Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Received]

...so we can start a discussion.

Because I don't like thinking up threads on my own.

 

[quatona]

If you don´t like thinking up threads - why don´t you go to the grocery store and buy some threads?
(Or, more philosophically: Are you really as convinced as your arguments suggest that words are an apt means to create your reality?
Additional question: If so, is that due to being a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist?)

 

[quatona]

Ok, serious question now:
What do you perceive to be the advantages of holding the "Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian´s" view over not holding it, and do you think holding it would be as advantageous for me in the same or a similar way as it you perceive it to be to you?

 

[Paradoxum]

Why do you believe in God? Why should others?

Do you think I'm going to heaven? (Universalist)

 

[Received]

If you don´t like thinking up threads - why don´t you go to the grocery store and buy some threads?
(Or, more philosophically: Are you really as convinced as your arguments suggest that words are an apt means to create your reality?
Additional question: If so, is that due to being a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist?)

This guy!

 

[Received]

Ok, serious question now:
What do you perceive to be the advantages of holding the "Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian´s" view over not holding it, and do you think holding it would be as advantageous for me in the same or a similar way as it you perceive it to be to you?

Advantages is a neat way of asking it. That presupposes a standard, which I take to be happiness, which I think is tied up with truth. The advantage of ecumenical is that it is inclusivistic but not pluralistic; it accepts different expressions of the good, but they're hierarchical rather than equal, which I think fits with the exclusivity of truth claims. Existentialist in that it's a philosophical position which values freedom, and looks honestly at the hard emotions (despair, anxiety) and brute facts like man's "thrownness" (Heidegger) and condemnation to freedom (Sartre), but without being pessimistic; sort of like how a good therapy session means going into dark territory to process and reframe things in a better way. Universalist in that, simply, this seems to fit very easily any conception of God as a loving being, or "being" love; a good number of moderate or liberal Christians whom I admire think that God's love doesn't mean that human freedom will "come around" to being saved, but I don't think that's the case.

Christian because I think theism has validity in terms of a few philosophical arguments for God that aren't without controversy: e.g., all things that exist have a cause, you can't have an infinite regress of causes, therefore there is a finite point in time in the past when the universe began, which pragmatically makes room for a creator, the laws as constants in the universe. But added to all this is the aesthetic and more immediate and intuitive sense that it makes more sense -- is easier to believe -- that God exists than that he doesn't. On a more complicated level there clearly are problems of God's existence, especially the problem of evil, which really can't be explained away by argument, and I think it's even inhumane to try and explain away the suffering of human beings (and animals) in some abstract fashion; by so doing you minimize the sacredness and terror of their suffering. But on top of it all, I guess, you could say that, given that God can't be proven or disproven with anything close to certainty, I believe in God because I'm optimistic about the universe, or an optimist to an extra degree; this isn't at all to say that atheists can't be optimists, just that I take it a step further. Epistemically, I don't think it's possible to just tout science as some sort of panacea for everything, or reason, or whatever; all of these have inherent epistemic holes big enough to crash down the moment you try and ask about their roots, leading ultimately, if you were to use reasoning or even logic consistently enough, to a problem of absolute skepticism of the Cartesian type without the cogito copout.

Christian because I'm fascinated by logos Christology and the religious epistemology espoused by Kierkegaard: Christ as the logos, which some theologians and philosophers interpret as reason or the "holding together" of the cosmos (either or both), and which I interpret more concretely as the heartbeat of conscience -- that which by following a person becomes what he or she is, far beyond the constraints of morality. I'm not terribly interested in the historical reliability of biblical texts, although I think there's some support (flimsily enough) there to sway a completely neutral and willing mind. And, maybe most importantly, I'm a monotheist at heart, given that I believe in free will and don't accept pantheism -- maybe something more like panentheism.

 

[Received]

Why do you believe in God? Why should others?

Do you think I'm going to heaven? (Universalist)

I've tried to answer the first above. I think others should believe in God because it at the very least isn't contradictory with truth, and has the capacity to make you happy -- or more consistently happy.

I do think you're going to heaven, except I don't really believe in heaven as a place in the sky; the word is better understood as "heavens" plural, referring to the domain of God, which we otherwise consider empty space. This opens up a cool quantum mechanics relation to the omnipresence of God which I don't think I'd even be capable of going into. But the "Kingdom of God" refers to that state of mind and sphere of action where God's will is yielded to. So what then after death? That's the area of a regenerated earth. We need bodies in order to exist, although biblically there is the possibility for some type of nonphysical existence, but I don't think it's like a ghost hovering about, but more likely something like a water drop becoming one with an ocean for a while -- obviously something we're not able to understand -- followed by resurrection and the recreation of our bodies into a "spiritual body". We'll all be raised again, and we'll all be judged for our lives on earth, but I have no idea what this judgment will be like, and a part of me jives with C.S. Lewis in thinking that a disarming simplicity might be the answer, like our judgment is simply seeing God and thinking for ourselves how we really stand.

