When You're Honest With Yourself:

  • Thread starter Thread starter Voice_of_Reason_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a huge epistemic gap between there being something and there being the Christian Deity. Too many assumptions form the basis of that argument.
Absolutely, there is a huge gap between the “First Cause” and the “Christian God”. There is actually an active thread in the Philosophy forum on this topic. But that is not my concern to show you the Christian God in that one sentence. I simply want to ask you, according to the laws of nature, does “something” come from nothing?
Will has been smuggled into the conlusion if we say that people perservere against adversity. While that may be truth, the addicts who recover vs. the addicts who OD are distinguished, still further, by their environment and biology. What you call Will, I might, in this instance, call perserverence and some people have a higher propensity for it that others; some people may have an environment that supports and encourages it more than others.
Let’s just consider the subset of addicts who enter into rehab. They all have similar environments, yet some fail and some succeed. Are their biologies similar? Similar in that they have all become addicted in the first place. Tell me, can a biology really first direct someone in one direction, and then spontaneously lead them in the opposite direction, which is made so much more difficult because of the previous condition? Certainly those who succeed possess perseverance, but why do you disassociate that with the will?
 
I honestly believe I have been honest with my thoughts and evaluation. I am curious and sorry if you already responded, what is your religious background if any?
I am lurking more than posting and not wish to detract with your thread but I was curious.
 
I simply want to ask you, according to the laws of nature, does “something” come from nothing?
Quantum physics suggests that in some instances, it does. But even if we are unclear about the details of matter coming into existence, have I yet been given a reason to believe that there was a God who did it? Now we’ve explained the existence of observable things with the existence of yet an even more obscure and elusive thing. I’m not saying I know how it happened; I’m suggesting jumping to the conclusion that God did it, presents even more difficulties.
Let’s just consider the subset of addicts who enter into rehab. They all have similar environments, yet some fail and some succeed. Are their biologies similar? Similar in that they have all become addicted in the first place. Tell me, can a biology really first direct someone in one direction, and then spontaneously lead them in the opposite direction, which is made so much more difficult because of the previous condition? Certainly those who succeed possess perseverance, but why do you disassociate that with the will?
I don’t know that I quite understand what you’re driving at here.
 
I honestly believe I have been honest with my thoughts and evaluation. I am curious and sorry if you already responded, what is your religious background if any?
I am lurking more than posting and not wish to detract with your thread but I was curious.
No worries, thank you for your post!

I started out Pentacostal, moved onto Baptist, and formed the last of my Chrstian theorizing in Catholicism. Each present a torrent of problems for me. Catholicism offered the least, but now they all kind of blend.
 
Hello, thank you for your post! I appreciate the reflection on embracing God against circumstances. These stories are sad and very unfortunate. However, my difficulty isn’t particularly with the problem of evil (although it doesn’t help my faith), but rather the elusivity of God and His seemingly deterministic ways.
Dear Voice of Reason,

The reason why I direct you to spiritualunity rather than prefer to answer you myself is because she seems far more of an expert than I to deal with what you’re asking about. She can in fact help you when it comes to “the elusivity of God” … lately she’s been posting in her group about finding God in her sufferings … that seems above my experience and capacity, and when I read things like that I just kinda go “wow.” Am not sure how spiritualunity thinks about God’s “seemingly deterministic ways” as you call them.

As for my own admittedly feeble attempts at opinions on these issues … as for the elusivity of God, that personally has not been ever much of a problem for me as I’m a cradle Catholic born into a family of strong believers, and as a fine art nature / landscape photographer I see His beauty even in small moments of daily weather … clouds, sundogs (otherwise known as parhelia), rainbows, snow, fog, ice, etc.!

