Free Will x Infinity =...

[Paradoxum]

Oh, that´s perfectly fine with me. Far be it from me to urge you into a discussion that is of no interest to you, or at least not worth the effort at this point in time.
(It´s just the fact that you started playing devil´s advocate here that gave me the idea you had an interest.)

I was just arguing the Christian point when it was easy. You are now asking questions that I need answered myself, so for me to give an answer I don't really believe would be pointless. I don't mind you asking me though.

God? What do you mean??
Which god? I think the very point of these discussions is to find out whether certain god concepts can be reconciled with reason and evidence.
So the idea is probably at least to exclude which god concept can be excluded when applying these criteria.

Yeah your right, I'm probably just being silly. But by God I mean the ground of all existence that is omniscient and can out out its 'will' according to values.

Out of curiosity: How would you go about pursuing the goal to find out if it´s justified to believe in god inlight of reason and evidence - other than comparing god concepts to logic, reason and evidence?

Well an idea I have come across fairly recently is simply that of hopefully faith. Perhaps that is the wrong wording. I mean asking whether it is justified to believe in God purely by faith, accepting the paradoxes and living out an ideal because you know it is the highest thing to aspire to and live by. If we can't prove God, but also can't disprove Him.... are we justified in assuming our ideal exists if it doesn't obviously go against reason. Strangely this idea has come from reading a few philosophers.

To be honest I really like the idea of living my life before the God of Jesus Christ (not the conservative God). If not now, then when I am a bit older. Perhaps this is just my last attempt to hold on to faith though.

 

[quatona]

I was just arguing the Christian point when it was easy. You are now asking questions that I need answered myself, so for me to give an answer I don't really believe would be pointless. I don't mind you asking me though.

That´s great. Feel free to tell me when it´s tiring you.
I´m genuinely interested in people who find the question if there´s a god important but are on the fence.
Personally, this question doesn´t interest me at all anymore. Mainly, because "God" - unless you a priori assume a certain doctrine to be infallible - can be defined to anyone´s liking. If I want to postulate an entity of the metaphysical kind, I just have to make sure my concept is free of contradictions - and, zadong, it is a. irrefutable and b. doesn´t clash with logic and reason (at least in the strictest sense of this term).

Yeah your right, I'm probably just being silly.

No, that´s not what I meant to imply. If I thought you were just silly I wouldn´t seek a conversation with you.

But by God I mean the ground of all existence that is omniscient and can out out its 'will' according to values.

I understand. May I ask another question? Of all the traits that different god concepts ascribe to god - why did you pick these?
Is it, maybe, because you have been brought up with this god concept?
Or (or and) because you wish for such a being to exist?
Or something else?

Well an idea I have come across fairly recently is simply that of hopefully faith. Perhaps that is the wrong wording. I mean asking whether it is justified to believe in God purely by faith, accepting the paradoxes and living out an ideal because you know it is the highest thing to aspire to and live by.

I think I have a rough idea what you are asking yourself, but I´m not entirely sure I understand completely.
Allow me to ask one clarifying questions and make the attempt at one answer:
(Answer I think there is nothing wrong with having faith in a metaphysical entity that you desire to exist. I do, however, think that it´s not a good idea to believe in something that´s internally contradictory. I´m not saying that in the sense of an ethical command; I just think the cognitive dissonance - that the fact that you are asking the question you ask demonstrates - will never leave you (unless you are gifted with incredible naivity). I have met people who had this incredibly deep unshakable faith in the god of their preference that wasn´t even touched by any intellectuality. These persons didn´t believe in (lest were proclaiming) any doctrine nor were evangelizing, they were anything but philosophers or intellectuals. These are persons who don´t even discuss. They simply have unshakable faith that the metaphysical entity of their preference existed and was with them. I can´t find any fault with that - au contraire, I was amazed by the beauty of it.


Anyway, I am certainly not gifted in that respect, and the fact that you even ask questions like "is it justified to have faith" suggest to me that you aren´t, either.
A person who has faith wouldn´t even ask whether faith is justified. Their faith would prevent them from it. (On a sidenote, this is the reason why I think the most rigorous and vocal proclaimers of doctrines and advocates of faith here on this board are the one who struggle with their faith the most.)