 

[Paradoxum]

I've tried to answer the first above.

Too long.

I think others should believe in God because it at the very least isn't contradictory with truth, and has the capacity to make you happy -- or more consistently happy.

I would say those are reasons to believe. They don't make me think a God probably exists.

I don't think I feel any less happy than when I was a Christian.

I do think you're going to heaven, except I don't really believe in heaven as a place in the sky; the word is better understood as "heavens" plural, referring to the domain of God, which we otherwise consider empty space. This opens up a cool quantum mechanics relation to the omnipresence of God which I don't think I'd even be capable of going into. But the "Kingdom of God" refers to that state of mind and sphere of action where God's will is yielded to. So what then after death? That's the area of a regenerated earth. We need bodies in order to exist, although biblically there is the possibility for some type of nonphysical existence, but I don't think it's like a ghost hovering about, but more likely something like a water drop becoming one with an ocean for a while -- obviously something we're not able to understand -- followed by resurrection and the recreation of our bodies into a "spiritual body". We'll all be raised again, and we'll all be judged for our lives on earth, but I have no idea what this judgment will be like, and a part of me jives with C.S. Lewis in thinking that a disarming simplicity might be the answer, like our judgment is simply seeing God and thinking for ourselves how we really stand.

So you think I could be resurrected in a nice place?

 

[Received]

I would say those are reasons to believe. They don't make me think a God probably exists.

I don't think I feel any less happy than when I was a Christian.

What I'm interested in here is how you came to conclude that a God probably doesn't.

So you think I could be resurrected in a nice place?

Sure, why not?

 

[Paradoxum]

What I'm interested in here is how you came to conclude that a God probably doesn't.

I don't know how improbable it is, but I see no reason to believe in God.

But if I were to give arguments to think God might be unlikely, I could. It depends on the God you believe in though.

I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about a timeless/spaceless mind. I suppose you could say it is mind-like because it acts on values, but where do the values come from?

I don't see any reason to think there's any reliable communication between religious people and God. They either slowly develop morals like everyone, or are morally backwards. Of course there are some liberal Christians, but there are liberal atheists too. Why don't people, who can talk to an omniscient being, consistently show moral and non-moral knowledge way beyond anyone else? And why doesn't God tell them how to convince others?

Also, where is this God? Can he not show himself in a clear way, or does he not care to? Where is he when people suffer and die? Is he limited or uncaring?

If I'm wrong, I want to know. I don't want to hurt people by being immoral, and it would be nice to know the truth. As I lost faith I cried many times, begging God to give me faith. Silence.

I'm not saying these points prove there is no God (I doubt you could prove it if it were true), I'm just saying that's why I'm that way inclined.

What do you think of the above?

Sure, why not?

Just asking.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Advantages is a neat way of asking it. That presupposes a standard, which I take to be happiness, which I think is tied up with truth. The advantage of ecumenical is that it is inclusivistic but not pluralistic; it accepts different expressions of the good, but they're hierarchical rather than equal, which I think fits with the exclusivity of truth claims. Existentialist in that it's a philosophical position which values freedom, and looks honestly at the hard emotions (despair, anxiety) and brute facts like man's "thrownness" (Heidegger) and condemnation to freedom (Sartre), but without being pessimistic; sort of like how a good therapy session means going into dark territory to process and reframe things in a better way. Universalist in that, simply, this seems to fit very easily any conception of God as a loving being, or "being" love; a good number of moderate or liberal Christians whom I admire think that God's love doesn't mean that human freedom will "come around" to being saved, but I don't think that's the case.

Christian because I think theism has validity in terms of a few philosophical arguments for God that aren't without controversy: e.g., all things that exist have a cause, you can't have an infinite regress of causes, therefore there is a finite point in time in the past when the universe began, which pragmatically makes room for a creator, the laws as constants in the universe. But added to all this is the aesthetic and more immediate and intuitive sense that it makes more sense -- is easier to believe -- that God exists than that he doesn't. On a more complicated level there clearly are problems of God's existence, especially the problem of evil, which really can't be explained away by argument, and I think it's even inhumane to try and explain away the suffering of human beings (and animals) in some abstract fashion; by so doing you minimize the sacredness and terror of their suffering. But on top of it all, I guess, you could say that, given that God can't be proven or disproven with anything close to certainty, I believe in God because I'm optimistic about the universe, or an optimist to an extra degree; this isn't at all to say that atheists can't be optimists, just that I take it a step further. Epistemically, I don't think it's possible to just tout science as some sort of panacea for everything, or reason, or whatever; all of these have inherent epistemic holes big enough to crash down the moment you try and ask about their roots, leading ultimately, if you were to use reasoning or even logic consistently enough, to a problem of absolute skepticism of the Cartesian type without the cogito copout.