As for God’s seemingly deterministic ways, God is outside of time. He has given us free will to choose between good and evil. As a Forrest Gump fan, here’s a quote for whatever it’s worth. Maybe someone wiser will correct me philosophically:

"“I don’t know if we each have a destiny, or if we’re all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze. But I think maybe it’s both. Maybe both are happening at the same time.”
~~ Forrest Gump, Parmount Pictures, 1994

I’ll end this with a photo I took of a feather that reminded me of Forrest Gump. Yes, the feather is actually a cloud …



Above image comes from the Flickr website, where my photography name is CountryDreaming.

flickr.com/photos/95994086@N00/223249086/

Now if you want some real answers better than I can give, you can still always PM spiritualunity …

Cheers! 🙂
 
I talked to her on the phone a while ago, you would not believe what a strong person she is, what a trouper, this is a person to be very much looked up to!!! God bless you and her
Thanks, prodigalson12!

You too …

:blessyou:
 
As for my own admittedly feeble attempts at opinions on these issues … as for the elusivity of God, that personally has not been ever much of a problem for me as I’m a cradle Catholic born into a family of strong believers, and as a fine art nature / landscape photographer I see His beauty even in small moments of daily weather … clouds, sundogs (otherwise known as parhelia), rainbows, snow, fog, ice, etc.!
Thank you for the referal! I’ve contacted Spiritualunity, upon your suggesting. I am willing to hear from anyone who feels they’ve delved into the problem sufficiently enough to tell me something that I’ve yet to consider.

I used to see those same things that you saw. I used to look at beauty and nature and be completely in awe of it’s creation, but mystification by beauty is a human experience whether people attribute God to those feats of nature or not. I understand that you’re a cradle Catholic and have faith as a matter of habit and comfort where others may not necessarily, but other than these signs of nature, why do you believe in God? (I promise, this isn’t meant to be a hostile question; I’m just curious). From one person to the next, I have not heard a voice or felt a comfort that I thought was from God; I’ve never had prayers answered in any way that was outside of chance-probability; I’ve never experienced miracles or even seen them; God is supernatural but nothing I’ve ever experienced in life has showcased anything beyond what is natural, as far as I have observed. Why do you believe in God? I just don’t have that fortitude, either by way of my own propensity or by some heavenly endowment. I have no choice, you see, but to believe that God isn’t or that He simply favours some people knowing him over others. Why do you believe?
 
Dear Voice of Reason,

If I may ask, you say “I used to see those same things that you saw” … does that mean you believed in God at some time in the past?

If you want a one word answer as to why I believe in God, it would be: TRUST.

If you want to know where my belief in God comes from, it comes from: GOD.

Being surrounded by immediate family member-adults who set a good example and could teach well without watering anything down definitely helped.

God has sent consolations, and answered prayers, and has apparently sent me a real trooper of a guardian angel … it’s amazing I’m alive in fact. I survived choking on part of a stuffed animal that I’d bitten off when I was three months old (mom felt the need to check on me after putting me down for a nap), went on to survive being alone and surrounded by a ring of wild dogs after getting off the bus in kindergarten (since I’d watched Lassie on tv, I quietly called for the neighbor’s collie Laddie and Laddie saved me from the other dogs and walked me to my door) and then, after taking on the name of phoenix in college just for goofing off on the computer (before the internet), I survived a car fire because of two blonde men who came running from a long ways down a busy road to tell me my car was on fire (I only saw what looked to be white steam and thought it was the water pump) so I got out minutes before the car filled up with black smoke and then the window on the driver’s side melted and exploded in. So now my name of phoenix is rather more meaningful, as I truly did rise from the flames.

God has also answered some of my prayers “NO” … on more than one occasion!

And I also have some troubles in life … would rather not compare mine to others’ though.

Anyways, with all the zany adventures I’ve gone through … it’s not because of them that I believe in God.

Simply, I’ve trusted in God’s Presence since I was a child.

If you like, I can pray that you will find such trust.

Hope my ramble was helpful in some way and not too tedious. Actually your question is difficult for me because I take belief for granted, like breathing.

