Is Belief a Moral Construct?

[cvanwey]

@zippy2006 Followup....

- Jesus returns to tell a select group of humans to spread the Word.
- These humans try their best to reach as many humans as possible.
- They will not reach all, for many reasons.
- The ones which are reached, are then held accountable for this belief. The ones which are not, are not held accountable.
- Some, whom receive the Word, will continue not to believe.
- Some might even earnestly want for the claim to be true, but see a lack in evidence to the claim and thus, ultimately do not believe.

According to 'sufficient grace', are these individuals saved anyways?

If so, I see a conflict between this assertion and Mark 16:15-16? Giving it the
'ol college try' looks not to be the criteria, under the cited passage in the OP.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well they literally got in trouble for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so that imperils your thesis a bit.

Exactly! They knew what God wanted, but they didn't trust God so they did it anyways. This imperils your thesis that "If we know what God wants, we must do that thing".

1) We can trust or not trust (doubt) whether God will reward or punish

I'm happy to choose this one. Whether or not God will reward or punish is neither of the two things I said it would be better to never have to doubt.

ETA:

Neither case you gave involves a person choosing evil with full knowledge that it is evil.

Thinking back on my posts, I used "good" and "bad" as shorthand for "what God wants us to do" and "what God doesn't want us to do". That's on me for bad communication, but bear that in mind going forward please.

 

[stevil]

God's judgement looks to hinge upon whether or not one believes in Him, and then acts accordingly. However, if belief is NOT a choice, or cannot be willed, then belief may not constitute a moral or immoral action.

I don't want to get too involved in a discussion about the bible and what is meant by words, phrases etc in the bible.
I am an atheist, I've never read the bible, but I have heard about Christianity and some Christian beliefs, I have seen some phrases which may or may not have come from the bible.

If I were to speak from the "I"
I struggle to make sense of what I have read of the bible or of what concepts I have heard from the bible.
In many aspects the "teaching" of the bible seems to be the opposite of what I think we ought to be teaching to our children and ourselves.


With regards to having a requirement of "faith" and "belief", I find this very weird.
It is actually kinda difficult even to define these words in order to discuss this concept.

I take "faith" to mean
"to have an optimistic view of the future" or "to optimistically trust someone or something"
e.g. Jumping out of a plane you put your faith into the parachute which is supposed to open, you also put your faith into the person who packed your parachute, and you also put your faith into the person who gave you instructions on parachuting, there is also faith that your government regulation body is ensuring that standards met by companies to help support the safety of their customers.

We need faith because we can't be expected to do 100% due diligence ourselves on everything. In some cases we are not skilled or experienced enough to be able to assess these things, in other cases it just isn't practical for each person to do the due diligence e.g. we can't all investigate the safety and efficacy of a medicine.

I take "belief" to mean
Colloquially speaking we use the term "belief" to denote that we are claiming something to be true or fact whilst also recognising that we don't have enough evidence to determine this truth. We also recognise that there are other plausible alternatives that we are choosing to turn a blind eye to. (close mindedness)
We don't for example claim to believe in the moon. Instead we claim to know that the moon exists.
A person might however claim to believe that there is life on other planets in the universe even though we have never found life on another planet. They might highlight that the universe is huge with 10^23 stars and even more planets and therefore assume that with so much opportunity for life, that there "must" be. They know this isn't proven so they use the word "belief"

Bundling these together in the Christian god context
"I have faith and so believe that god exists" basically means that a person has wishful thinking and refuses to acknowledge or give credence to the possibility that the universe and life came about without a god.
That's fine, it's their life, their mind, they can choose to believe whatever they want.

But this insistence that a person that doesn't believe is then deserving of eternal torture in hell.
Well this is nonsensical.
To believe the Christian story, without evidence, without question.
Why not believe the Greek story, or the Roman story, or the Muslim story or the Indian story...

It's as if you put all these things on a dartboard, blind fold yourself and throw a dart at the board then choose to believe whatever it lands on.
Those whose dart landed on the right sector, they go to heaven and get eternal life,
Those whose dart landed on one of the wrong sectors they go to hell and are eternally tortured.