Christian because I'm fascinated by logos Christology and the religious epistemology espoused by Kierkegaard: Christ as the logos, which some theologians and philosophers interpret as reason or the "holding together" of the cosmos (either or both), and which I interpret more concretely as the heartbeat of conscience -- that which by following a person becomes what he or she is, far beyond the constraints of morality. I'm not terribly interested in the historical reliability of biblical texts, although I think there's some support (flimsily enough) there to sway a completely neutral and willing mind. And, maybe most importantly, I'm a monotheist at heart, given that I believe in free will and don't accept pantheism -- maybe something more like panentheism.

I like all of this. I just don't see the point in having to be "Christian."

I'm not rebelling against God. I just think he wouldn't really give a care what religion or belief I follow as long as I follow the basics, eg. Don't kill, steal, rape. You know... Things people know are wrong.

Aside from that, it seems like it's pretty much up to me how I live my life. When you consider how many different lives are being lived right now, you realize it makes no difference which flavor you choose. Just don't make others have to have the same.

 

[Received]

I like all of this. I just don't see the point in having to be "Christian."

I'm not rebelling against God. I just think he wouldn't really give a care what religion or belief I follow as long as I follow the basics, eg. Don't kill, steal, rape. You know... Things people know are wrong.

Aside from that, it seems like it's pretty much up to me how I live my life. When you consider how many different lives are being lived right now, you realize it makes no difference which flavor you choose. Just don't make others have to have the same.

If you had two children, one of which acts rightly but doesn't believe the truth, and the other which believes the truth but doesn't act rightly, I think it's obvious that you'd consider the right acting child better off. But would you just be content to let this child not have the truth, seeing things as they are, which would give him plenty more life rafts when things are hard and more reasons for celebration when they aren't?

I share your streak because I'm an inclusivist bordering on a pluralist. But I'm just not content with not seeking out each angle and seeing how it jives with my intuitive sense of how things should be according to my optimism and other philosophical presuppositions.

 

[Received]

I don't know how improbable it is, but I see no reason to believe in God.

But I think it's telling when you said, "they don't make me think that a God probably exists." Why the "probably" here? I think the question of God, rationally considered, is purely equally for the possbility that he doesn't exist as that he does. This knocks out a need for probability. The extra step is whether you trust things like your optimism or your intuition and make the slight swerve in the direction of accepting him. Note that you can't do this when there are still philosophical problems that linger, and I wouldn't expect anything less in myself.

But if I were to give arguments to think God might be unlikely, I could. It depends on the God you believe in though.

I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about a timeless/spaceless mind. I suppose you could say it is mind-like because it acts on values, but where do the values come from?

Ultimately I don't think it's meaningful to ask "which God" someone believes in. Better to ask which lens you use to see the one Reality or God or whatever. And not all lenses are created pragmatically, ethically, and ontologically equal.

As for the timeless/spaceless mind, I can only speak in metaphor: God is like an infinite set of empty space that hides "behind" the universe, "beyond" the limits of the universe as it's expanding. As for values, they would stop with the creator, wouldn't they? If you don't think so, you're not really at a creator, given that there's something beyond the creator which is in a sense a higher creator.

I don't see any reason to think there's any reliable communication between religious people and God. They either slowly develop morals like everyone, or are morally backwards. Of course there are some liberal Christians, but there are liberal atheists too. Why don't people, who can talk to an omniscient being, consistently show moral and non-moral knowledge way beyond anyone else? And why doesn't God tell them how to convince others?

I think if you get beyond all the Kantian and utilitarian gobbledygook of the past few hundred years and return to where ethics should be with Aristotle and virtue ethics, your answer becomes much easier to see: the person of Jesus Christ, who is the "prototype" for human beings to follow. The beauty of virtue ethics is that all you need is a psychological and ethical (and in this case religious) example for the person you should become, then it's a matter of imitating him and using him as the ideal for what the good looks like if you were to follow it.

Also, where is this God? Can he not show himself in a clear way, or does he not care to? Where is he when people suffer and die? Is he limited or uncaring?

That's the big question. We know logically that it's perfectly consistent for a father figure to be "absent" from a child's life when it's growing, or else it ends up ruining its autonomy or spoiling it morally. The same can be said of God, but as said above, I shy away from explaining this all away with regard to suffering.

If I'm wrong, I want to know. I don't want to hurt people by being immoral, and it would be nice to know the truth. As I lost faith I cried many times, begging God to give me faith. Silence.

I'm not saying these points prove there is no God (I doubt you could prove it if it were true), I'm just saying that's why I'm that way inclined.

I've come close to a deconversion experience, but I'm still speculating a bit here: my guess is your deconversion was difficult, and the emotional negativity involved with this difficulty painted God -- unintentionally -- a bit along with your deconversion. This makes it hard on a deep and mostly unconscious level to taking a full initiative to seek him out. I don't blame you, and I'm sure he doesn't either: deconversion experiences are very painful for most people. This isn't to minimize the reasons for your deconversion at all.

