the goals that they have set up as enlightenment. According to the philosophy I am hearing, they were inconsistent in that they must have been discontent as they opted to act rather than let people endure their suffering, and not teach them.

They continued to act as long as they possessed remaining kamma after achieving full awakening, called "nibbana with residue remaining". After the final exhaustion of all remaining kamma, they achieved parinibbana, a state from which they do not act at all.

 

[bhsmte]

That they successfully undermine Christian faith.

With all the religions in the world, you will hqve arguments against all of them.

They all cant be right, but they all seem to survive criticism, because people still believe them

Bottom line, no argument, no matter how powerful, will undermine everyone's faith, if they have a strong enough psychological need, to protect it at all costs.

 

[PhantomGaze]

"Pursuing meaning", for example, is merely one manifestation of "pursuing satisfaction/pursuing less discontentment". I see the latter as the root; the examples you gave are just more external manifestations of the innermost drive to seek satisfaction, which is why I place priority on the latter.

But what evidence do you have that 'less discontentment' is the innermost drive as opposed to any of the others?

For example, Evolutionary Psychologists might argue reproductive fitness is the "innermost drive" because it controls your actions even though you're not aware of it. That which you think brings you satisfaction is really only mechanisms evolved to enhance reproductive fitness, so your contentment or discontentment is merely the illusion that leads you to the goal of reproductive fitness. They would cite what they contend to be massive empirical evidence supporting these conclusions.

Psychologists who favor logotherapy might argue that meaning is a deeper drive since it is more connected to personal identity and strengthens the ego as opposed to passive avoidance.

In fact avoiding discontentment probably seems the most vague out of everything mentioned, and appears to require a lot of post hoc contemplation to rationalize.

The indictment can be seen from all of those perspectives. "Pursuit" of anything is a demonstration of a lack of "X", whatever "X" might be, and to lack something means something is not perfected.

A perfect square lacks curves. It is therefore not a perfect square?

Obviously false. A perfect square has no curves by definition.

It is not a lack not to possess a property that you do not have by definition.

Furthermore, pursuit of meaning doesn't mean that someone lacks meaning. Quite the contrary in fact, it means that they have it.

It appears your objection failed.

In any case let me press a point that I think you've overlooked be it intentionally or not.

If I have a desire to pursue a particular life goal, and can be perfectly content without it, and in fact grateful for all that I have been given, but pursue it anyway for the sheer joy and challenge, how at any step along that process am I discontent?

Furthermore, you argued previously that a perfect God wouldn't create imperfect beings then allow creation to just run away on its own. But aside from the actual creating, under your particular philosophy, isn't that exactly what a perfect being would do?

Yes (in the highest sense). It does not ultimately help one's self (the self suffers), and it does not benefit others to the highest degree. (This is with the understanding that quality of actions is seen in a continuum of degrees)

But there is no degree to which acting in the world to alleviate the suffering of others is superior to avoiding discontentment. That sounds pretty messed up.

This rationalization of the "higher sense" is reminiscent of Nietzsche's vagueness when he speaks of the "overman". You don't speak of the purer sense, or the happier sense, or the more loving sense. You've substituted a physical metaphor for a moral reality.

To me, that seems like you're biting the bullet on an inconsistent, or perhaps somewhat appalling ethical philosophy.

They continued to act as long as they possessed remaining kamma after achieving full awakening, called "nibbana with residue remaining". After the final exhaustion of all remaining kamma, they achieved parinibbana, a state from which they do not act at all.

So this is a kind of spiritual in-between state where they're kind of half alive and have purged themselves of all desire (necessary to avoid discontentment)? If that's a somewhat correct understanding, can you explain why that is preferable to regular living? It sounds rather empty to me.

 

[ananda]

But what evidence do you have that 'less discontentment' is the innermost drive as opposed to any of the others?

I have no evidence except my own phenomenological experience, which I fully recognize is only proof for me.

If I have a desire to pursue a particular life goal, and can be perfectly content without it, and in fact grateful for all that I have been given, but pursue it anyway for the sheer joy and challenge, how at any step along that process am I discontent?