Is the Christian god into torture? Is the Christian god into gambling? Does this god reward the lucky ones and punish the unlucky ones?

Risk is an equation
Likelihood multiplied by severity.
Since there is no evidence to support the outlandish idea of magical gods, angels, demons, heaven, hell etc then the likelihood is very low. To counteract that, one must come up with a high severity. What is worse than eternal torture?
So now you have people that are risk adverse choosing Pascal's Wager, to avoid this high severity risk.

 

[zippy2006]

Exactly! They knew what God wanted, but they didn't trust God so they did it anyways. This imperils your thesis that "If we know what God wants, we must do that thing".

Rather, the very act of coveting and appropriating knowledge of good and evil was their sin. Your solution here is to... covet and appropriate knowledge of good and evil.

I'm happy to choose this one. Whether or not God will reward or punish is neither of the two things I said it would be better to never have to doubt.

ETA:

Thinking back on my posts, I used "good" and "bad" as shorthand for "what God wants us to do" and "what God doesn't want us to do". That's on me for bad communication, but bear that in mind going forward please.

Yes, but then we are in that very strange Euthyphro scenario I mentioned earlier. You want to separate obeying God and disobeying God from good and evil entirely. You are even willing to entertain the possibility that God, while transparently laying out his will and intentions, may be lying about the reward and punishment portion such that we "can still trust or not trust that God is going to reward or punish me for choosing the good choices or the bad choices." You have built in moral arbitrariness from the get-go.

Apart from being theologically untenable, it also doesn't get us anywhere. If the punished can still claim that they had doubts about whether to follow God's will or whether they would be punished, then there is still recourse to being excused on account of ignorance. You seem to think the problem is that people could be punished despite ignorance. I'm not sure how this new approach solves that problem. The person punished is no longer ignorant of what some random dude--and this is exactly what God looks like on your picture--wants, but they are still entirely ignorant of why they ought to do what that dude wants, and that kind of ignorance will still function perfectly as an excuse at the time of judgment.

 

[stevil]

After all, what is God? Does anyone really know?

God is a concept, not an actual existent object or structure.

Such as the concept of a circle.
How big is a circle? How much does a circle weigh? How old is a circle?
These are all questions that do not apply to many concepts. Concepts do not have to have all their properties defined as if they are an existent object or structure.
Of course a circle is eternal and omnipotent and omnipresent. The circle concept applies everywhere, it cannot be destroyed or altered. It just IS.

The god concept was created by humans and hence Anthropomorphism is written all over it.
It seems the god created the universe for us humans, our souls alone are special, how we behave to each other is uniquely of importance to this god. We of course were created in the image of god hence we have this close and special relationship to god.

It's all about us. God is soley focused on us, on giving us morality, on giving us agency, on punishing us for making the morally wrong choices. God does not punish ants for being mean to each other. God does not torture ants for not believing in god. God's sole purpose it seems is to be a curator and guide and judge of humans. It seems this god works for us. It is us whom have supreme value in the universe, everything else (including god) is there for us.
Aren't we just a little self absorbed to come up with all this guff?

 

[zippy2006]

Like I stated prior, I do not want to type-cast the definition. Looks as though we could delve into this topic alone, for quite a while. I say we table this one, for now, as I see another topic which looks to be of even graver concern, in direct relevance to the OP. (i.e.) Your assertion to 'sufficient grace'??? Why? If 'sufficient grace' is true, then God's judgement might be based upon how much each person tried to believe/apprehend/other, after receiving "the news", via the act of proselytizing/other.?.?.?



Even though Mark 16:15-16 speaks to the word (all), even I concluded here that this passage only speaks to the ones whom received the word/etc. Some may not at all -- (death at birth, dying in youth, other other other). For which might then spark a new conversation about if God invokes a free pass to all whom never received proselytism/other.

I'm asking about the ones whom have been exposed, and still fall short of earnest belief/apprehension, to the assertion that the claim is true?