(Question I think everyone needs ideals to live by. I am not quite understanding why you feel unable to form such ideals without the idea that the god as you have defined it exists. Would you be willing to make an attempt to explain that to me?

If we can't prove God, but also can't disprove Him.... are we justified in assuming our ideal exists if it doesn't obviously go against reason.

Well, I think - depending on what exactly you mean by "reason" - the fact that a god concept goes against reason renders it disproved.
That said, I am wondering why so few people come up with god concepts that don´t violate reason and logic. It shouldn´t be that hard.

To be honest I really like the idea of living my life before the God of Jesus Christ (not the conservative God).

Sorry, I am a bit at a loss here. I guess this distinction is based on some clear ideas in your head - but I don´t know what they are.

If not now, then when I am a bit older.

I am "a bit" older than you. So, out of curiosity, allow me to ask you: Why do you think that with increasing age this may become a more important issue?
(My personal experience is: It became increasingly irrelevant.)

Perhaps this is just my last attempt to hold on to faith though.

So am I right in concluding from this statement that you have been brought up in a certain Christian environment, and you are somewhat struggling with the ideas that you have been brought up with? And that this development causes you some mild or stronger uneasiness?
Allow me to ask you another question: This *faith* that´s in the center of all your comments: Have you ever experienced it? (The fact that you say "hold onto faith" suggest that you have, but I am asking nonetheless.)

Please don´t get me wrong: I am not interrogating you. You needn´t answer these questions to me (although I certainly would like to hear the answers). The main point is: I recommend you to ask and answer these questions to yourself.

 

[quatona]

Resha, there are two important points you make that I´d generally agree with:

- it´s possible (if not: likely) that we had different ideas what the purpose of our discussion was. In any case, we haven´t made sure early, and this is probably the reason for a lot of problems.

- the mere fact that someone continues a conversation allows the conclusion that they get something out of it.
However, despite this indisputedly correct rule (and this rule is the reason why I emphasized that I didn´t complain nor accuse you nor had any hard feelings), I think it is a good idea not to wait until the person opposite demonstrates that he has entirely lost interest by simply leaving. It´s not a good idea to wait until someone finally is that frustrated. But your mileage may vary.

- you say that I have made some assumptions about "your meaning before you ever defined anything", and that´s somewhat correct. However, my intense, persistent requests to you to define your terms were met with persistent reluctance. I agree with you: instead of tolerating this and playing your game "guess what I mean" I should have simply refused to do that and left.Everything else must have signalized you that I "get something out of it".

Anyway, there is no reason to apologize for "dragging me into this" - you didn´t, I participated voluntarily. Generally, I think we don´t have any mutual obligations to share our thoughts. If I felt any obligation (and I think at times I did), that was entirely my own making and nothing to hold you responsible for.

Now, where I do disagree with you:

- No matter what the purpose of the discussion - the person who introduces a keyterm of his statement/theory/doctrine has the onus of defining it. He wants to communicate something, and he has to make sure it is communicating something.
Now, I´ll give you this: the proper first reaction would have been "Unless you give me the definition of this term it remains meaningless for purposes of this conversation. Define it or it will be ignored." However, where I come from this appears to be a bit harsh. But some people like it harsh and direct.
Later I did exactly this, several times, but you would be correct in postulating that I should have done it immediately.

Whatever. Let´s look to the future and instead of trying to find out who´s to blame (if you´d insist I am willing to accept all the blame in the past on me) let´s try to do it better.

Thus, and upfront, direct and harsh (without any hard feelings, though):
I am not willing to discuss terms you introduce but refuse to define. E.g.
If you want to discuss "perfection" with me, define it. I am also fine with not discussing it. Personally, I could easily (or even better) live without the term "perfection" around. It plays no part in my personal ideas, it doesn´t point to any concept that´s of significance to me.

Personally, I have no theory concerning gods. I feel I am just reacting when it comes to such ideas. I don´t have a god concept of my own. I don´t have any desire for any gods to exist, neither do I have any desire for the non-existence of gods. (I do, however, understand how my uncalled for reaction to your initial post signalized something else. I am indeed interested in the ideas of other persons, and that definitely includes their god concepts - provided they are willing to share them with me. I didn´t make sure you wanted to share your god concept with me before I made my first uncalled for interjection in this thread to you - thus I had no reason to expect you to do it. In fact, I do understand how the sequence of events suggested that it was me who wanted to share something with you.)