Simple question: if like Pascal said (and he was a brilliant psychologist, a behaviorist way before behaviorism, but not stupid like behaviorists can be) you were to go through the motions and activities involved in religious life (go to church, sacraments, fellowship, etc.) and this were to gradually make it easier for you to believe, would you? Why or why not?

 

[Paradoxum]

But I think it's telling when you said, "they don't make me think that a God probably exists." Why the "probably" here?

Well I don't think we can definitely know anything.

I think the question of God, rationally considered, is purely equally for the possbility that he doesn't exist as that he does. This knocks out a need for probability.

What do you mean here?

The extra step is whether you trust things like your optimism or your intuition and make the slight swerve in the direction of accepting him. Note that you can't do this when there are still philosophical problems that linger, and I wouldn't expect anything less in myself.

I don't think the God or heaven being nice is a good reason to believe in them. I'm an optimistic person, but I don't think that would sway me towards belief now. I can about not believing false things too.

Ultimately I don't think it's meaningful to ask "which God" someone believes in. Better to ask which lens you use to see the one Reality or God or whatever. And not all lenses are created pragmatically, ethically, and ontologically equal.

Well people don't have different ideas about what God is like.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean what lens we use to see Reality. Do you mean, eg: trying to understand things by evidence and reason?

As for the timeless/spaceless mind, I can only speak in metaphor: God is like an infinite set of empty space that hides "behind" the universe, "beyond" the limits of the universe as it's expanding.

Talking in metaphors doesn't help me though... it hides what we are talking about behind mysterious words. What is this 'God' you believe in, in literal terms? I don't say that in a bad way.

Your explanation of God makes it sound like a large mindless expanse of space beyond the universe. ie: it sounds like a multiverse, not a God.

As for values, they would stop with the creator, wouldn't they? If you don't think so, you're not really at a creator, given that there's something beyond the creator which is in a sense a higher creator.

But my question is, if the creator has values, why does it have values, and why those values?

We can explain why animals have values (at least to some extent), but it makes sense to me that the ultimate reality would just be a mindless physics. We have needs so we value things... but the basic reality has no needs, so wouldn't evolve values.

That's my opinion anyway.

I think if you get beyond all the Kantian and utilitarian gobbledygook of the past few hundred years and return to where ethics should be with Aristotle and virtue ethics, your answer becomes much easier to see: the person of Jesus Christ, who is the "prototype" for human beings to follow. The beauty of virtue ethics is that all you need is a psychological and ethical (and in this case religious) example for the person you should become, then it's a matter of imitating him and using him as the ideal for what the good looks like if you were to follow it.

I don't agree with virtue ethics. I suppose my ethics is ultimately consequentialist (based on equal respect for others).

I don't see why we should follow anyone unless they are moral. But to know if they are moral, we already need moral judgement apart from them.

That's the big question. We know logically that it's perfectly consistent for a father figure to be "absent" from a child's life when it's growing, or else it ends up ruining its autonomy or spoiling it morally. The same can be said of God, but as said above, I shy away from explaining this all away with regard to suffering.

I don't see it as consistent for a father figure to be absent and caring. A child can be autonomous and moral while their father is around. If anything, they would be more immoral without a good upbringing.

I've come close to a deconversion experience, but I'm still speculating a bit here: my guess is your deconversion was difficult, and the emotional negativity involved with this difficulty painted God -- unintentionally -- a bit along with your deconversion. This makes it hard on a deep and mostly unconscious level to taking a full initiative to seek him out. I don't blame you, and I'm sure he doesn't either: deconversion experiences are very painful for most people. This isn't to minimize the reasons for your deconversion at all.

You're saying you think my deconversion being hard means I think worse of the idea of God now?

I don't seriously seek God now but I've already been there done that. I used to truly believe, and continued to seek him as I lost faith. If God is going to be so invasive then maybe there just isn't a personal God.

So I don't think it's so much about my deconversion being painful... it's that I've sought and I didn't find. At some point you give up, and say there's no point looking any more.

Simple question: if like Pascal said (and he was a brilliant psychologist, a behaviorist way before behaviorism, but not stupid like behaviorists can be) you were to go through the motions and activities involved in religious life (go to church, sacraments, fellowship, etc.) and this were to gradually make it easier for you to believe, would you? Why or why not?

No. Why would I believe because belief seems easy and nice? I see no reason to believe in God, and I don't want to waste my life devoting my life to a false God. I care about truth.

It isn't as if I never go to church now. I do sometimes when I'm with my parents. If going to church alot made belief more acceptable to me, I'd know that was a psychological thing.

 

[Received]

Well I don't think we can definitely know anything.

Yeah, not in the way too restrictive way philosophers define knowledge as, anyways.

What do you mean here?

That when you examine all the arguments for and against God, you're as close to being completely neutral as possible. Fideism. So the question then becomes: which way will I swerve, and therefore: which standard will I trust other than reason? Optimism? Intuition? Etc.

I don't think the God or heaven being nice is a good reason to believe in them. I'm an optimistic person, but I don't think that would sway me towards belief now. I can about not believing false things too.