Q1# Does the Bible speak about 'sufficient grace' anywhere coherently in the Bible?
Q2# Does 'sufficient grace' conflict with Mark 16:15-16?

I am not interested in having a discussion on the topic of sufficient grace, much less an exegetical discussion on the topic of sufficient grace with a skeptic. Feel free to research the topic on your own. In Catholicism it arose internally with respect to the Jansenist controversy.

I will just reiterate the claim I have made in this thread a few times: some will be acquitted on the basis of invincible ignorance; others--including some who mistakenly believe they are invincibly ignorant--will be convicted.

The core principle for the sake of this thread is related to justice. I maintain that God is just in his condemnation whereas you maintain that he is unjust. See propositions (12), (13), and (14) here.


I'm a bit short on time so I don't want to continue this conversation indefinitely. Related topics like sufficient grace constitute legitimate tangents, but I don't have time to pursue them at the moment. I think the premise underlying sufficient grace is already present in our implicit focus on justice.

 

[cvanwey]

I am not interested in having a discussion on the topic of sufficient grace, much less an exegetical discussion on the topic of sufficient grace with a skeptic. Feel free to research the topic on your own. In Catholicism it arose internally with respect to the Jansenist controversy.

I will just reiterate the claim I have made in this thread a few times: some will be acquitted on the basis of invincible ignorance; others--including some who mistakenly believe they are invincibly ignorant--will be convicted.

The core principle for the sake of this thread is related to justice. I maintain that God is just in his condemnation whereas you maintain that he is unjust. See propositions (12), (13), and (14) here.


I'm a bit short on time so I don't want to continue this conversation indefinitely. Related topics like sufficient grace constitute legitimate tangents, but I don't have time to pursue them at the moment. I think the premise underlying sufficient grace is already present in our implicit focus on justice.

Fair enough.... Just so you are aware, I'm in earnest search of an answer for this topic. I keep harping upon you, as you seem quite educated on the matter; as a whole. You brought up 'sufficient grace'. After thinking about it, this topic looks to be spot-on, in regards to the OP. I feel this topic may warrant further discussion, verses the previous aforementioned belief/apprehension. Which is still important, but maybe comes AFTER figuring out what 'sufficient grace' is all about.

And yes, I can research it on my own. Actually, I can research ANY topic on my own. No one needs to post questions here at all. Everything under the sun has already been addressed, time and time again.

I told you why I feel this topic of sufficient grace is more than relevant to the OP. If you do not care to discuss, that is fine.

I'll leave you with this, as asked prior...

1. Giving it the 'ol college try' and failing, looks to conflict with Mark 16:15-16?

2. Where in the Bible is 'sufficient grace' justified?

I will not bother you again, unless you wish to address, at your leisure

 

[zippy2006]

Fair enough.... Just so you are aware, I'm in earnest search of an answer for this topic. I keep harping upon you, as you seem quite educated on the matter; as a whole. You brought up 'sufficient grace'. After thinking about it, this topic looks to be spot-on, in regards to the OP. I feel this topic may warrant further discussion, verses the previous aforementioned belief/apprehension. Which is still important, but maybe comes AFTER figuring out what 'sufficient grace' is all about.

Many of the arguments against Calvinism focus on this topic or something closely related. You could find discussions like those on CF, and they would include various arguments from scripture.

I started a thread on the topic myself, but it may be more difficult to follow since the person I was addressing had a very high level of education. The term, "sufficient grace," is a Catholic concept, so it isn't used in this thread, but the topic is very similar. See especially posts #1 and #13:

"Ought" and "Can" in Calvinism (unanswered)

 

[Moral Orel]

Rather, the very act of coveting and appropriating knowledge of good and evil was their sin. Your solution here is to... covet and appropriate knowledge of good and evil.

They didn't know exactly what they were doing, only that God didn't want them to take a bite. They didn't know whether or not they would die, for instance, and they chose to trust the snake instead of God in that instance. They didn't know what good and evil was until they ate, so how could they covet something they didn't know anything about?