At this point, I have no thoughts I´d wish to share with you. Again, I thank you for your time, effort and patience. I´m glad we managed to overcome a climate of suspicion, insinuation and distrust. That´s certainly not easy once these seeds have started to grow.

 

[Paradoxum]

That´s great. Feel free to tell me when it´s tiring you.
I´m genuinely interested in people who find the question if there´s a god important but are on the fence.
Personally, this question doesn´t interest me at all anymore.

But you are on a Christian forum talking about God and such? Why are you interested in people on the fence?

Mainly, because "God" - unless you a priori assume a certain doctrine to be infallible - can be defined to anyone´s liking. If I want to postulate an entity of the metaphysical kind, I just have to make sure my concept is free of contradictions - and, zadong, it is a. irrefutable and b. doesn´t clash with logic and reason (at least in the strictest sense of this term).

That is a problem and one I haven't resolved. I don't know enough about other religion's conceptions of the divine, but I guess I just hope the way I understand it is goes best with reason, simplicity and personal experience.

No, that´s not what I meant to imply. If I thought you were just silly I wouldn´t seek a conversation with you.

I understand. May I ask another question? Of all the traits that different god concepts ascribe to god - why did you pick these?
Is it, maybe, because you have been brought up with this god concept?
Or (or and) because you wish for such a being to exist?
Or something else?

I am obviously biased, I know that. I was brought up to believe in the evangelical God in a charismatic church. I think the attributes I give God are the most simple and those which make sense for the foundation of all existence. No arbitrary numbers, only nothing or maximal value in all attributes (eg: No eternal Trinity). The biggest bias would be that this 'being' is an ultimate mind or personal in some sense, or at least a force that acts on values such as love. This is partly a personal thing of want to know my God again, and also the fact that I have heard of and been in the same room as many apparent quick healings.

(Answer I think there is nothing wrong with having faith in a metaphysical entity that you desire to exist. I do, however, think that it´s not a good idea to believe in something that´s internally contradictory. I´m not saying that in the sense of an ethical command; I just think the cognitive dissonance - that the fact that you are asking the question you ask demonstrates - will never leave you (unless you are gifted with incredible naivity).

Sorry I don't get what you mean here. You are saying I will always have beliefs with internal contradiction? Because I ask this question?

I have met people who had this incredibly deep unshakable faith in the god of their preference that wasn´t even touched by any intellectuality. These persons didn´t believe in (lest were proclaiming) any doctrine nor were evangelizing, they were anything but philosophers or intellectuals. These are persons who don´t even discuss. They simply have unshakable faith that the metaphysical entity of their preference existed and was with them. I can´t find any fault with that - au contraire, I was amazed by the beauty of it.

Do you mean people who don't understand the problems with their beliefs, or do understand their beliefs have paradoxes in them, but chose to believe anyway?

Anyway, I am certainly not gifted in that respect, and the fact that you even ask questions like "is it justified to have faith" suggest to me that you aren´t, either.
A person who has faith wouldn´t even ask whether faith is justified. Their faith would prevent them from it.

I don't know. I think there are different types of believers and some of the more intellectual types really do have faith and really do understand the problems belief places before them and others. Not that these people are common.

(On a sidenote, this is the reason why I think the most rigorous and vocal proclaimers of doctrines and advocates of faith here on this board are the one who struggle with their faith the most.)

I'm not sure I agree. When I was about 16/17 I had the most faith in God that I had ever had and thought I had all the arguments that proved He existed and was the Christian God. I didn't struggle with my faith until I was 18 though. Perhaps you are right though, as I wasn't VERY vocal about it (I'm not a vocal person XD) but I did try to convince my friends.

(Question I think everyone needs ideals to live by. I am not quite understanding why you feel unable to form such ideals without the idea that the god as you have defined it exists. Would you be willing to make an attempt to explain that to me?

Because everything absolute is falling apart. There is no foundation for ethics except my own will to assume I should be good. Evolution, lack of free will, lack of objective morality. I want something I can believe in. I want to be moral because it really is good, not just because I feel like it. There's no firm ground.

Well, I think - depending on what exactly you mean by "reason" - the fact that a god concept goes against reason renders it disproved.
That said, I am wondering why so few people come up with god concepts that don´t violate reason and logic. It shouldn´t be that hard.