If you put it like that, then I agree. But if you broadly expand this idea of "nice" and change it first to "love", and how it would influence all the systems of human and animal interaction, even the entire physical earth at large, then it becomes harder to turn away from what you previously called "nice". We're wired to be just as attracted to a theory broad enough like that, provided it doesn't contradict other things important in our lives, like, e.g., using our minds, or trusting the fossil record.

Well people don't have different ideas about what God is like.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean what lens we use to see Reality. Do you mean, eg: trying to understand things by evidence and reason?

I mean basically that entity which people interpret differently because of different religions and associated philosophical ideas. The logic behind your previous critique basically means that a thing isn't a thing perceived in different ways when people do perceive in different ways, but different things entirely.

Talking in metaphors doesn't help me though... it hides what we are talking about behind mysterious words. What is this 'God' you believe in, in literal terms? I don't say that in a bad way.

Your explanation of God makes it sound like a large mindless expanse of space beyond the universe. ie: it sounds like a multiverse, not a God.

Literally half of the very words we use are metaphors. Metaphors are absolutely indispensable for communication. Even words we use literally often have evolved from earlier uses as metaphors.

And God is very much like a mindless expanse of space beyond the universe, except he has intentions (notably the intention to create the universe), which makes him very much like a person.

But my question is, if the creator has values, why does it have values, and why those values?

We can explain why animals have values (at least to some extent), but it makes sense to me that the ultimate reality would just be a mindless physics. We have needs so we value things... but the basic reality has no needs, so wouldn't evolve values.

That's my opinion anyway.

To me, we get values largely (if not exclusively) from observing stuff. So I value playing guitar because my mom got me a guitar 13 years ago, and I really found out that I liked it. In this sense, God doesn't need a source for his values. He might be that single entity whose values are already a part of his being and don't need to be observed or discovered, which would make sense if in fact he's omniscient.

I don't agree with virtue ethics. I suppose my ethics is ultimately consequentialist (based on equal respect for others).

I don't see why we should follow anyone unless they are moral. But to know if they are moral, we already need moral judgement apart from them.

Yeah, and the virtue ethicist would say that it isn't really a question of morals (in the sense of specific rules, which applying to the VE crowd would be Kantian question begging) but more broadly of how people should act and become, both with regard to others but also importantly with regard to oneself. They would say that you can't get a solid sense of how to act in this way unless you have an idea of how certain actions would impact the character of the person choosing to act this way. And you can't have this without a model. With Christianity it's Christ. He provides us with the life that is the end goal of where we should be relative to our particular dispositions and constitutions, and by getting a sense of this life we can break down behaviors and therefore character. Can consequentialism really speak as concretely as this? This is why I love VE.

I don't see it as consistent for a father figure to be absent and caring. A child can be autonomous and moral while their father is around. If anything, they would be more immoral without a good upbringing.

Okay, then that's not what I meant. God can be around but not interacting in certain ways, just like a father can be around but doesn't pick up his child who is learning to walk and needs to strengthen up some physical autonomy.

You're saying you think my deconversion being hard means I think worse of the idea of God now?

Possibly, which is only natural for anyone who goes through a deconversion experience which is painful. It's a bit like a bad breakup. You know you'll be better off now, but you've painted the person in a negative light unintentionally, even though later on this person might be the best for you, or was the best for you all along.

No. Why would I believe because belief seems easy and nice? I see no reason to believe in God, and I don't want to waste my life devoting my life to a false God. I care about truth.

It isn't as if I never go to church now. I do sometimes when I'm with my parents. If going to church alot made belief more acceptable to me, I'd know that was a psychological thing.

And what if you were able to realize certain truths only if you were first to act as if other connected truths were true? This happens all the time, especially in a therapy setting: a client can't believe they're not defective, until they start acting as if they're not defective (and implementing important behaviors that reflect this change in attitude).

 

[Paradoxum]

That when you examine all the arguments for and against God, you're as close to being completely neutral as possible. Fideism. So the question then becomes: which way will I swerve, and therefore: which standard will I trust other than reason? Optimism? Intuition? Etc.

Why do you need anything other than reason? You could just try to look at the arguments and see if they work.

If you put it like that, then I agree. But if you broadly expand this idea of "nice" and change it first to "love", and how it would influence all the systems of human and animal interaction, even the entire physical earth at large, then it becomes harder to turn away from what you previously called "nice". We're wired to be just as attracted to a theory broad enough like that, provided it doesn't contradict other things important in our lives, like, e.g., using our minds, or trusting the fossil record.

I don't think that would be a good reason to believe. There's no reason to believe in God, so one shouldn't believe in God. Whether it might make the world better is irrelevant. Also, I think religion is bad for the world anyway.

I care about morality, but I care about truth too.

I mean basically that entity which people interpret differently because of different religions and associated philosophical ideas. The logic behind your previous critique basically means that a thing isn't a thing perceived in different ways when people do perceive in different ways, but different things entirely.