~~ the phoenix
 
When you’re honest with yourself - I mean really, really, honest, - and you think about the capacity for folly in the human mind and the innumerable problems with Christianty (let’s not pretend they’re non-existent; they are blaring), it’s absurd to even imagine the God of the Holy Bible. This is what happened to me. I feel I’ve become an atheist (as recently ago as December 15th). This was my last prayer:

It isn’t a change of rationale or a compelling new proof, a review of historical discrepancies, or the consideration of the nature of tenacity that would completely bankrupt my faith – I know it isn’t – It’s circumstances. I’m well informed that the bible calls for a sorrowful life, a rejection of worldly pleasures and joys; I’m aware that there is great an unforgivable evil in the world, and yet if that evil should rest upon me, God would never again exist in my mind. Faith, however, shouldn’t be circumstantial but cognitive (there are good reasons for believing in a religion, and so on). But a faith which leads to salvation shouldn’t be cognitive either, because there are mental deficients and imbeciles and those simply born with a hard head. And if God has chosen his elect and gives grace to whomever he wills, and destruction to the remainder, who can know or please him? One must accept that their faith is based on unstable tenants, or that they don’t have the cognitive fortitude to know God, or otherwise, are just unworthy of Him. If I participate in one man’s religion, I am doomed to the hellfire of another’s – and if neither cognition nor patronage can save me, in what shall I believe for salvation?
I recognized at once that my faith was neither strong, nor built on strong tenants when I adopted it into my philosophy. My saving grace, so to speak, was in the fact that there are secrets and mysteries and glorious things looming just beneath the cover of medieval literature, and in the hearts and minds of God’s alleged messengers (and what a stronghold that is for people that are content to confirm what they believe in the trite and too-common events of life; what a stronghold it is for those who are unwilling to do the investigation). But what I’ve found is poor reasoning, hatred, condemnation, inconsistencies, variance, atrocities against humanity, and subterfuge. I’ve found hypocrisy and the most unspeakable prescriptions for the treatment and judgement of the world’s sinners. I will believe in all earnestness a God that I know by more than man’s decadent authority, and by reason, if reason is permitted. But reason, if it is from God, I pray, cannot condemn me if it doesn’t also have the capacity to save me.
I’ve tried to repent and forgive, but my remorse has always been for my lack of ability to feel contrite over things which, by their very nature, seem perfectly acceptable. When I first began to believe, I know very well that I needed to. I may never know whether the stronghold was divine or psychological. Now, I don’t want to believe that there is a God or that there isn’t, I just want to know what’s true, whatever the case may be.
If God is listening, He will appreciate that this is the most truthful prayer I’ve ever prayed. Amen.
Please read “Orthodoxy” and “The Everlasting Man” by GK Chesterton.

Chesterton was a former agnostic and a very enjoyable writer who will influence your thinking.
 
Dear Voice of Reason,

If I may ask, you say “I used to see those same things that you saw” … does that mean you believed in God at some time in the past?

If you want a one word answer as to why I believe in God, it would be: TRUST.

If you want to know where my belief in God comes from, it comes from: GOD.

Being surrounded by immediate family member-adults who set a good example and could teach well without watering anything down definitely helped.

God has sent consolations, and answered prayers, and has apparently sent me a real trooper of a guardian angel … it’s amazing I’m alive in fact. I survived choking on part of a stuffed animal that I’d bitten off when I was three months old (mom felt the need to check on me after putting me down for a nap), went on to survive being alone and surrounded by a ring of wild dogs after getting off the bus in kindergarten (since I’d watched Lassie on tv, I quietly called for the neighbor’s collie Laddie and Laddie saved me from the other dogs and walked me to my door) and then, after taking on the name of phoenix in college just for goofing off on the computer (before the internet), I survived a car fire because of two blonde men who came running from a long ways down a busy road to tell me my car was on fire (I only saw what looked to be white steam and thought it was the water pump) so I got out minutes before the car filled up with black smoke and then the window on the driver’s side melted and exploded in. So now my name of phoenix is rather more meaningful, as I truly did rise from the flames.

God has also answered some of my prayers “NO” … on more than one occasion!