I assume you disagree with my understanding of God then?

Sorry, I am a bit at a loss here. I guess this distinction is based on some clear ideas in your head - but I don´t know what they are.

Perhaps another biased comment on my part, to assume Jesus is anything like me. I mean I like the idea of a God of infinite love, mercy and forgiveness who emphasises help for the poor and weak. Liberation from natural instincts (sin) and living life in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. I prefer this to the God of hell, exclusivism, judging what people do in their beds and telling them they can never be good on their own. The conservative God does have good sides, but doesn't seem to have the good news of my more moderate-liberal understanding.

I am "a bit" older than you. So, out of curiosity, allow me to ask you: Why do you think that with increasing age this may become a more important issue?
(My personal experience is: It became increasingly irrelevant.)

Partly my currently circumstances, partly a book I read. Currently, even though I want to know God, I also don't want to at the same because it could mean having to come under Christian morality again and having to act pious. I hope once I have rebellion out of my system I might be more open to God, if I still care.

The book I read is called "Stages of Faith" by James Fowler. Its based on how peoples worldviews tend to change over time and is based on research. The past and present stages fit in well with my own life and at what ages I changed. This gives me hope that in 10 years or so I might do so again. Its more complicated than this and is very interesting.

So am I right in concluding from this statement that you have been brought up in a certain Christian environment, and you are somewhat struggling with the ideas that you have been brought up with? And that this development causes you some mild or stronger uneasiness?

Yeah. I was brought up in a loving Christian family and church. For the last 3 years though I have had a slow loss of faith. I normally compare it to falling down a dark chasm, trying to grab hold of branches and vines, but they keep breaking or I lose grip. At one point I feared hell for the first time in my life because of this. Now I don't fear my loss of faith, but I don't like it.

Allow me to ask you another question: This *faith* that´s in the center of all your comments: Have you ever experienced it? (The fact that you say "hold onto faith" suggest that you have, but I am asking nonetheless.)

I would like to think I had faith. Of course that can be questioned. I would say I and a friend were the most faithful of the young people in my old church. I really did believe and worshipped God and loved Him so much and never wanted Him to leave me. I could pray in tongues and had experiences I would say were of God. I haven't felt God in a long time now though.

Please don´t get me wrong: I am not interrogating you. You needn´t answer these questions to me (although I certainly would like to hear the answers). The main point is: I recommend you to ask and answer these questions to yourself.

I don't mind you asking. I find it interesting and fun.

 

[Resha Caner]

Anyway, there is no reason to apologize for "dragging me into this" - you didn´t, I participated voluntarily. Generally, I think we don´t have any mutual obligations to share our thoughts. If I felt any obligation (and I think at times I did), that was entirely my own making and nothing to hold you responsible for.

I appreciate your candor. It's what I prefer. Communicating through writing, though - without body language - causes much misunderstanding. I'm not one to excuse rudeness by claiming, "I'm just being honest," so if I think the other person is getting frustrated, I usually try to back off and find a gentler way to make my point. Still, it's a complex dance at which I sometimes fail.

So, I'm not digging for an apology, and I hope that isn't how it seemed. Rather, I'm trying to clear the air for what will hopefully be a future discussion. You are obviously capable of giving me a stiff intellectual challenge, and I enjoy that.

Whatever. Let´s look to the future and instead of trying to find out who´s to blame ... let´s try to do it better.

Agreed.

But it's only fair to warn you that I plan to be better prepared the next time we talk. I have a procedural nit to pick.

No matter what the purpose of the discussion - the person who introduces a keyterm of his statement/theory/doctrine has the onus of defining it.

This only seems fair, and yet it also contains a logical difficulty. The more I have these discussions (and I've been on both sides, trying to hold up a claim and challenging claims) the more convinced I become that both sides have a responsibility, but that the "define your term" requirement is the only one that gets verbalized.

So, if I can collect my thoughts, I'll try launching them in a new thread.

 

[quatona]

Thanks, Paradoxum.
Your post gave me a good idea where you are coming from, where you are currently, and what you feel like.

"I want to know my God again." That description resonates with me.

But you are on a Christian forum talking about God and such?