By the way, in my last post, I meant to say that people do have different ideas about God... not that they don't.

Literally half of the very words we use are metaphors. Metaphors are absolutely indispensable for communication. Even words we use literally often have evolved from earlier uses as metaphors.

True, I think my point should really be that I don't know what your metaphor means.

And God is very much like a mindless expanse of space beyond the universe,

I don't know what that means.

except he has intentions (notably the intention to create the universe), which makes him very much like a person.

But how do you know he has intentions, and isn't a mindless force like karma?

To me, we get values largely (if not exclusively) from observing stuff. So I value playing guitar because my mom got me a guitar 13 years ago, and I really found out that I liked it. In this sense, God doesn't need a source for his values. He might be that single entity whose values are already a part of his being and don't need to be observed or discovered, which would make sense if in fact he's omniscient.

I meant basic values, or desires; eg: we eat because we feel hungry for evolutionary reasons. etc.

Well why doesn't he need a source for values? Why does he have values? Why those values? Why does 'he' exist?

Yeah, and the virtue ethicist would say that it isn't really a question of morals (in the sense of specific rules, which applying to the VE crowd would be Kantian question begging) but more broadly of how people should act and become, both with regard to others but also importantly with regard to oneself.

I think how we should act, and that what we become is important because it affects how we act.

They would say that you can't get a solid sense of how to act in this way unless you have an idea of how certain actions would impact the character of the person choosing to act this way.

I don't see how character is relevant to morality, except for how likely it makes you to act morally. Ie: I don't think a compassionate character is good in itself... I think it's good because it means people act compassionately towards others.

And you can't have this without a model. With Christianity it's Christ. He provides us with the life that is the end goal of where we should be relative to our particular dispositions and constitutions, and by getting a sense of this life we can break down behaviors and therefore character.

I don't see why we need a model. To me it seems like an excuse not to think about what is moral, and to push that problem on to someone else, just divine command theory pushes it on to tradition.

We should use our hearts and heads to come to reasonable decisions about what is moral... not just say that some old guy did something, so that must be good (bit of a strawman I know ).

Can consequentialism really speak as concretely as this? This is why I love VE.

I don't see what is concrete about that. We have no idea how Jesus would act in any situation. We just have an untrustworthy book that tells us what a character did in a limited number of situations, in completely different circumstances to today.

I hope you don't mind my criticism.

Okay, then that's not what I meant. God can be around but not interacting in certain ways, just like a father can be around but doesn't pick up his child who is learning to walk and needs to strengthen up some physical autonomy.

But God isn't like that... I've never seen God. He's an absent father.

A father letting their child learn to walk still picks them up and hugs them after.

Possibly, which is only natural for anyone who goes through a deconversion experience which is painful. It's a bit like a bad breakup. You know you'll be better off now, but you've painted the person in a negative light unintentionally, even though later on this person might be the best for you, or was the best for you all along.

I don't think my idea of God is that bad. I don't know what God you mean... considering there isn't any one idea of God. There are immoral Gods (like the one in the OT), and there's the fairly liberal and inclusive God I believed in as I neared the end of my faith.

I have no problem with a loving God, except that it doesn't seem to exist.

And what if you were able to realize certain truths only if you were first to act as if other connected truths were true? This happens all the time, especially in a therapy setting: a client can't believe they're not defective, until they start acting as if they're not defective (and implementing important behaviors that reflect this change in attitude).

Well I've already been a Christian and acted like that.

If it requires that for us to believe in God, then obvious God doesn't care too much if we believe in him. If he doesn't care, why should I?

I can see why that might help with psychological problems, but God isn't a psychological problem, if he is real.

It seems more like self-deception to me. You act like something is real, until you deceive yourself into thinking it's real.

 

[Received]

Enjoying this debate so far, Para.

Why do you need anything other than reason? You could just try to look at the arguments and see if they work.

Yeah, but my point is that when you consider all the arguments (and just look at the ridiculous density of the contemporary debates of philosophers of religion, theist and atheist to see this), you'll come up neutral, therefore you need something beyond reasoning and argumentation. Hence the need for another standard (which we already happen to be using on a daily basis anyways), such as intuition or optimism or pragmatism.

I don't think that would be a good reason to believe. There's no reason to believe in God, so one shouldn't believe in God. Whether it might make the world better is irrelevant. Also, I think religion is bad for the world anyway.

I care about morality, but I care about truth too.

"There's no reason to believe in something, therefore you shouldn't believe in something," is just as much a leap as, "there's no reason to believe in something, therefore you should believe in something." Note that I'm not holding this reasoning if you look closely enough. Why should nonbelief be the default position? That itself presupposes an argument which needs justification. Notice that we rarely have to yield to even thinking about this with non-metaphysical questions, given we're easily able to accumulate evidence or make an argument that's convincing or not, so this is a question specific to metaphysical problems.

