Why Is Knowledge Itself Considered Coercive?

[tcampen]

I may have originally posted this thread in the wrong area, so I'm putting it here now... I have seen the apologetic argument that if God made his existence and nature obvious, then that would somehow be coercive as to belief in him. In other words, the argument goes that God gave us enough evidence to believe in him, but not too much to be coercive.

I was hoping someone might be able to provide a coherent explanation for this position, for it seems to support the notion that knowledge and free will are ultimately at odds. There are many believers who think there is more than enough evidence and reasons to believe in the christian god, and many others who think there is insufficient evidence and reason to do so.

If god made his existence and will utterly obvious and clear to all people, why would that knowledge itself be coercive? Since when is there such thing as too much knowledge to make an informed choice?

 

[ebia]

I agree with you - it's not a good argument.

I can only guess that it is rooted in misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of faith.

I.e. if (a) faith is believing things without evidence and(b) heaven is an arbitrary reward for faith thenGod can't make anything obvious or there is no space left for faith to be demonstrated.

Since (a) and (b) are completely wrong, the conclusion is rubbish.

 

[Joveia]

I think in some ways maybe there's not a huge amount of virtue in it, and that God is absent for other reasons. I think part of it could be that God uses His absence to produce fruitful change in people. In a theological view I favour (by no means the only one) people will keep the free will to reject God forever in heaven. So before we get to heaven, *something* needs to happen to make us *never* want to reject God in heaven.. even after an eternity. Because eternal grace involves eternal rejection of sin, this could conceivably be quite hard to do forever. So at the end of the day, if believers struggle to hold to their faith and very importantly love their neighbour when God appears absent, then this certainly contributes to an attitude of 'I will never leave grace and go back to any kind of sin'.

 

[ebia]

God is absent for other reasons

God is absent?

 

[Chesterton]

If god made his existence and will utterly obvious and clear to all people, why would that knowledge itself be coercive?

I think I see some merit in the argument, but it depends on how you might answer this: in what way do you imagine God would/could make Himself and His will obvious?

 

[drich0150]

Evidence as it is, is subjective.. For thousands of years the holy scriptures contained a sufficient amount of evidence for those who seek God (and still does).. And for those who do not wish to be under God, nothing that could be written in scripture would ever be enough.

You have to understand God is not a mental exercise to be won over through superior understanding.. If this were the case none of the finite minds who he has created could ever grasp the infinite nature of God. So as a mental exercise we would all fail to ever hope to know God.

As it is, our relationship is built on faith.. Faith as most educated people are willing to point out, doesn't take alot of education to produce.. But that's the point. none of us are capable to understand all of the evidence anyway, and without Complete knowledge of any subject we have to take certain aspects of the unknown on faith anyway... In God's economy Humility pays large dividends.. Our entire relationship with God should be based on Humility and Love, because we are engaged in worship or we are yielding to God's authority.. This takes Humility, Knowledge and the pursuit of it is a pride based activity..

God does want you to make an informed decision, but you have to ask yourself to what end must he prove himself to You.. At some point your education will fail you and then what? will you just simply go on faith from that point? Why not start on faith, and begin your relationship with him, the way He has asked, rather dictating rules of your allegiance to him?

 

[salida]

tcampen-

Its a spiritual ordeal. You can give a person all the overwhelming evidence you want intellectually but if their will doesn't want it and/or accept it its irrelevant. The will of a person is their guide no matter what one shows them.

Are you a good person? http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Can you keep all the 10 Commandments all the time 100% of the time? Only Jesus could. This is why mankind needs a Lord and Savior. Everyone thinks they are a good person. But by what standards are they using to conclude this? Many people will say "Oh, I'm not bad like that guy" - so, I'm ok. There are hundreds of standards out there. Wouldn't it be creapy if there was hundreds of standards for the law of gravity? Being a physical law. God has a standard - a spiritual standard. Yes, there are other religions who are vastly fundamentally different - they all try to get to God by works alone. One is saved by grace through faith, and good works is a byproduct of saving faith in christianity. God standards are way too high for mankind to work their way to heaven. And its the spiritual medicine that will redeem mankind - through Christ.

 

[Emmy]

Dear tcampen. I have never looked upon Knowledge as Coercive, and I cannot see knowledge as such. I like to believe that true knowledge widens the human horizon. If you know differently, I would love to know it, too, tcampen. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[tcampen]

I think I see some merit in the argument, but it depends on how you might answer this: in what way do you imagine God would/could make Himself and His will obvious?