Yes. It´s more the "and such" that I am interested in contemplating with others.
I think I am interested in why people believe what they believe. The way they form and conceptualize their metaphysical worldview.

Why are you interested in people on the fence?

I guess because I like questions better than answers. And particularly good questions better than poor answers.

I am obviously biased, I know that. I was brought up to believe in the evangelical God in a charismatic church. I think the attributes I give God are the most simple and those which make sense for the foundation of all existence. No arbitrary numbers, only nothing or maximal value in all attributes (eg: No eternal Trinity). The biggest bias would be that this 'being' is an ultimate mind or personal in some sense, or at least a force that acts on values such as love. This is partly a personal thing of want to know my God again, and also the fact that I have heard of and been in the same room as many apparent quick healings.

I guess we are all biased. We all have core convictions that we won´t abandon unless they really clash with reality. I think that´s important, it is inevitable, and not a bad thing per se.

Sorry I don't get what you mean here. You are saying I will always have beliefs with internal contradiction? Because I ask this question?

No, that´s not what I meant to say. I meant to say that if you keep to beliefs that you know are contradictory cognitive dissonance will stay with you. I am not saying that you will always hold such beliefs. Sorry for the confusion.

Do you mean people who don't understand the problems with their beliefs, or do understand their beliefs have paradoxes in them, but chose to believe anyway?

I don´t know how they are doing it. I guess their god concept is very simple and of a kind that can not be discussed intellectually. It´s a feeling rather than a conviction. Example: "There is some higher force that takes care of everything. I don´t have to worry. I am accepted and loved." What´s there to discuss?

I don't know. I think there are different types of believers and some of the more intellectual types really do have faith and really do understand the problems belief places before them and others. Not that these people are common.

Yes, maybe I worded that wrongly. It´s more like: You either have faith (and if you have, no intellectual doubt can destroy it), or you don´t (in which case no intellectual argument for it will give it to you). I guess what I am trying to say: Faith is nothing we have control over.
Maybe it´s a bit like love for a person. It´s nothing we can talk ourselves into or out of.
Or confidence. Or trust.

I'm not sure I agree. When I was about 16/17 I had the most faith in God that I had ever had and thought I had all the arguments that proved He existed and was the Christian God. I didn't struggle with my faith until I was 18 though. Perhaps you are right though, as I wasn't VERY vocal about it (I'm not a vocal person XD) but I did try to convince my friends.

Ok, perhaps I was too generalizing. Anyway, my observation is that often people who try to convince others loudly and offensively are actually trying to shout down their own doubts.

Because everything absolute is falling apart.

I can relate to that feeling, or better: I recall it.
I´ve been brought up Catholic, I turned my back on it when I was 15 and never looked back. However, I spent a lot of time searching for a philosophy that could provide me with "absolutes" comparable to those that Catholicism had in store.

There is no foundation for ethics except my own will to assume I should be good.

I see. Today I am wondering why for a long time I felt that was a problem.

Evolution, lack of free will, lack of objective morality.

I´m not sure these all are logical conclusions. But I am not out to discuss with you.

I want something I can believe in.

Here´s a thought (not an argument!): Instead of believing in an (as you yourself know: unprovable) god - why not directly and simply believe that some things are really good? Do you get the idea?

I want to be moral because it really is good, not just because I feel like it. There's no firm ground.

Yes, but then again: There isn´t any more firm intellectual ground that a god exists who determines that some things are really good, than there is firm intellectual ground that some things are really good without there being a god.

I assume you disagree with my understanding of God then?

Not sure what in my comment gave you this idea. I meant to have understood that you felt you had problems reconciling your god concept with logic and reason.
Personally, I don´t have a god concept of my own. "God" doesn´t point to anything that plays a part in my beliefs, feelings or convictions. Hence I can´t disagree with someone else´s god concept.

Perhaps another biased comment on my part, to assume Jesus is anything like me. I mean I like the idea of a God of infinite love, mercy and forgiveness who emphasises help for the poor and weak. Liberation from natural instincts (sin) and living life in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. I prefer this to the God of hell, exclusivism, judging what people do in their beds and telling them they can never be good on their own. The conservative God does have good sides, but doesn't seem to have the good news of my more moderate-liberal understanding.

Ah. Thanks for explaing. I get the general idea.