And I also have some troubles in life … hate comparing mine to others’ though, because we’re all unique individuals so what’s the sense in comparing who’s got it worse?

Anyways, with all the zany adventures I’ve gone through … it’s not because of them that I believe in God.

Simply, I’ve trusted in God’s Presence since I was a child.

If you like, I can pray that you will find such trust.

Hope my ramble was helpful in some way and not too tedious. Actually your question is difficult for me because I take belief for granted, like breathing.

~~ the phoenix
I appreciate your depth, Phoenix. Certainly, I believed God in the past (very recently, although the dissolution of such belief has been long-coming). I used to speak very high praises of Him, follow His decrees, evangelize to others, even pray for miracles and healings.

I understand the necessity of citing God as your source of belief (rather than mere environmental influences), but if you would suffer me to inquire further, I must ask in all curiousity how God imputes to you the belief that you hold in Him? Further, I am curious to know whether God should be blamed for misforune and destitution when no heavenly intercession has taken place, in the same way that we would offer Him praises based on good or fortuitous circumstances? Is it not too convenient that we should have a God in the heavens who can be praised based on subjective good, and an evil god in the fires of hell, whom we can curse for subjective evil? God is the necessary author alone, or the author by one degree removed, for both hardships and glories, either way. I feel, oddly, and endlessly thankful that you have not undergone the misfortunes you otherwise might have, but I am at a failure to find supernatural scholarship behind such events. I know you said these are not the reasons, per se, that you believe in God (perhaps anticipating my rebuttle), but they seem to me, still further, to act as evidence against a God, at least, of equality and non-favouritism.

In any event, forgive me for my haranguing (I haven’t told many people about the switch and I feel I need to put my concerns on the table, if not for any better reason than to understand them myself). I find myself doing to others what I have been to scripture and apologetics and spiritual leaders for some time now: searching them through and through to discover if they have some secret which leads to their serenity. It’s been a futile search though, unfortunately.

I appreciate the prayers, if not for anything more than the sentiment it offers. And if it offers more, thank God.
 
Please read “Orthodoxy” and “The Everlasting Man” by GK Chesterton.

Chesterton was a former agnostic and a very enjoyable writer who will influence your thinking.
Hi, thank you for the suggestion!

My schedule is somewhat tight. Although I will make an effort to get to both, which book would you recommend if I was unable to read more than just the one?
 
I don’t know that I quite understand what you’re driving at here.
Although I don’t see bringing in God to be bringing in more problems…Leaving off quantum physics, which I know nothing about… 😉

What I am driving at is where you see perseverance and call it an effect of a person’s biology, I see perseverance and call it part of a person’s free will. Does it really make sense that a person’s biology, which has no will or mind or choice, would first allow them to approach self-destruction, and then, over the course of some months, bring a person back to being healthy? Certainly I see that a person’s will can bring them to approach self-destruction, but it takes self-reflection, in fact to rise above the situation to assess it and make a choice to turn around and abandon the self-destructive habits. Simple biology does not lend itself to rising above itself.
 
Further, I am curious to know whether God should be blamed for misforune and destitution when no heavenly intercession has taken place, in the same way that we would offer Him praises based on good or fortuitous circumstances? Is it not too convenient that we should have a God in the heavens who can be praised based on subjective good, and an evil god in the fires of hell, whom we can curse for subjective evil?
Yes! but not “blamed”, for if the evil is subjective, then I, the subject, am free to unite my sorrows with Jesus, the Crucified Saviour, and I can give thanks to God for allowing me to offer up my pains for some other good.
 
