Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Amandil]

Fortunately in our secular society there are many people whose values are based on our Christian heritage. One of those who formulated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was Jacques Maritain, a Catholic philosopher.

Well, I’m sure you will agree that Christian heritage is the only really and truly humane philosohical heritage there can be.

The problem though is as old as the Fall itself: secular man desires no greater good than his own exaltation. He wants to make him/herself a god.

Bishop Sheen once said that tradition is to a society what memory is to a person. Once a society sets its tradition aside for novelty and false and novel ideas, it can’t identify itself anymore.

Secularism has led to societal Alzheimer’s. We remember some parts of ourselves, but have forgotten others. How soon the condition becomes permanent depends upon whether or not society either embraces subjectivism and relativism, or rejects it.

 

[OneSheep]

All you’re doing here is appealing to feigned ignorance again.

I’ll reiterate again:

1. All men have sufficient knowledge of God to be culpable before him.
2. All men know the true imperative regarding morality and natural law, the good that ought to be done and the evil that ought to be avoided.

This refutes your above example. Self deception is no more of an excuse than feigned ignorance.

I see that you would like to talk about culpability and excuses. I would be happy to do so on another thread, or after we figure out the answer to the question on this thread. The question is “Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?”, and I am saying that the question contains a false premise; I am saying that in my observation, no one ever knowingly and willingly rejects God.

You really don’t see the pride and egocentrism in the idea that my time is mine! do you?

The fact is that we do not own our time. We do not own our bodies. We do not really “own” anything. Something is really only “mine” as it stands in a relationship to us according to what is good.

Those who either do not or won’t “sacrifice” their time are acting contrary to love. And guilt is profitable when it leads someone to humility and is also profitable when it exposes pride and self-worship.

Here is my take on “egocentrism”: As a person of prayer begins to grow spiritually and forgives everyone, learning to love everyone, understanding the feelings and needs of the “other”, the “other” essentially becomes a part of ourselves, even more important than our own self or well-being. I am sure that you have experienced this with your daughters. Are not their needs and feelings, their very well-being, more important than your own? You would die for them, would you not? Our children, in our love, become extensions of ourselves. The poor, in our love, the least, in our love, our enemies, in our love, all become extensions of ourselves. The “ego” comes to include everyone. Love is always inclusive.

So, feel free to call me selfish. I am called to serve many others, hundreds in fact, and I do. I love those I serve; as I grow in love, I love them more and more as I do myself. I serve, not selflessly, but selfishly, for I take joy in serving. I take joy in the happiness of others. It is my joy. Shoot, there I go again. Sermon over.

Let’s come to an agreement on something, though. It is wrong to want for yourself at someone else’s expense, which is typically what we label “selfishness” or “egocentrism”. I would rather lose the labels and simple say that when someone else gets something at my expense, without my approval, I feel a bit resentful.

It doesn’t matter the order of events. Right reason and good will dictates that you stop and order them, examine everything, and then choose the good.

Appetites blind us because we do not stop to control them according to reason. ** If the will refuses to go by reason but only the appetites then, yes, the blindness is willed. You chose to go by the appetites alone. **

How does a person know when he is blinded, though, Amandil? I can look at so many times in my past when I was blind, and just did not know it. So, yes, we “should” subject our blindness and appetites to reason, but we have to realize that our appetites are subjecting us in the first place.

Let me give an example. If a person is feeling resentment towards a particular opinion, then their resentment will include an image, an object of resentment, in their mind. Our mind looks for the “source of the evil”, so to speak. So, the resentment will likely be aimed at the “other” with the differing opinion. The “other” will be seen in a negative way, and this is blindness. All of this can take place very subconsciously, the person may simply disbelieve that they feel any resentment at all, even though it is quite obvious to everyone else. What does the resentment do? Well, it affects the tone of the resenting person’s speech and writing. Does it stand to reason? No, of course not. The way of love is to gently correct and show a different way of looking at things. Do people listen to those who self-righteously criticize and berate others? No, quite the opposite, the receiver and the witnesses see that the person who speaks with resentment is not speaking with the voice of love, but is instead speaking with a voice that seeks to belittle, condescend, or punish. Angry, critical speech is unreasonable and does not reflect our kind, merciful Abba, the true source of all reason. Anger and desire to punish are understandable as manifestations of our nature, but both can be enslaving.

So really, does a person hang onto his blindness once he realizes he is blinded? That is the next question to address, in this scenario.