If the punished can still claim that they had doubts about whether to follow God's will or whether they would be punished, then there is still recourse to being excused on account of ignorance.

No there isn't. If you're complying because you believe you'll be punished if you don't then you aren't doing it for the right reasons.

Let's say I'm walking down the street and I spot a homeless man begging for change along the way. I have extra money in my pocket that I don't need, so I know that the right thing to do is to help him in some way. Maybe I just give him some money, maybe I buy him some food, whatever. If I choose to help him because I believe that will get me into Heaven or I believe that if I don't help him I'll get sent to Hell, then I didn't help him for the right reasons and I don't get credit for doing a good thing.

Ignorance about your personal reward/punishment isn't recourse to be excused because it shouldn't be part of your decision making process in the first place.

 

[zippy2006]

They didn't know exactly what they were doing, only that God didn't want them to take a bite. They didn't know whether or not they would die, for instance, and they chose to trust the snake instead of God in that instance. They didn't know what good and evil was until they ate, so how could they covet something they didn't know anything about?

I mean, they chose to risk death for the sake of knowing good and evil and "becoming like gods." Not sure where this part of the discussion is going...

No there isn't. If you're complying because you believe you'll be punished if you don't then you aren't doing it for the right reasons.

Let's say I'm walking down the street and I spot a homeless man begging for change along the way. I have extra money in my pocket that I don't need, so I know that the right thing to do is to help him in some way. Maybe I just give him some money, maybe I buy him some food, whatever. If I choose to help him because I believe that will get me into Heaven or I believe that if I don't help him I'll get sent to Hell, then I didn't help him for the right reasons and I don't get credit for doing a good thing.

Ignorance about your personal reward/punishment isn't recourse to be excused because it shouldn't be part of your decision making process in the first place.

Hey, you're the one who claimed that they could either trust or doubt that they would be rewarded or punished, and that one of those decisions could lead them to act badly. Now you're saying that any consideration of reward or punishment would render the act bad.

 

[cvanwey]

but it may be more difficult to follow since the person I was addressing had a very high level of education.

Hey, what are you implying? I got smarts real good.

 

[Freodin]

I mean, they chose to risk death for the sake of knowing good and evil and "becoming like gods." Not sure where this part of the discussion is going...

Without having an understanding of "good" and "evil", you don't have an understanding of "consequence". Or "trust". You don't have a way to distinguish between "right" and "wrong". You have nothing to base a decision on... you don't have the ability to decide. You just follow along, and whatever "order" or "suggestion" you receive is just as valid as any other.

The whole story of Adam, Eve and the tree doesn't make any sense without the understanding of a concept of "good" and "evil". It can only happen if you start the story with the very idea that is claimed to be introduced by the story.

 

[Moral Orel]

I mean, they chose to risk death for the sake of knowing good and evil and "becoming like gods." Not sure where this part of the discussion is going...

Who told them all that? If my memory serves me, no one told Adam and Eve they could become like gods. Wasn't it God talking amongst Himself saying, "We can't let them eat from that tree"?

The point is that all they knew was God didn't want them to do it and they made their decision contrary to that despite knowing what God wanted, and was therefore indeterminate.

Hey, you're the one who claimed that they could either trust or doubt that they would be rewarded or punished, and that one of those decisions could lead them to act badly. Now you're saying that any consideration of reward or punishment would render the act bad.

No, the whole act wouldn't be bad, but it would be tainted by selfish motives, yes. I should help the guy because I care about how he feels, not because I care about how I feel, right?

 

[zippy2006]

Surely the story of Adam and Eve is complex and paradoxical. That's why it generally doesn't serve as a useful proof-text. I didn't bring it up. I don't think it sheds much light on our question one way or another.

Who told them all that? If my memory serves me, no one told Adam and Eve they could become like gods. Wasn't it God talking amongst Himself saying, "We can't let them eat from that tree"?

Haha, why don't you go read the story you're attempting to utilize?