Although I don’t see bringing in God to be bringing in more problems…Leaving off quantum physics, which I know nothing about… 😉

What I am driving at is where you see perseverance and call it an effect of a person’s biology, I see perseverance and call it part of a person’s free will. Does it really make sense that a person’s biology, which has no will or mind or choice, would first allow them to approach self-destruction, and then, over the course of some months, bring a person back to being healthy? Certainly I see that a person’s will can bring them to approach self-destruction, but it takes self-reflection, in fact to rise above the situation to assess it and make a choice to turn around and abandon the self-destructive habits. Simple biology does not lend itself to rising above itself.
I understand where you’re coming from with this explanation, but to be sure, it’s fraught with assumptions. You’ve created a dichotomy between actions based on biology and actions based on [presumably God-given] self-relfection. But there’s no reason to suspect that biology does not encompass both. You’ve asserted a case for Free Will only because you see that a person could do one thing or another. A vine, you will notice, can go hither or thither, but we don’t scruitinize its “choices” and say that some are biological and some are made after reflection. 1) People have a biology which predisposes them to act in certain ways (one of those predispositions might be the tendency to be inconsistent) 2) People have an environment which interacts with a person made of physical matter (Man checks into rehab; reflects on his situation because of some manditory therepy received during the stay; makes a choice to become clean). What, of his own personal volition, was unencumbered by the environment or biology that he should have even made a decision that was aligned with God’s Will? A mentally deficient person cannot believe in God because he or she doesn’t have the cognitive faculties; A person of low intelligence may not be able to grasp the proof or reasoning behind God’s existence (is he spared?); still further an intellectual person may find nothing but incongruence in reason with respect to a belief in God. So where do you draw the line for who is too insufficiently endowed to be held responsible for their lack of belief? You have to draw a line in the sand. You have to consider that either everyone is saved because there is no proportion between finite and infinite wisdom, or that God, being omniscient, crafts people with foreknowledge of their potential eternal torment.

Finally, what I was getting at with God being a poor explanation for the universe is that you’ve added one extra unexplainable principle than was there before. (What caused the universe? Something unknown) v.s. (What caused the universe? God. What caused God? God always was). This is not so much an explanation as it is an evasion of one, even though we may be wont to subscribe to such claims.

You see that the difficulties for me (and for any reflective person, as I’m sure you doubtless are) are numerous and not easily dealt with.
 
I understand where you’re coming from with this explanation, but to be sure, it’s fraught with assumptions. You’ve created a dichotomy between actions based on biology and actions based on [presumably God-given] self-relfection. But there’s no reason to suspect that biology does not encompass both. You’ve asserted a case for Free Will only because you see that a person could do one thing or another. A vine, you will notice, can go hither or thither, but we don’t scruitinize its “choices” and say that some are biological and some are made after reflection. 1) People have a biology which predisposes them to act in certain ways (one of those predispositions might be the tendency to be inconsistent) 2) People have an environment which interacts with a person made of physical matter (Man checks into rehab; reflects on his situation because of some manditory therepy received during the stay; makes a choice to become clean). What, of his own personal volition, was unencumbered by the environment or biology that he should have even made a decision that was aligned with God’s Will?
As I said earlier, the subset of addicts I was considering were the ones who were in rehab, so environment is controlled for; some addicts will succeed, some will fail, from the same facility.

I have a problem with your idea that “one of those predispositions might be the tendency to be inconsistent”. Frankly, I think you’re stretching to reject free will. A “tendency to inconsistency” is, in other words a “tendency not to have a tendency”. If I have a tendency to like ham, but also a tendency to be inconsistent, then the tendency to like ham is simply meaningless.

A person is in rehab because they have a physically verifiable need for a certain substance. This is their tendency now. This is a biologically governed. To go back on it takes a lot of effort. It is no mere tendency. I don’t know what a vine could do that is of comparable difficulty. It obeys gravity, it obeys its directionality, it grows towards the sun, or to water. You don’t find a vine in an oasis that stretches out into the desert.
 
Hi, thank you for the suggestion!

My schedule is somewhat tight. Although I will make an effort to get to both, which book would you recommend if I was unable to read more than just the one?
Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy describes how Chesterton, as an agnostic, began to form his own worldview. Over time he was surprised to discover that the things he had come to believe to be true all conformed to Christian teaching, which he found very shocking.
 
As I said earlier, the subset of addicts I was considering were the ones who were in rehab, so environment is controlled for; some addicts will succeed, some will fail, from the same facility.