If god is omnipotent, then he could certainly have a way to do it. But one example could be God appearing in the sky every morning at 9:00 am (local time for each timezone) telling people his will for them as a people and as individuals in the language they understand best, while performing supernatural examples of his power that utterly violate the laws of nature. (I'm not saying this is perfect, but it is a long way from the divine hiddeness we see in our real world.)

That's just off the top of my head.

 

[tcampen]

Dear tcampen. I have never looked upon Knowledge as Coercive, and I cannot see knowledge as such. I like to believe that true knowledge widens the human horizon. If you know differently, I would love to know it, too, tcampen. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

I agree with you that knowledge is not coercive, but enlightening. I was referring to the apologetic argument (asserted by well known people like William Lane Craig), that if God made himself and his will obvious, that would somehow interfere with one's free will to accept or reject god. As if the information itself would be so overwhelming that a person would have no choice but to accept god on his terms. But, so the argument goes, God provides enough evidence to have faith in him and in determining his will, but not too much just to avoid this issue.

I don't see the merit in this argument myself for the same reason you don't, and was hoping someone who did subcribe to it might provide some good reasons to think it was worthwhile.

 

[tcampen]

tcampen-

Its a spiritual ordeal. You can give a person all the overwhelming evidence you want intellectually but if their will doesn't want it and/or accept it its irrelevant. The will of a person is their guide no matter what one shows them.

I appreciate what you are saying, and I don't disagree with you here. But spirituality is something that is inherently personal to the individual. My experience of the divine might be very different from yours, but equally authentic to both of us. How do we determine which one of our subjective spiritual experiences is closer to reality without evidence?

Are you a good person? http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Can you keep all the 10 Commandments all the time 100% of the time? Only Jesus could. This is why mankind needs a Lord and Savior. Everyone thinks they are a good person. But by what standards are they using to conclude this? Many people will say "Oh, I'm not bad like that guy" - so, I'm ok. There are hundreds of standards out there. Wouldn't it be creapy if there was hundreds of standards for the law of gravity? Being a physical law. God has a standard - a spiritual standard. Yes, there are other religions who are vastly fundamentally different - they all try to get to God by works alone. One is saved by grace through faith, and good works is a byproduct of saving faith in christianity. God standards are way too high for mankind to work their way to heaven. And its the spiritual medicine that will redeem mankind - through Christ.

I think you're getting off topic here, so I'm going to let it go - unless you can show me the relevance to my OP,.

thanks, -t

 

[Chesterton]

If god is omnipotent, then he could certainly have a way to do it. But one example could be God appearing in the sky every morning at 9:00 am (local time for each timezone) telling people his will for them as a people and as individuals in the language they understand best, while performing supernatural examples of his power that utterly violate the laws of nature. (I'm not saying this is perfect, but it is a long way from the divine hiddeness we see in our real world.)

That's just off the top of my head.

And you don't think that would compromise our free will? I think that would compromise my will to a far greater extent than a mugger with a gun who demands my money.

 

[tcampen]

And you don't think that would compromise our free will? I think that would compromise my will to a far greater extent than a mugger with a gun who demands my money.

That's an interesting point, but a mugger with a gun is a criminal committing an immoral, unjustified and violent threat against you. But unless you are suggesting God's will is immoral, unjustified and violent threat, I'm not sure I agree with your comparison.

What a mugger threatens you with is the intentional act in violation of your person. God's existence and will is supposed to be the actual state of reality. What I am saying is why would knowledge of that state of reality be like an individual threat from some thug?

 

[Chesterton]

That's an interesting point, but a mugger with a gun is a criminal committing an immoral, unjustified and violent threat against you. But unless you are suggesting God's will is immoral, unjustified and violent threat, I'm not sure I agree with your comparison.

I'll concede to violent, but can you prove that the mugger's act is immoral and unjustified?

What a mugger threatens you with is the intentional act in violation of your person. God's existence and will is supposed to be the actual state of reality. What I am saying is why would knowledge of that state of reality be like an individual threat from some thug?

I'm not saying that one is like the other, except for the single possibily that both could affect my will. A beautiful poem, and a natural disaster could both affect my will similarly, and inspire me to give to charity, but that doesn't mean that a poem and a hurricane are equivalent.

 

[tcampen]

I'll concede to violent, but can you prove that the mugger's act is immoral and unjustified?

"Prove" is not the right word, but I could certainly demonstrate. But that is not the point of this OP. I'm trying hard not to get off topic.