Here’s the rub, people who reject God are, no matter what their state bodily is, spiritual infants. So you have to get out of your mind the idea of spiritual maturity. They may even be perhaps very advanced intellectually, but they have not even made the mental connections which lead beyond the mere compartmentalization of the various knowledge they possess to integrate it into a conscious whole.

I love that, yes we are all “spiritual infants”! I say we are all sheep. Do you know sheep? I used to raise them. Sheep are very, very stupid, which is why I like being called sheep, part of a flock. So, yes, we are all very ignorant, but adults a wee bit less so than infants. Spiritual growth happens, Amandil, it is part of our catechesis. Relationship with God develops through prayer and experience. Take a sheep, some day, grab it my the face and look into its brainless eyes. When I do this, I am experiencing a metaphor, I have an inkling of what it means to be God looking into my eyes.

 

[Amandil]

I see that you would like to talk about culpability and excuses. I would be happy to do so on another thread, or after we figure out the answer to the question on this thread. The question is “Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?”, and I am saying that the question contains a false premise; I am saying that in my observation, no one ever knowingly and willingly rejects God.

I’m telling you that your observation is false because I did it.

Here is my take on “egocentrism”: As a person of prayer begins to grow spiritually and forgives everyone, learning to love everyone, understanding the feelings and needs of the “other”, the “other” essentially becomes a part of ourselves, even more important than our own self or well-being. I am sure that you have experienced this with your daughters. Are not their needs and feelings, their very well-being, more important than your own? You would die for them, would you not? Our children, in our love, become extensions of ourselves. The poor, in our love, the least, in our love, our enemies, in our love, all become extensions of ourselves. The “ego” comes to include everyone. Love is always inclusive.

Egocentrism already possesses a “take”, you can’t simply make up your own.

From Wikipedia:
Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one’s own internal world. Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. To them, self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than are thoughts about others and other-relevant information.

So, feel free to call me selfish. I am called to serve many others, hundreds in fact, and I do. I love those I serve; as I grow in love, I love them more and more as I do myself. I serve, not selflessly, but selfishly, for I take joy in serving. I take joy in the happiness of others. It is my joy. Shoot, there I go again. Sermon over.

So, IOW, you’re addicted to the feeling you feel. You don’t “love” selflessly, primarily for the sake of the other’s good. but more for the selfish reason that your need to feel “joy”?

Let’s come to an agreement on something, though. It is wrong to want for yourself at someone else’s expense, which is typically what we label “selfishness” or “egocentrism”.

Yes, absolutely it’s wrong. It’s the complete opposite of humility, it’s covetousness.

I would rather lose the labels and simple say that when someone else gets something at my expense, without my approval, I feel a bit resentful.

And that says everything about your definition of “love”.

How does a person know when he is blinded, though, Amandil? I can look at so many times in my past when I was blind, and just did not know it. So, yes, we “should” subject our blindness and appetites to reason, but we have to realize that our appetites are subjecting us in the first place.

Say this when someone lights up their 5,000th cigarette while saying “these things are gonna kill me.”

So really, does a person hang onto his blindness once he realizes he is blinded? That is the next question to address, in this scenario.

See above.

I love that, yes we are all “spiritual infants”! I say we are all sheep. Do you know sheep? I used to raise them. Sheep are very, very stupid, which is why I like being called sheep, part of a flock. So, yes, we are all very ignorant, but adults a wee bit less so than infants. Spiritual growth happens, Amandil, it is part of our catechesis. Relationship with God develops through prayer and experience. Take a sheep, some day, grab it my the face and look into its brainless eyes. When I do this, I am experiencing a metaphor, I have an inkling of what it means to be God looking into my eyes.

You apparently didn’t read what I wrote, or you missed the point so I’ll repeat it here:

Here’s the rub, **people who reject God **are, no matter what their state bodily is, spiritual infants. So you have to get out of your mind the idea of spiritual maturity.

They may even be perhaps very advanced intellectually, but they have not even made the mental connections which lead beyond the mere compartmentalization of the various knowledge they possess to integrate it into a conscious whole.

In that respect, these “children” don’t need to reach the “spiritual depths” to know the imperative that sin is sin and that justice requires punishment for sin. Therefore while the obedience of faith through love is the goal, obedience to the law is a sufficient enough starting point.

You don’t expect infants to eat steak, you feed them on milk and food more appropriate to their development. But they must eat or starve. And to reject God is to starve yourself.

 

[OneSheep]

Oh, let me add: Sheep are very loveable. Their innocence, too, is metaphorical. They are beautiful creatures, not intelligent, but wondrous.