And saying "religion is bad" is like saying "culture is bad". Both are meaningless statements unless you look at the specifics of the religion or culture in question.

By the way, in my last post, I meant to say that people do have different ideas about God... not that they don't.

Okay, but I think my point still stands.

I don't know what that means.

Do you get the idea of infinite space in an abstract sense, not even referring to God? I'm sure you get an idea of eternity, or at least something similar applied to set theory.

But how do you know he has intentions, and isn't a mindless force like karma?

Because the universe began to exist. You need intentions to keep the nothingness from remaining nothingness. Read this fantastic philosophical article by Craig (I know, but this is actually some really good work) to see more broadly where I'm coming from (I'm not expecting you to read it for this discussion): https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...sis/text/articles-books/craig-exnihiloasa.pdf

Well why doesn't he need a source for values? Why does he have values? Why those values? Why does 'he' exist?

I think you're smokescreening here. He doesn't need a source for his values because, well, he's the creator of all values. I don't know if it's accurate to say that God "has" values. That's complicated. Asking why he exists is like asking why necessity makes things necessary. That's not an argument for his existence; rather, assuming that he exists, asking why he exists is like asking this.

I think how we should act, and that what we become is important because it affects how we act.

That actually sounds very VE to me. Our actions determine our future actions via influencing our character? Yeah, that's totally VE.

I don't see how character is relevant to morality, except for how likely it makes you to act morally. Ie: I don't think a compassionate character is good in itself... I think it's good because it means people act compassionately towards others.

Well, for that reason precisely I think character is very important. If you consider just a world of consequences or rules, you're not considering the source from which the actions spring that have consequences or work according to rules.

I don't see why we need a model. To me it seems like an excuse not to think about what is moral, and to push that problem on to someone else, just divine command theory pushes it on to tradition.

We should use our hearts and heads to come to reasonable decisions about what is moral... not just say that some old guy did something, so that must be good (bit of a strawman I know ).

We need a model because models allow us how closely or far away each one comes to being happy. We know happiness when we see it; that's why Aristotle hit it hard when he considered happiness to be "flourishing", analogous to a tree we see that's healthy and immediately have no doubt that it's flourishing. Likewise with human beings and happiness. Models provide different pictures of persons of varying degrees of happiness; the best ones provide the best pictures; and from a Christian perspective Christ is the best, so his behaviors and character are worth imitating.

I don't see what is concrete about that. We have no idea how Jesus would act in any situation. We just have an untrustworthy book that tells us what a character did in a limited number of situations, in completely different circumstances to today.

I hope you don't mind my criticism.

I don't mind it at all. I think the book is trustworthy in presenting Jesus in a general manner, including specific acts; the question we bicker over is whether he *really* did the extravagant things like rise from the dead or walk on water (which in a sense is really beside the point of his deepest mission). And reading about these instances gives us a really good idea of what kind of character he had, and then you have people like Paul and other letters which psychologically analyze this character in even more detail.

But God isn't like that... I've never seen God. He's an absent father.

A father letting their child learn to walk still picks them up and hugs them after.

Well, he's absent if you're looking for a physical father. From a philosophical and biblical standpoint, he's everywhere, even in the space of the very atoms that constitute who we are. His spirit moves and works within this space, but he (you might say his "body") is literally the stuff that we consider empty space. That's one hell of a constant omnipresent hug if you ask me! But it goes deeper: he can intervene in people's lives (and because he intervenes in particular circumstances rather than general ones, like all interactions are between any two people, you can't make scientific or other general statements about them, hence the impotence of argument with religious revelation), and you have ideas like post-mortem judgment that will reckon each person according to their deeds.

I don't think my idea of God is that bad. I don't know what God you mean... considering there isn't any one idea of God. There are immoral Gods (like the one in the OT), and there's the fairly liberal and inclusive God I believed in as I neared the end of my faith.

I have no problem with a loving God, except that it doesn't seem to exist.

I'm not saying it's bad, and definitely not that you're the one who's intentionally making it bad. But I have serious doubt that nonbelievers *don't* have a higher level of emotional negativity, even if small, toward God which prevents them from being as willing, or willing at all, to consider his existence. There's an actual psychologist out there who turned Freud's idea of religion as wish fulfillment on its head by posing a research question supported by research that if you have a bad relationship with your father on earth, you're much more statistically likely to have a bad conception or "relationship" with your father in heaven (God). There's real psychological underpinnings to probably every real decision or set of ideas we consider, and religion (for or against) is definitely not immune. I'm not saying you're one of these people in the statistical likelihood here.

Well I've already been a Christian and acted like that.

If it requires that for us to believe in God, then obvious God doesn't care too much if we believe in him. If he doesn't care, why should I?

I can see why that might help with psychological problems, but God isn't a psychological problem, if he is real.

It seems more like self-deception to me. You act like something is real, until you deceive yourself into thinking it's real.

Yeah, except that people are burdened by the opposite until they do exactly what you're considering self-deception. I see it multiple times a week.