Partly my currently circumstances, partly a book I read. Currently, even though I want to know God, I also don't want to at the same because it could mean having to come under Christian morality again and having to act pious. I hope once I have rebellion out of my system I might be more open to God, if I still care.

At least to me, you don´t come across as rebellious at all.
One thing this paragraph makes me wonder: Why can´t you separate the "byproducts" (i.e. acting pious and whatever else you have problems with) from your belief/faith that a god exists?

The book I read is called "Stages of Faith" by James Fowler.

The James Fowler who wrote my all time favourite parable "The prince and the magician??

Yeah. I was brought up in a loving Christian family and church. For the last 3 years though I have had a slow loss of faith. I normally compare it to falling down a dark chasm, trying to grab hold of branches and vines, but they keep breaking or I lose grip.

Kind of like when you notice a loving relationship is falling apart and although you so wish to find your love again, you can´t stop the decline, eh?

At one point I feared hell for the first time in my life because of this. Now I don't fear my loss of faith, but I don't like it.

Yes. We never like losses.

I would like to think I had faith. Of course that can be questioned. I would say I and a friend were the most faithful of the young people in my old church. I really did believe and worshipped God and loved Him so much and never wanted Him to leave me. I could pray in tongues and had experiences I would say were of God. I haven't felt God in a long time now though.

I see. I was just asking because it was different with me back then. It was more a realization that I never had been having faith. I had just been doing what my family and my environment had been doing so naturally. Going to church, praying, being a ministrant - I did like the forms and activities, but e.g. I had not once the feeling that when I said my prayers there was an entity listening or something.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think I am interested in why people believe what they believe. The way they form and conceptualize their metaphysical worldview.

I would suggest the book 'Stages of Faith' again. It is pretty much about how understand their worldviews. The style of belief rather than content of belief.

I guess we are all biased. We all have core convictions that we won´t abandon unless they really clash with reality. I think that´s important, it is inevitable, and not a bad thing per se.

Mmm, yeah.

No, that´s not what I meant to say. I meant to say that if you keep to beliefs that you know are contradictory cognitive dissonance will stay with you. I am not saying that you will always hold such beliefs. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, ok I get you.

I don´t know how they are doing it. I guess their god concept is very simple and of a kind that can not be discussed intellectually. It´s a feeling rather than a conviction. Example: "There is some higher force that takes care of everything. I don´t have to worry. I am accepted and loved." What´s there to discuss?

I guess that is nice for them, but not something we could accept.

Yes, maybe I worded that wrongly. It´s more like: You either have faith (and if you have, no intellectual doubt can destroy it), or you don´t (in which case no intellectual argument for it will give it to you). I guess what I am trying to say: Faith is nothing we have control over.
Maybe it´s a bit like love for a person. It´s nothing we can talk ourselves into or out of.
Or confidence. Or trust.

Yeah, I agree. I have more or less given up thinking that logical argument or perhaps even evidence can give me faith.

I can relate to that feeling, or better: I recall it.
I´ve been brought up Catholic, I turned my back on it when I was 15 and never looked back. However, I spent a lot of time searching for a philosophy that could provide me with "absolutes" comparable to those that Catholicism had in store.

Did you find none? I think Human Rights is promising though.

Here´s a thought (not an argument!): Instead of believing in an (as you yourself know: unprovable) god - why not directly and simply believe that some things are really good? Do you get the idea?

Yeah, that is what I pretty much have been doing, expect now more problems with ethics are coming up.

Yes, but then again: There isn´t any more firm intellectual ground that a god exists who determines that some things are really good, than there is firm intellectual ground that some things are really good without there being a god.

I guess it just makes more to me for a moral law to be in a moral law giver.

At least to me, you don´t come across as rebellious at all.
One thing this paragraph makes me wonder: Why can´t you separate the "byproducts" (i.e. acting pious and whatever else you have problems with) from your belief/faith that a god exists?

I'm not amazingly rebellious, but I'm not exactly sticking to all the Christian morals I once had.

I think the reason I find it hard to separate it is because before I know everyone expected me to be a good Christian girl. Never swear, never say anything mean of someone else, be embarrassed by sexual subjects, never lie, don't drink too much, do what authorities say, etc. I am conscious of what people think of me, and so I can't help but act like this when I am around Christians still. I'll get over this eventually.