Amandil:

In that respect, these “children” don’t need to reach the “spiritual depths” to know the imperative that sin is sin and that justice requires punishment for sin. Therefore while the obedience of faith through love is the goal, obedience to the law is a sufficient enough starting point.

You don’t expect infants to eat steak, you feed them on milk and food more appropriate to their development. But they must eat or starve. And to reject God is to starve yourself.

I’ll address the rest later.

Words like “requires” and “obedience” and “sufficient enough” in this context are addressing, again, what people should do. However, this thread is about what people actually do, and why they do it. And I am saying that when people sin it is not about K&WRG. Please, refer to the adultery investigation that Chefmom and I did, or feel free to bring up another example.

 

[Amandil]

Words like “requires” and “obedience” and “sufficient enough” in this context are addressing, again, what people should do. However, this thread is about what people actually do, and why they do it. And I am saying that when people sin it is not about K&WRG. Please, refer to the adultery investigation that Chefmom and I did, or feel free to bring up another example.

The cognitive dissonance involved in what people “actually” do and what they do to alleviate that dissonance in regards to what they should(or ought) to do is precisely the problem.

IOW, people rationalize sin precisely because they have sinned, they know they have sinned, yet are trying to get away with sinning by claiming that they didn’t have “K&WRG”.

It just seems that you’re taking great pains to justify self-deception.

 

[oldcelt]

The cognitive dissonance involved in what people “actually” do and what they do to alleviate that dissonance in regards to what they should(or ought) to do is precisely the problem.

IOW, people rationalize sin precisely because they have sinned, they know they have sinned, yet are trying to get away with sinning by claiming that they didn’t have “K&WRG”.

It just seems that you’re taking great pains to justify self-deception.

I imagine that most human beings are looking for a pleasant outcome to death. But to call another person self-deceptive is the height of egotism when it involves the supernatural. “remove the plank, etc.”

 

[OneSheep]

I’m telling you that your observation is false because I did it.

This calls for an investigation! Actually, though, if you come up with a scenario for a fairly similar situation, we can investigate without discussing a lot of stuff that is too personal. Give me a scenario, and we can analyze it.

Egocentrism already possesses a “take”, you can’t simply make up your own.

From Wikipedia:
Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one’s own internal world…

Ah yes, and if my own opinion and interest includes great respect for the opinions and interests of others, if that is part of my “ego-centricity”, then what do we call that? If my own interest finds that others’ interests are more valid than my own, what do we call that? It is still my interest, but my interest is their interest. I am “preoccupied” with the least of my brothers, but it is still about me, it is my preoccupation. Well, I guess we could call it something else. Okay.

I still think I am part of the “me” generation, though. To me, every generation is a “me” generation.

So, IOW, you’re addicted to the feeling you feel. You don’t “love” selflessly, primarily for the sake of the other’s good. but more for the selfish reason that your need to feel “joy”?

Yes, and no. I do love for the sake of other’s well-being, but I get so much joy out of it that I cannot separate their good from my own. We both get something out of it. Hey, and then everybody is happy, right? Oh, but there are plenty of times in the process that giving is a pain, but that is bearable knowing that some good will come of it. Even so, it is a hope that fulfills me as well as the other. I cannot separate the “me” from the whole equation. I guess that makes me a “narcissist” too? I can humbly admit that doing God’s work fulfills me.

Would that you discourage me from serving with such an attitude? No, I think that you would probably like me to change my attitude. So, which part would you like me to change? “Stop enjoying service.” Nope. “Stop bragging about your service.” That would be a good point, if I did. I don’t brag, because there is so much to be done and I have only touched the surface. I have nothing to brag about. I am stating the facts: I serve, and I find joy in it. I was making the point that “ego-centrism” like all such labels, only serve to categorize and dehumanize, they do not lead to understanding the human condition. It is with humility that we can admit that get something out of service. Mother Teresa was fulfilled by what she did. It’s okay. The soldier gets a feeling of fulfillment by going to battle for his people. It’s okay. It’s not an addiction.

My quote:

I would rather lose the labels and simple say that when someone else gets something at my expense, without my approval, I feel a bit resentful.

Your response

And that says everything about your definition of “love”.

It does? I don’t see anything there about my definition of love, which is a very difficult definition indeed. Love comes in when I forgive the person I realize that I resent. It comes as part of the prayer and understanding, right? The letting go of desire to punish.