The point is that all they knew was God didn't want them to do it and they made their decision contrary to that despite knowing what God wanted, and was therefore indeterminate.

Sure, they disobeyed God and chose not to believe him.

I don't think this really helps us. On my anthropology they lacked the knowledge that the consequence of trusting God would be better than the consequence of eating the fruit; if they had that knowledge they would have acted differently; and therefore ignorance is still a central issue, as well as trust and doubt. Trust and doubt are central themes in the story.

No, the whole act wouldn't be bad, but it would be tainted by selfish motives, yes. I should help the guy because I care about how he feels, not because I care about how I feel, right?

Sure, I think that's basically right. I don't think acting for reward is bad, but subordinating the intrinsic human dignity of another to a reward would be problematic. In the case you give the reward should motivate only in a secondary way.

 

[Moral Orel]

Surely the story of Adam and Eve is complex and paradoxical. That's why it generally doesn't serve as a useful proof-text. I didn't bring it up. I don't think it sheds much light on our question one way or another.

Okay, well there are other examples of people being given direct commands by God and not following them. My point still stands that knowing what God commands doesn't remove free will.

Haha, why don't you go read the story you're attempting to utilize?

Yeah, I did have to freshen up on the details.

Sure, they disobeyed God and chose not to believe him.

I don't think this really helps us. On my anthropology they lacked the knowledge that the consequence of trusting God would be better than the consequence of eating the fruit; if they had that knowledge they would have acted differently; and therefore ignorance is still a central issue, as well as trust and doubt. Trust and doubt are central themes in the story.

But not doubt in God's existence or doubt in what He commands.

Sure, I think that's basically right. I don't think acting for reward is bad, but subordinating the intrinsic human dignity of another to a reward would be problematic. In the case you give the reward should motivate only in a secondary way.

Well there you go. The knowledge or lack thereof a punishment/reward don't excuse someone from doing bad.

 

[zippy2006]

But not doubt in God's existence or doubt in what He commands.

Okay, let's move forward while assuming that someone can choose contrary to God's will even when that will is manifested clearly to them. I probably don't agree entirely, but it seems reasonable enough to run with.

So what now?

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, let's move forward while assuming that someone can choose contrary to God's will even when that will is manifested clearly to them. I probably don't agree entirely, but it seems reasonable enough to run with.

So what now?

Well we also forgot about magically having knowledge of God's existence. Are there any other problems you can see? You might have already posited some that I skimmed over because you were drilling home this determinacy so hard. You seemed to claim that the searching for these answers itself was good somehow, and I think that searching is pointless. Add to that the fact that any valid reason for having ignorance of these two things would be a valid excuse.

 

[zippy2006]

Well we also forgot about magically having knowledge of God's existence. Are there any other problems you can see?

Just those such as I already gave in post #64.

You seemed to claim that the searching for these answers itself was good somehow, and I think that searching is pointless.

Yep.

Add to that the fact that any valid reason for having ignorance of these two things would be a valid excuse.

If the ignorance is "invincible," then yes.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just those such as I already gave in post #64.

And we went for a few posts past that before we again slipped down the free will slide, so I think that's all covered.

Yep.

What would that good be? I saw a lot of "It would be bad if" but I don't recall any "It's good that". People would have a lot more time on their hands to do good things if they already knew God existed and what those good things are.

If the ignorance is "invincible," then yes.

So then, I win, I guess?

 

[zippy2006]

And we went for a few posts past that before we again slipped down the free will slide, so I think that's all covered.

No, it wasn't covered at all. Free will has nothing to do with God's transcendence.

What would that good be? I saw a lot of "It would be bad if" but I don't recall any "It's good that". People would have a lot more time on their hands to do good things if they already knew God existed and what those good things are.

Searching for God could do various things for you, such as attuning you to deeper levels of reality, considering morality on a deeper level, thinking about where we have come from and where we are going, thinking about the nature and desires of the transcendent deity, etc.

So then, I win, I guess?

I guess.

It seems to me that you've papered over large portions of what I've said, and I'm still not sure what you're driving at.