God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Stranger]

As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!)  From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.

Well not all maths has anything to do with the real world. However, the key point is that axioms are self-evident (or just things you want to explore the properties of, but I digress). Euclidean geometry, for example, has axioms that you can draw a straight line between any two points and that all right angles are equal.

For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic.  And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.

Yes, but why would you regard a god concept (one of the many) to be self-evident?

And, of course, if you start interpreting everything in terms of the existence of a god, without critically evaluating it, then you will become more convinced. It's the faith doublethink: for example - pray and whatever happens is interpreted as the answer.

For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.

For myself, it's just that I can see no reason at all to think that there is any god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Also a response to Walters post #116.

Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board,  Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.

As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!)  From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.

And perhaps not. It’s a bad analogy because it’s an attempt at the going nuclear argument (see here for why it’s a bad argument: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/kaboom-going-nuclear-in-argument)

In short, that maths, religion and for that matter leprechaunism all rest on axioms does not give those axioms epistemic equivalence, first because the argument reduces all claims to guessing (ie, it says nothing about the likelihood of a god), and second because only the first of these creates a probabilistic model of reality. 

For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic.  And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.

As indeed do Muslims, and as indeed did believers in the Roman gods, the Norse gods, the Sumerian gods…

Finding “purpose and sense in the world” is no doubt lovely for those who need it, but belief in pretty much anything can do that. What you can’t do though is to commit the fallacy of reification – ie, assume that your psychological response to a belief says anything about whether that belief is true.

For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.

No it isn’t. My a-theism just means “without gods”, just as your a-leprechaunism means “without leprechauns” (and for the same reasons by the way). Atheists don’t say that god(s) don’t exist, but rather that there’s no good reason to proceed as if they do. There’s a big difference between those two positions.

The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion.  Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.

Well, once you understand what the atheist “world view” actually entails perhaps the common ground should be reason. I have a shed load of it to bring to the table – your challenge would be to find some of your own to bridge the gap from your “faith” to something other than guessing.

Good luck with it though!

[torridon]

Also a response to Walters post #116.

Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board,  Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.

As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!)  From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.

For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic.  And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.

For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.

The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion.  Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.

Seems to me that you are investing an awful lot on unverified assumptions. I don't think that 'no god' is axiomatic for atheists, rather that 'god' is a positive claim that need justification, and it seems to me that most people in the world merely bypass that need to examine one's assumptions, partly because, as you note, belief tends to become a self fulfilling or self validating experience; the main reason for this being that such beliefs have been growing in depth and breadth for millennia and they become entire epistemic cultural subworlds which most people find good enough to satisfy their curiosity and their need for an existential narrative that provides meaning and context for their lives.  For the most part, that is OK, I think; it only becomes a problem when people preach their faith as true for all, seemingly without acknowledging that the entire edifice derives from an unverified base assumption.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Crazy as that sounds, Dave, but there is a strange phenomenon on this forum whereby The Christian Topic is where the atheists do the gatekeeping. So, for any discussion on Christian matters with fellow Christians you have to visit the Faith Sharing Area as Nearly Sane has mentioned. As you've probably noticed by now, you can barely get two Christians exchanging a comment on this Christian Topic board without interaction from t'other side. It was ever thus....

Indeed...

I seem to remember on another forum a while back, an attempt to get round this problem was to have an Atheism section. There was nothing there!

I think bluehillside must have been bored when he started this thread. No Hope to argue against. No Vlad. Alan Burns appears to have stopped posting. Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.

Oh dear. I've used another analogy. Bluehillside, Gordon, SusanDoris, Walter: Please don't trample over each other in your rush to respond with any alleged refutations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Indeed...

I seem to remember on another forum a while back, an attempt to get round this problem was to have an Atheism section. There was nothing there!

I think bluehillside must have been bored when he started this thread. No Hope to argue against. No Vlad. Alan Burns appears to have stopped posting. Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.

Oh dear. I've used another analogy. Bluehillside, Gordon, SusanDoris, Walter: Please don't trample over each other in your rush to respond with any alleged refutations.

To the contrary, you can use any kind of swimming stroke you like. So far though, you've never managed to propose one. And no, "it's magic innit" is not a swimming stroke.   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.

You may be interested in these verses from Matthew 10:

13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Reading the Gospels, I would suggest that Jesus showed a lot of working, e.g. backing up what He said by numerous miracles. This was not enough for some. When confronted by the miracles, they accused Him of doing his works by the power of Satan, not God! Their attitude is an object lesson in the impossibility of someone with the wrong worldview being able to understand. They had their own worldview of what the Messiah should be, Jesus didn't accord with that and so regardless of what He did, they were never going to accept him.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

'the god' of science
those few words are so revealing about your way of thinking and is so disappointing to any right thinking person.

A euphemism for someone who thinks like you.

How did you get to this point?

Perhaps when she critically thought about what she heard

when did you loose your critical thinking abilities

She didn't!

and was anyone else involved ?

God perhaps? (correct me if I'm wrong SweetPea)

[floo]

You may be interested in these verses from Matthew 10:

13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Reading the Gospels, I would suggest that Jesus showed a lot of working, e.g. backing up what He said by numerous miracles. This was not enough for some. When confronted by the miracles, they accused Him of doing his works by the power of Satan, not God! Their attitude is an object lesson in the impossibility of someone with the wrong worldview being able to understand. They had their own worldview of what the Messiah should be, Jesus didn't accord with that and so regardless of what He did, they were never going to accept him.

The gospels were written well after Jesus was dead and gone. It could be, like many present day magicians, the guy was good at sleight of hand which took in the more gullible members of his audience. Certainly not everyone who saw Jesus perform rated him, even his own family appeared sceptical.