My quote:

How does a person know when he is blinded, though, Amandil? I can look at so many times in my past when I was blind, and just did not know it. So, yes, we “should” subject our blindness and appetites to reason, but we have to realize that our appetites are subjecting us in the first place.

your response:

Say this when someone lights up their 5,000th cigarette while saying “these things are gonna kill me.”

These are words of hopelessness. Hopelessness and despair blind us. They blind us to “with God, all things are possible.” Unless they simply don’t care; in which case they are blind/ignorant of the value of their lives.

In my observations, if the person knows he is blind, and is hanging on, then it would be because he is in a self-destructive, self-punishing mode. Self-condemnation, (hanging onto a grudge against oneself), the mode in which we seek to continue self punishment, is blindness and/or ignorance. Feel free to give another option, I am truly interested.

You apparently didn’t read what I wrote, or you missed the point so I’ll repeat it here:

Here’s the rub, **people who reject God **are, no matter what their state bodily is, spiritual infants. So you have to get out of your mind the idea of spiritual maturity.

They may even be perhaps very advanced intellectually, but they have not even made the mental connections which lead beyond the mere compartmentalization of the various knowledge they possess to integrate it into a conscious whole.

Yes, we are all infants, but as we age, we develop a relationship with Abba. So, yes “spiritual maturity” is a bit silly on Earth, but “Spiritually developing” or “Spiritually maturing” are valid.

As far as the “integration” goes, I agree, and to me, it is part of the point I am trying to make. When infants appear to be rejecting God, they simply do not realize what they are doing. This is not “knowingly”, therefore not “willingly”.

Maybe I’m not getting what you are saying… I am a rather Dumb Sheep.

In that respect, these “children” don’t need to reach the “spiritual depths” to know the imperative that sin is sin and that justice requires punishment for sin. Therefore while the obedience of faith through love is the goal, obedience to the law is a sufficient enough starting point.

And I (patiently) repeat, this is a different topic. Let us continue with the parts of our conversation that are keeping with the topic. We have enough to tackle there, right?

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I’m sure you will agree that Christian heritage is the only really and truly humane philosohical heritage there can be.

The problem though is as old as the Fall itself: secular man desires no greater good than his own exaltation. He wants to make him/herself a god.

Bishop Sheen once said that tradition is to a society what memory is to a person. Once a society sets its tradition aside for novelty and false and novel ideas, it can’t identify itself anymore.

Secularism has led to societal Alzheimer’s. We remember some parts of ourselves, but have forgotten others. How soon the condition becomes permanent depends upon whether or not society either embraces subjectivism and relativism, or rejects it.

I like the expression “societal Alzheimer’s”. It sums up the situation nicely - although there is also an element of culpability. We sometimes take the line of least resistance…

 

[OneSheep]

The cognitive dissonance involved in what people “actually” do and what they do to alleviate that dissonance in regards to what they should(or ought) to do is precisely the problem.

IOW, people rationalize sin precisely because they have sinned, they know they have sinned, yet are trying to get away with sinning by claiming that they didn’t have “K&WRG”.

It just seems that you’re taking great pains to justify self-deception.

Cognitive dissonance is a problem, but it is not the problem we are addressing. If a person sins, and then explains why they sinned in terms of “it is not wrong to do that”, then there is no cognitive dissonance involved. If a person sins, yet believes that the sin is wrong, then there is indeed the possibility of cognitive dissonance. Remember, cognitive dissonance refers to a stress or discomfort:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Moral decision making often involves sacrificing one good to achieve a better good, a person has to choose. Have I talked about Oliver North with you? I think I may have mentioned him on this thread. He may have experienced cognitive dissonance, but in his eyes he did what he morally had to do.

Now, if you are thinking that I am displaying a bit of cognitive dissonance, it is possible that I do not even know it! We all rely on others around us to point out when such cognitive dissonance takes place. Because of this aspect, I think your pointing out my dissonance would still apply to the topic of this thread.

Feel free, Amandil. Am I being self-deceiving? I’m not feeling stressed, but maybe I am. Maybe I am feeling stressed, and do not realize it.

 

[Amandil]

I like the expression “societal Alzheimer’s”. It sums up the situation nicely - although there is also an element of culpability. We sometimes take the line of least resistance…

I think “sometimes” is an understatement.