I have a problem with your idea that “one of those predispositions might be the tendency to be inconsistent”. Frankly, I think you’re stretching to reject free will. A “tendency to inconsistency” is, in other words a “tendency not to have a tendency”. If I have a tendency to like ham, but also a tendency to be inconsistent, then the tendency to like ham is simply meaningless.

A person is in rehab because they have a physically verifiable need for a certain substance. This is their tendency now. This is a biologically governed. To go back on it takes a lot of effort. It is no mere tendency. I don’t know what a vine could do that is of comparable difficulty. It obeys gravity, it obeys its directionality, it grows towards the sun, or to water. You don’t find a vine in an oasis that stretches out into the desert.
I have, perhaps, economized on words where I might have explained myself better: my apologies. Let me deal with each concern piecemeal:
  1. “Environment is controlled for”
When I refer to the environment, I don’t mean only the one in which the addict finds himself; I am refering to the one he’s experienced his whole life (which is always going to be distinct from someone elses). You’ve said “environment is controlled for,” but environment is not a mere variable, but a cluster of very complicated and interacting variables. One man grows up in a nurturing family but becomes an addict because of the people he keeps company with (his recovery comes easily because when he made the decision to become clean, he had a support group). Another man is addicted but does not have the support group (environmental stimulus) to perservere in becoming healthy. You see then, that you can never control for environment.
  1. “*The tendency to be inconsistent” *
What I mean is that people don’t simply act without variance. As you might have asserted, but haven’t: yes, people get sick of ham. People are torn between their need to eat and to seek variety. Both are encompassed within human nature. People enjoy novelty, rebellion, and drug-induced experiences, so they do drugs and become addicts. People also want to survive and live free of financial, health, relational, and social strains, so some become clean. Both are encompassed within human nature. In fact, people are torn between life decisions on a number of domains proper to simple biology and socialization.
  1. "The vine is affected by gravity; it grows towards the sun or the water"
Precisely. It is affected by many (and probably more) variables. Proximity to the sun, angle of growth, proximity to water: these are all things which vary according to the location and structural integrity of the plant. If some plants should live, we shouldn’t say that they have acted according to their will to do so (the recovering addict). If some plants whither and die, we shouldn’t say that they did not Will their survival (the addict who doesn’t recover). The analogy is not perfect, but you do see that we are all made of matter and subject, in ways, to the natural law.

But to complicate matters further, even if, we should consider this whole explanation complete bologna, we still have yet another concern to deal with: God is the author of not only our biological make up, subject to environmental stimuli, but also of our Will. God, necessarily creates people that have Wills too weak or stubbourn or stupid to act in ways that lead to salvation. If I should die and stand before the judgment seat of God this very day, would he tell me “You ought to’ve believed in me with the insufficient evidence I gave you!”? What a tyrant a God like that must be!, who creates people and hardens their hearts against him, or if nothing else, allows hearts to be hardened.
 
So VoR, what is your better explanation for the existence of the cosmos, life, and the human condition? And how does that better explanation hold up to your standards of proof and truth (which I assume you apply impartially to any explanation, not just to explanations involving God/gods)?
 
I’ve always been taken by the argument:

You cannot name one, not even one, good thing done in the name of faith that couldn’t have been done by someone with no faith at all. However, you can name all kinds of wicked, evil, terrible things done in the name of the faith that would have never entered the mind of someone with no faith.
 
Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy describes how Chesterton, as an agnostic, began to form his own worldview. Over time he was surprised to discover that the things he had come to believe to be true all conformed to Christian teaching, which he found very shocking.
In a similar vein, I consider C.S. Lewis’ spiritual autobiography “Surprised by Joy” to be essential reading. He was as learned an atheist as any atheist could hope for, but his search for beauty and truth led him, against his will actually, back to the Christian faith he had abandoned in his youth.

And for a modern-day thinking atheist hater of Christianity who recently became Catholic, check out the religious posts in author John C Wright’s blog: johncwright.livejournal.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top