I'm not saying that one is like the other, except for the single possibily that both could affect my will. A beautiful poem, and a natural disaster could both affect my will similarly, and inspire me to give to charity, but that doesn't mean that a poem and a hurricane are equivalent.

Understanding the reality that the world is spherical, rather than flat, might very well affect your will to sail accross the ocean. But one could hardly say that knowing the reality of our planet overcame your will in that regard such that you lost the freedom to make the choice or not. I see it as making an informed choice.

If the mugger had a gun to your head, but you also knew the gun was unloaded and the mugger had the strength and reaction time of 98 year old lady, have you suddenly been given more free will? I don't think so. You always had the same free will either way, only your evaluation of the merits of how you react may change based on the level of information you have. The more information you possess, the more informed your choice can be.

(I am also making a clear distinction between a threat by a person, and the existing state of reality. Unless God is holding a gun to my head commanding me to do something "or else", the analogy fails. Many, many things affect your decision making process, and they are not all the same.)

Whether a hurricane inspires you to act charitably still depends on you. And the more you know about the hurricane itself, and its affects, might very well inspire you to act. But is there a point at which too much information about the hurricane would overcome your free will to act? Does your information of it need to be intentionally limited in order for you to retain your free will? I guess I'm just not seeing the merit of your point.

 

[packermann]

If god made his existence and will utterly obvious and clear to all people, why would that knowledge itself be coercive? Since when is there such thing as too much knowledge to make an informed choice?

Informed choice to do what? Whether or not to believe in Him? But does that not make belief in Him redundant?

I myself do not go for the free will argument. I think you bring up some very good points against it. Also, the Bible itself seems to contradict this argument.

Look at [Doubting] Thomas. He said that unless he touched Jesus’ wounds, he would not believe. Jesus accommodated him. He appeared to him and let him touch His wounds. Then Thomas believed.

Look at the Apostle Paul. God struck him down from his horse while he was going to persecute Christians. This experience convinced him beyond the shadow of the doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, and only then did he convert.

As a Catholic, I have more recent stories. There was a Jewish atheist who used to laugh at the idea of the Catholic faith. Then one day a Catholic gave him the Miraculous Medal. He decided to wear it just to prove to his Catholic friend that it was just a big joke. A week later it was raining hard, and he ran into a nearly church for shelter. And in that church, Mary, in all her splendor, appeared to him. This changed his life. He became a Catholic that night, broke off his engagement with his fiancée, and joined a monastery. He became a saint – Alphonsus Ratisbonne.

So since God did these things in the past, why not do it for you? Right?

Well, I myself would prefer to not have that experience ever to happen to me. I agree with you that this would not take away our free will. But it does make faith redundant.

Suppose God did appear to you right now? What would you do? Would you then just believe in him? When you die and face God, and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you say? That you believed in Him. BIG DEAL! If He appeared to, your faith in Him no longer has any merit at all! Only fool would not believe in God after God appeared to him! Are you going to say you deserve eternal happiness in heaven just because you were not a fool?

Jesus said that to him much is given, much more is required. Jesus said to the religious leaders who refused to follow him that they would be judged more harshly than Sodom and Gommorah because they saw the miracles he performed. The more God reveals to you, the more he requires of you, and the more harshly he will judge you.

Look at the three I mentioned beforehand – Thomas, Paul, and Ratisbonne. Each one was required more from God. They did not just say “Gee, thanks, God, for revealing Yourself to me”, and then went back to live their comfortable lives. No way! God gave them a tremendous gift of revealing Himself miraculously to them! As Jesus said, to much is given, much is required. God required Thomas to go to far-off lands and preach the gospel. Eventually, he was killed. Paul also was required to be a missionary. He lived a life of celibacy. He also lived in poverty all his life. He eventually was be-headed for his faith. Ratisbonne gave up marriage and a wealthy life and became a monk.

So be honest with yourself. If God were to appear before you, what would you give God in return? Would you give up marriage and all the comforts of this life? Would you live in poverty in order to spread the gospel in far-off lands? Would you be willing to be a martyr?

Sure, God does not require that for all of us. But that is because He cherishes the simple, child-like faith we offer to him. In His eyes, our faith is more precious than gold. But once He appears before us, that faith means nothing to Him anymore. So He expects far more us in return.

We forget that we are not here to judge God. It is the other way around. He is our judge. He is judging us to see if we are worthy to spend eternity with Him in heaven. God sees us worthy by seeing our faith and our works of love. But once He appears to us, that faith is meaningless. So all we have left is our works. And our works better be far greater than those who believed without needing God to appear to them.