Your example supports my point in my mind, because - at least for me - when I am pursuing a goal for the sheer joy and challenge it can provide, it produces more satisfaction for me than if I did not pursue that goal. Or, in other words, to not pursue the goal would be more dissatisfying or less satisfying than if I did pursue the goal.

Furthermore, you argued previously that a perfect God wouldn't create imperfect beings then allow creation to just run away on its own. But aside from the actual creating, under your particular philosophy, isn't that exactly what a perfect being would do?

Yes, which makes the whole idea of a creating and acting God illogical.

But there is no degree to which acting in the world to alleviate the suffering of others is superior to avoiding discontentment. That sounds pretty messed up

I disagree. True, deep, lasting changes in individuals towards greater skillfulness requires us to completely experience the effects of our unskillful actions, because the process produces full understanding & wisdom from fully experiencing & understanding the connection between the effects that come from our actions. For another individual to interrupt that experience (e.g. by alleviating some or all the suffering, or otherwise altering the effects, that comes from our mistakes) would be to deprive us of some or all of that enlightening experience.

So this is a kind of spiritual in-between state where they're kind of half alive and have purged themselves of all desire (necessary to avoid discontentment)? If that's a somewhat correct understanding, can you explain why that is preferable to regular living? It sounds rather empty to me.

They are said to remain in a state of complete peace, contentment, and bliss. "Regular living" involves suffering.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

An objection to the Christian faith is a reason to believe that the Christian worldview is false.

Many will say that they don't believe in Christianity because there is no reason to believe in Christianity. But this is not a positive objection in the sense that I want to explore here. A real objection to Christianity might be something like the problem of evil. The problem of evil seeks to provide a reason to believe that the Christian worldview is false.

Are any objections to Christian faith successful?

I think that the problem of evil is a plausible candidate for a successful objection to the Christian faith, but there are also other arguments, such as divine hiddenness (see Drange's formulation here, for example). These arguably apply more broadly and not just to the Christian view. For arguments that specifically target the Christian view I think you'd have to consider arguments that focus on the coherence of Christian theology specifically. Such arguments could be made by both non-Christian theists and atheists.

 

[PhantomGaze]

I have no evidence except my own phenomenological experience, which I fully recognize is only proof for me.

I can respect that.

Your example supports my point in my mind, because - at least for me - when I am pursuing a goal for the sheer joy and challenge it can provide, it produces more satisfaction for me than if I did not pursue that goal. Or, in other words, to not pursue the goal would be more dissatisfying or less satisfying than if I did pursue the goal.

This argument bugs me a bit, and this is why. If we imagine one's contentment has a value of "x", then when any given person has x, and pursues and achieves a greater good or higher level of satisfaction than would otherwise be, let's call that "x+1", and if their satisfaction drops, and they become less content, let's call that "x-1". Now say a person has contentment, x, and they without any negative emotions at all imagine and opt to pursue some outcome x+1. At no point have they regressed to x-1. The argument I see being made in the above quote is that yes, x + 1 is positive pursuit of contentment, but that it could also be interpreted x-(-1), so one is avoiding discontentment. But there is no point in that equation where we actually have the value x-1. This appears to work because one who pursues greater contentment does happen to be (de facto) avoiding discontentment, but the problem with the argument is the motivations are entirely different. The avoidance of discontentment is an intrinsic outcome of joy and pleasure, not a move to action brought about by discontented feelings.

Yes, which makes the whole idea of a creating and acting God illogical.

I know we went through this before, and I mentioned God is perfecting his creations, but my point in this case was that laying aside the issue of creation for a moment, you sounded willing to point a finger at God for not perfecting it, yet, you yourself previously argued that inaction is the superior ethical act in spite of who continues to suffer. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I disagree. True, deep, lasting changes in individuals towards greater skillfulness requires us to completely experience the effects of our unskillful actions, because the process produces full understanding & wisdom from fully experiencing & understanding the connection between the effects that come from our actions. For another individual to interrupt that experience (e.g. by alleviating some or all the suffering, or otherwise altering the effects, that comes from our mistakes) would be to deprive us of some or all of that enlightening experience.