 

[Amandil]

"The excuse such as men are in the habit of alleging from ignorance is taken away from those persons who know God’s commandments. But neither will those be without punishment who know not the law of God. “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” (Romans 2:12) Now the apostle does not appear to me to have said this as if he meant that they would have to suffer something worse who in their sins are ignorant of the law than they who know it. [III.] It is seemingly worse, no doubt, “to perish” than “to be judged;” but inasmuch as he was speaking of the Gentiles and of the Jews when he used these words, because the former were without the law, but the latter had received the law, who can venture to say that the Jews who sin in the law will not perish, since they refused to believe in Christ, when it was of them that the apostle said, “They shall be judged by the law”? For without faith in Christ no man can be delivered; and therefore they will be so judged that they perish.

If, indeed, the condition of those who are ignorant of the law of God is worse than the condition of those who know it, how can that be true which the Lord says in the gospel: “The servant who knows not his lord’s will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; whereas the servant who knows his lord’s will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes”? (Luke 12:47-48) Observe how clearly He here shows that it is a graver matter for a man to sin with knowledge than in ignorance. And yet we must not on this account betake ourselves for refuge to the shades of ignorance, with the view of finding our excuse therein. It is one thing to be ignorant, and another thing to be unwilling to know. For the will is at fault in the case of the man of whom it is said, “He is not inclined to understand, so as to do good.” ** But even the ignorance**, which is not theirs who refuse to know, but theirs who are, as it were, simply ignorant, does not so far excuse any one as to exempt him from the punishment of eternal fire, though his failure to believe has been the result of his not having at all heard what he should believe; but probably only so far as to mitigate his punishment. For it was not said without reason: “Pour out Your wrath upon the heathen that have not known You;” nor again according to what the apostle says: “When He shall come from heaven in a flame of fire to take vengeance on them that know not God.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8) But yet in order that we may have that knowledge that will prevent our saying, each one of us, “I did not know,” “I did not hear,” “I did not understand;” the human will is summoned, in such words as these: “Wish not to be as the horse or as the mule, which have no understanding;” although it may show itself even worse, of which it is written, “A stubborn servant will not be reproved by words; for even if he understand, yet he will not obey.” (Proverbs 29:19) But when a man says, “I cannot do what I am commanded, because I am mastered by my concupiscence,” he has no longer any excuse to plead from ignorance, nor reason to blame God in his heart, but he recognizes and laments his own evil in himself; and still to such an one the apostle says: “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good;” (Romans 12:21) and of course the very fact that the injunction, “Consent not to be overcome,” is addressed to him, undoubtedly summons the determination of his will. For to consent and to refuse are functions proper to will."

St. Augustine, “On Grace and Free Will”, chpt 5

 

[tonyrey]

I think “sometimes” is an understatement.

Increasing our culpability?

 

[Amandil]

Increasing our culpability?

No more than what is due.

 

[OneSheep]

"The excuse such as men are in the habit of alleging from ignorance…

This is still off-topic, my friend.

No one should be excused from being accountable to God. We can agree on that, right?

Take a shot at responding to my post 568. Come up with a scenario of someone knowingly and willingly rejecting God. Or are you done with this thread?

 

[Amandil]

This is still off-topic, my friend.

No one should be excused from being accountable to God. We can agree on that, right?

Take a shot at responding to my post 568. Come up with a scenario of someone knowingly and willingly rejecting God. Or are you done with this thread?

It’s not off topic. There needs to be a well established ground for what is considered “knowledge”, what is meant by “willingly”, and what is meant by “ignorance”.

 

[Amandil]

This calls for an investigation! Actually, though, if you come up with a scenario for a fairly similar situation, we can investigate without discussing a lot of stuff that is too personal. Give me a scenario, and we can analyze it.

What “investigation” is necessary? I was an evangelical who became an atheist. There’s not much else to say.

So my word isn’t enough?

 

[OneSheep]

What “investigation” is necessary? I was an evangelical who became an atheist. There’s not much else to say.

So my word isn’t enough?

So, at which point did you K&WR God?

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not saying that your word isn’t enough, Amandil. I can honestly say that for awhile in my lifetime, I had believed that I had K&WRG, but I later found that to be a misperception. It can happen to anyone.

To me, it is highly unlikely that when a person initially sees someone “turn atheist” that he not construe a rejection of God had occurred.

 

[Amandil]

So, at which point did you K&WR God?

At the point I decided that He never existed.

 

[OneSheep]

At the point I decided that He never existed.

I see what you mean about defining terms! So, to me, if I decided that God never existed, I would be rejecting the idea that there is a God, I would not be rejecting God, because I had no relationship with God anyway.

However, if you are saying you rejected belief in God, we are working with the same definitions, I think.

And, why do people reject belief in God? Well, they do so unknowingly, they do so without knowing what they are rejecting. That is my observation.

Why did you reject belief in God?