The James Fowler who wrote my all time favourite parable "The prince and the magician??

Um.... I don't know XD He is a psychologist I think.

Kind of like when you notice a loving relationship is falling apart and although you so wish to find your love again, you can´t stop the decline, eh?

Yeah

I see. I was just asking because it was different with me back then. It was more a realization that I never had been having faith. I had just been doing what my family and my environment had been doing so naturally. Going to church, praying, being a ministrant - I did like the forms and activities, but e.g. I had not once the feeling that when I said my prayers there was an entity listening or something.

So you have never experienced faith? It is a beautiful thing.

 

[quatona]

I would suggest the book 'Stages of Faith' again. It is pretty much about how understand their worldviews. The style of belief rather than content of belief.

Sounds interesting. I´ll give it a shot.

In return, allow me to recommend you the read of John Fowles' (so it´s NOT the same person) already mentioned story "the prince and the magician". I think it is a beautiful metaphore, and just a few minutes´ read. It can be found on the internet, e.g. here:
The Prince and the Magician by John Fowles

It seems to me that it particularly addresses people in your situation. Maybe you get something out of it, maybe not....

You said you hoped your faith would return to you when you are older. This would certainly be a great thing to happen. However, it´s not the only possible "happy end". Another option would be: You'll find inner peace, confidence and inner guidance without faith in a god. I know that´s hard to image for you at this point in time, though.

I guess that is nice for them, but not something we could accept.

Who is "we" here?
Personally, I can accept (of course, not: adopt) it quite fine.

Did you find none? I think Human Rights is promising though.

Not for me - I found that any absolutist philosphy comes with basically the same logical problems as the concept of a divine moral law giver. Human Rights is all fine and dandy - but I wouldn´t know what renders them an absolute authority.

Yeah, that is what I pretty much have been doing, expect now more problems with ethics are coming up.

Such as...if I may ask?

I guess it just makes more to me for a moral law to be in a moral law giver.



I'm not amazingly rebellious, but I'm not exactly sticking to all the Christian morals I once had.

I think the reason I find it hard to separate it is because before I know everyone expected me to be a good Christian girl. Never swear, never say anything mean of someone else, be embarrassed by sexual subjects, never lie, don't drink too much, do what authorities say, etc. I am conscious of what people think of me, and so I can't help but act like this when I am around Christians still. I'll get over this eventually.

All this sounds to me like on the one hand you would like there to be an absolute moral law giver - but only as long as these laws are to your liking.
I think the term "rebellious" makes sense to me, then.

I´ll try to explain a train of thought that always comes to me whenever someone tells me that a divine absolute moral law giver is necessary for morals to be "real" or "true":
Hey, are you telling me that you would follow an absolute moral law giver just because he´s absolute no matter what he would dictate? Let´s imagine for a moment you´d learn that this moral law giver advocates genocide, rape, murder - things you completely despise.
Isn´t it more like you don´t want an authority to tell you what is right and wrong - but rather you have very strong convictions as to what´s right and wrong that you would not abandon - even if there were an absolute authority who says the opposite? Isn´t it more like you wish for an absolute moral law giver that confirms those very conviction you hold, anyways - and that you would deny the absolute authority of an entity that advocates what you consider heinous crimes?

So, with all that said: Are you not the one who factually claims moral authority for yourself, anyway?
I understand it would be nice to have a powerful companion confirming that which you already know is right and wrong - but you are not really longing for an absolute authority to tell you what´s right and wrong.

Above you asked the question why I couldn´t replace a divine moral law giver by e.g. Human Rights. I guess that´s exactly for this reason: I am all too aware that the reason I would proclaim their absolute authority would be that I like them - and not: I like them because they are absolute authority.


And here´s another thougt I have had occasionally in this context:

Someone wishes for an absolute moral authority because, as you phrased it "it just makes more to him for a moral law to be in a moral law giver". What if there really existed such a higher being, but this higher being would itself feel it would be nicer if there were an even higher moral law giver?

So you have never experienced faith?

Not quite right. I have never experienced faith in a deity.

It is a beautiful thing.

Yes: faith, trust, confidence. These are all beautiful things. Personally I feel they are just as beautiful when they are not directed towards something. IOW it seems to me that "faith", "trust" and "confidence" do not always come with an "....in...".