I can definitely see value in learning, and/or growing in character through suffering, though I cannot appreciate the position that the ultimate goal of life is merely to learn to accept and yield on everything. Nor could I easily rationalize how every preventable case of horrific suffering or injustice could be warranted to teach such a thing. I find a soul-making theodicy rational, but this does not strike me as quite the same.

They are said to remain in a state of complete peace, contentment, and bliss. "Regular living" involves suffering.

That sounds pleasant. Presumably they're still aware yes? In either case, that sounds a little escapist. I personally find the Christian hope to be more satisfying to my imagination.

Honestly, I think I can see why the argument you made might have been convincing to you, but I can also see why it is not considered something like a broadly acknowledged defeater for Christianity.

 

[ananda]

This appears to work because one who pursues greater contentment does happen to be (de facto) avoiding discontentment, but the problem with the argument is the motivations are entirely different. The avoidance of discontentment is an intrinsic outcome of joy and pleasure, not a move to action brought about by discontented feelings.

In my experience, once I envision a greater joy in my mind, almost simultaneously, the idea of remaining in my existing situation would be a discontentment. That's where the "avoiding discontentment" comes into play in the pursuit of greater contentment.

I know we went through this before, and I mentioned God is perfecting his creations, but my point in this case was that laying aside the issue of creation for a moment, you sounded willing to point a finger at God for not perfecting it, yet, you yourself previously argued that inaction is the superior ethical act in spite of who continues to suffer. That strikes me as inconsistent.

It's only inconsistent in the illogical case you presented regarding a supposed first mover ("God").

I can definitely see value in learning, and/or growing in character through suffering, though I cannot appreciate the position that the ultimate goal of life is merely to learn to accept and yield on everything. Nor could I easily rationalize how every preventable case of horrific suffering or injustice could be warranted to teach such a thing. I find a soul-making theodicy rational, but this does not strike me as quite the same.

I don't see the ultimate goal in life as to accept and yield. It is to achieve nibbana.

That sounds pleasant. Presumably they're still aware yes? In either case, that sounds a little escapist. I personally find the Christian hope to be more satisfying to my imagination. Honestly, I think I can see why the argument you made might have been convincing to you, but I can also see why it is not considered something like a broadly acknowledged defeater for Christianity.

I don't know if they're still aware of not. We're all trying to "escape" discontentment and suffering, they've just achieved it completely.

I am perplexed by the Christian hope - an eternity of life, perhaps to explore, but for what end? That actually sounds like suffering to me.

 

[PhantomGaze]

In my experience, once I envision a greater joy in my mind, almost simultaneously, the idea of remaining in my existing situation would be a discontentment. That's where the "avoiding discontentment" comes into play in the pursuit of greater contentment.

Well I can't argue with you experience, and that puts us at an impasse, but I would charge that your experience is not something you're limited or doomed to. Often the Bible suggests that Christians keep from covetousness, and approach God with thanksgiving. This, and living a life giving glory to God are not mutually exclusive, desiring good, and contentment are not mutually exclusive in my personal experience.

I don't see the ultimate goal in life as to accept and yield. It is to achieve nibbana.

Well penultimate then. As I understand it, you've said you're achieving nibbana by purging discontent which to you means the will to act in the world to change situations.

I don't know if they're still aware of not. We're all trying to "escape" discontentment and suffering, they've just achieved it completely.

Isn't that kind of like wanting to die?

I am perplexed by the Christian hope - an eternity of life, perhaps to explore, but for what end? That actually sounds like suffering to me.

Have you never had a moment, where you were in love, or experienced such joy, or peace that you wished that moment would last forever?

God created us to love, and to express himself to us, and we can connect with him. Exploration is only one way of appreciating God's self-expression. But there is... so much to be grateful for. Keep in mind, the first 3 fruits of the spirit that God seeks to develop in us are Love, Joy, and Peace. You sound like you've seen a lot of pain in your life. I have too. There is another way than wishing to purge yourself of life.

In any case, I've been trying to get out of debating so this will be my last response. If you or anyone else wants to contact me, I'll respond to pms or something, but other than that, may God bless you.