 

[quatona]

Advantages is a neat way of asking it. That presupposes a standard, which I take to be happiness, which I think is tied up with truth. The advantage of ecumenical is that it is inclusivistic but not pluralistic; it accepts different expressions of the good, but they're hierarchical rather than equal, which I think fits with the exclusivity of truth claims. Existentialist in that it's a philosophical position which values freedom, and looks honestly at the hard emotions (despair, anxiety) and brute facts like man's "thrownness" (Heidegger) and condemnation to freedom (Sartre), but without being pessimistic; sort of like how a good therapy session means going into dark territory to process and reframe things in a better way. Universalist in that, simply, this seems to fit very easily any conception of God as a loving being, or "being" love; a good number of moderate or liberal Christians whom I admire think that God's love doesn't mean that human freedom will "come around" to being saved, but I don't think that's the case.

Christian because I think theism has validity in terms of a few philosophical arguments for God that aren't without controversy: e.g., all things that exist have a cause, you can't have an infinite regress of causes, therefore there is a finite point in time in the past when the universe began, which pragmatically makes room for a creator, the laws as constants in the universe. But added to all this is the aesthetic and more immediate and intuitive sense that it makes more sense -- is easier to believe -- that God exists than that he doesn't. On a more complicated level there clearly are problems of God's existence, especially the problem of evil, which really can't be explained away by argument, and I think it's even inhumane to try and explain away the suffering of human beings (and animals) in some abstract fashion; by so doing you minimize the sacredness and terror of their suffering. But on top of it all, I guess, you could say that, given that God can't be proven or disproven with anything close to certainty, I believe in God because I'm optimistic about the universe, or an optimist to an extra degree; this isn't at all to say that atheists can't be optimists, just that I take it a step further. Epistemically, I don't think it's possible to just tout science as some sort of panacea for everything, or reason, or whatever; all of these have inherent epistemic holes big enough to crash down the moment you try and ask about their roots, leading ultimately, if you were to use reasoning or even logic consistently enough, to a problem of absolute skepticism of the Cartesian type without the cogito copout.

Christian because I'm fascinated by logos Christology and the religious epistemology espoused by Kierkegaard: Christ as the logos, which some theologians and philosophers interpret as reason or the "holding together" of the cosmos (either or both), and which I interpret more concretely as the heartbeat of conscience -- that which by following a person becomes what he or she is, far beyond the constraints of morality. I'm not terribly interested in the historical reliability of biblical texts, although I think there's some support (flimsily enough) there to sway a completely neutral and willing mind. And, maybe most importantly, I'm a monotheist at heart, given that I believe in free will and don't accept pantheism -- maybe something more like panentheism.

Thanks for the exhaustive answer.
So, would it be ok to summarize it like this: "You perceive it as advantageous because it makes sense to you."?
Now, that´s what I was assuming anyways.

However, the intention behind my question was more like: Why would you recommend it to someone else (e.g. me), what can you offer to seduce me into holding it, too (or even only considering to adopt it)?

You made a good description of your needs that your view helps fulfilling and your conceptual problems that it helps solving.
Interestingly, I personally don´t seem to have these needs nor these problems. So I´m not really tempted.

 

[Received]

Thanks for the exhaustive answer.
So, would it be ok to summarize it like this: "You perceive it as advantageous because it makes sense to you."?
Now, that´s what I was assuming anyways.

Isn't that why anyone believes anything, really?

However, the intention behind my question was more like: Why would you recommend it to someone else (e.g. me), what can you offer to seduce me into holding it, too (or even only considering to adopt it)?

The above (last post), plus an answer that's a little weird: the biggest convincer in any setting aside from deep, dark, abstract philosophy is the way the person presenting the argument goes about things. I might think communists are evil, until I realize my friend, who is a very nice and caring person, presents his case with equal niceness and care. I wrote this thought down last night (murder it as you will):

We are compelled more by beauty than thought, and the Aristotelean creation of the self ethically is an aspect of beauty. From this, it is at least just as compelling as objective truth for someone to be persuaded by a system of thought that results in a more beautiful person than an alternative. Hence Christianity, when it’s perceived correctly and lived fully, results in an inward inclination to believe parallel to any evidence. This is one of the major reasons why living out our faith is an absolute requirement.​

The same could be claimed for any belief system. The point is that we don't just consider things in an objective conceptual sense regarding the argument, but also the arguer. We're looking for systems that aren't merely true, but also (and moreso perhaps) result in a better person (beautiful here means something perceived for its own sake, like when we say "that was a beautiful thing you did"). There's something compulsive about a system that results in a happier person.

You made a good description of your needs that your view helps fulfilling and your conceptual problems that it helps solving.
Interestingly, I personally don´t seem to have these needs nor these problems. So I´m not really tempted.

So don't be. I'd say though (and this is me being an evil therapist) that there is at least some granule of need or inclination or else you'd be debating on another board. Maybe.

 

[Received]

Bump