This is why Jesus said to Doubting Thomas “Blessed are they who do not see and yet believe”. Their faith had value to God. Thomas’ faith had less or no value to God. It took much more for Thomas to prove himself worthy to God than for you or I to prove ourselves to God. This is why I myself would rather not have God appear to me. Then my faith would then be useless.

 

[Chesterton]

I guess I'm just not seeing the merit of your point.

On second thought maybe my point's not a good one, but I still have to think appearances by God as you describe would be at least highly persuasive if not coercive. Our Creator making Himself palpable in that way would be extremely frightening to us mortals. And the problem I see is that people would come to worship Him out of fear, when what He wants is worship out of love.

 

[tcampen]

This is why Jesus said to Doubting Thomas “Blessed are they who do not see and yet believe”. Their faith had value to God. Thomas’ faith had less or no value to God. It took much more for Thomas to prove himself worthy to God than for you or I to prove ourselves to God. This is why I myself would rather not have God appear to me. Then my faith would then be useless.

This is an interesting theological point. But is the ultimate goal to have faith, or to act according to God's will? I don't think faith in and of itself is the goal, but rather faith is the means to assertaining God's will - which is the real goal.

I want to be sure we are staying on point here, with the issue of whether knowledge itself of god and his will can be unduly coercive. Perhaps hiding the ball just enough requires we bridge the gap between what we know and the actual truth with faith - but why is this reasonable? The answer given by some apologists gets back to my OP - because if god made his existence and will obvious to would overcome one's free will to accept or reject him.

Perhaps your theological perspective is correct and this answer to god's divine hiddeness is not. Are you agreeing this "free will" argument is without merit, and simply proposing another reason for the hiddeness?

 

[tcampen]

On second thought maybe my point's not a good one, but I still have to think appearances by God as you describe would be at least highly persuasive if not coercive. Our Creator making Himself palpable in that way would be extremely frightening to us mortals. And the problem I see is that people would come to worship Him out of fear, when what He wants is worship out of love.

I agree it would be highly persuasive. But I'm not sure why that's necessarily a problem. If god could interact with people for thousands of years displaying the most amazing of supernatural asbilities for them, why is such so off limits for us today? If all the resurrections in the gospels were not unduly coercive to the first christians, why would knowledge of our reality be for us?

Your point about fear is a good one, but any such fear would result from knowledge of the state reality. If something about that state of reality reasonably warrants such fear, then what is the purpose of hiding it such that a vast majority of people do not see it and cannot react to it? Like I said before, more information about the state of reality as it affects us personally and our ability to make choices concerning that reality cannot be considered so coercive as to interfere with one's free will. It might make certain choices clearer, but the choice still remains.

 

[aiki]

I may have originally posted this thread in the wrong area, so I'm putting it here now... I have seen the apologetic argument that if God made his existence and nature obvious, then that would somehow be coercive as to belief in him. In other words, the argument goes that God gave us enough evidence to believe in him, but not too much to be coercive.

I was hoping someone might be able to provide a coherent explanation for this position, for it seems to support the notion that knowledge and free will are ultimately at odds. There are many believers who think there is more than enough evidence and reasons to believe in the christian god, and many others who think there is insufficient evidence and reason to do so.

If god made his existence and will utterly obvious and clear to all people, why would that knowledge itself be coercive? Since when is there such thing as too much knowledge to make an informed choice?

I have heard the argument you sketch out above in response to those who declare that they would only believe in God's existence if He appeared right before them (C. S. Lewis has used a form of it). Only a face-to-face meeting with God will satisfy such a person's demand for evidence and/or proof. Of course, such a meeting would no longer require the person to exercise faith in God; His appearance would remove the choice to believe He exists; God's presence before them would demand that they admit His existence. In this sense, having tangible, visible proof of God's existence becomes "coercive."

A person could, having physically encountered God, conceivably still deny that He exists. We can conceive of this, in part, because many mentally ill people deny what is real all the time. Doing so would go against all reason and logic, however. Personally, I think that anyone who suggests that one can stand before the God of Universe and still deny His existence has a very, very small view of Him. If God is truly as the Bible describes Him, His mere presence will be so powerful, so crushing, so mind-shattering that, if He did not provide a means of surviving it, no one would. It is the person who has shrunk God down to almost nothing who thinks one can stand before Him and still choose to deny Him.

I don't quite understand your last question: "Since when is there such a thing as too much knowledge to make an informed choice?" How does this apply to the idea that God's literal, physical presence before someone commands their acknowledgment?

Peace to you.