[Stranger]

Reading the Gospels...

Why should we take those stories seriously?

This shouldn't be hard, if there is a god who wants us to believe, why is it hiding?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Reading the Gospels, I would suggest that Jesus showed a lot of working, e.g. backing up what He said by numerous miracles. This was not enough for some. When confronted by the miracles, they accused Him of doing his works by the power of Satan, not God! Their attitude is an object lesson in the impossibility of someone with the wrong worldview being able to understand. They had their own worldview of what the Messiah should be, Jesus didn't accord with that and so regardless of what He did, they were never going to accept him.

What makes you think that the “wrong worldview” here isn’t actually the assumption that non-contemporaneous, multiply translated and subsequently edited accounts of “miracles” from the religious narrative to which you just happen to be most enculturated and for which there’s no corroborative evidence of any kind are necessarily true nonetheless?

[DaveM]

Not so - I challenged you the other day to explain on what basis you've excluded the risks of these scriptures containing propaganda for Jesus - you declined to accept the challenge. 

All very circular and self-referential, as well as being yet another fallacious argument from authority. However, unless you can meaningfully exclude the risks of human artifice then these 'scriptures' are indistinguishable from fiction.

Afternoon Gordon.

Let’s take a step back on this thread.  It was started by bhs who directed a question aimed, in the first instance, at Christians and requesting responses from them.  Now bhs is an atheist to the best of my knowledge.  So the question could be paraphrased as, ‘Let’s assume for argument sake that this ‘figment of the imagination’ Christian God exists.  Would Christians on this Board then care to answer as to whether this non-existent deity’s of theirs would respond more favourably to a kind atheist or a hateful Christian. 

Now if you specifically ask Christians to give their thoughts on an aspect of their faith, then you must expect them to base their replies on what they consider to be their primary source of information – the scriptures of the OT & NT.  The fact that you think this source to be no more than the unreliable, inaccurate ramblings of a largely uneducated, ignorant nomadic people from 2000-3000 years ago is neither here nor there.  For the purpose of the discussion it also needs to be accepted, for arguments sake, that these are valid writings on which the Christian can base his/her answers.  How else do you expect the Christians to inform you of their views unless you are prepared to allow to refer to, what for them, is their primary reference source for information?

But what happens?  As soon as a Christians does this and particularly if the answer throws a bit of a curved ball at you?  You pull out your favourite ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card and cry ‘Foul’.  Your response is that it is not permissible to quote Scripture like that unless cast iron proof can be forthcoming to show that the text has not been added to, or modified, or enhanced in any way to suit man’s purposes. 

Now if I started a post with dire warnings of the consequences of unbelief for atheists and quoted several passages in support, you may have some justification to tell me that you reject my claims as you considered the basis for my arguments to be unproven.

But when the atheist directs a question at Christians and then rejects the use of Scriptures by the believers in reply, I rapidly start losing interest in the debate.  You cannot expect meaningful debate if you insist on tilting the playing fields so far in your favour.     

[Sriram]

Just read your posts Sriram, bugger it, I was going to rob several banks, collect the usual protection money, do a few more murders and I thought that was enough for this week, just planed some good frauds for next week.

Good job I read your posts Sriram, I thought the above was the norm until you explained that the various religions don't approve, I wouldn't have known otherwise.

Good job the various religions instruct us about these things, the sort off things we couldn't possibly work out for ourselves.

Well I never?

Regards ippy.

Well ippy...its nice that you are actually discussing my points instead of merely trolling me around. Welcome change!

About your points above....I had started a thread some months back about 'Role of Religions'.
 
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12949.0

I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the  discipline enforced by religions all these centuries.   If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.

So...you have to thank religions for the discipline enforced on earlier generations ...such that today you have enough self control and sense of justice that you will not commit a fraud or a murder. But having said that, without law enforcement of today, how long this self discipline will last...no one can say.

We all need supervision....even today!

Cheers.

Sriram

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

Let’s take a step back on this thread.  It was started by bhs who directed a question aimed, in the first instance, at Christians and requesting responses from them.  Now bhs is an atheist to the best of my knowledge.

Yup.

So the question could be paraphrased as, ‘Let’s assume for argument sake that this ‘figment of the imagination’ Christian God exists.  Would Christians on this Board then care to answer as to whether this non-existent deity’s of theirs would respond more favourably to a kind atheist or a hateful Christian.

Not really, but no matter.

Now if you specifically ask Christians to give their thoughts on an aspect of their faith, then you must expect them to base their replies on what they consider to be their primary source of information – the scriptures of the OT & NT.  The fact that you think this source to be no more than the unreliable, inaccurate ramblings of a largely uneducated, ignorant nomadic people from 2000-3000 years ago is neither here nor there.  For the purpose of the discussion it also needs to be accepted, for arguments sake, that these are valid writings on which the Christian can base his/her answers.  How else do you expect the Christians to inform you of their views unless you are prepared to allow to refer to, what for them, is their primary reference source for information?

Nope. This is an approach you take a lot – essentially the reification fallacy again. The question wasn’t, “what does a book you think to be “holy” have to say about X?” at all. I may as well have asked what The Big Book of Leprechaunology has to say about the musical tastes of the wee green folk. Rather it’s a question about how Christians would go about squaring inconsistencies in their beliefs – in this case, a just god who appears to act unjustly. 

But what happens?  As soon as a Christians does this and particularly if the answer throws a bit of a curved ball at you?  You pull out your favourite ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card and cry ‘Foul’.  Your response is that it is not permissible to quote Scripture like that unless cast iron proof can be forthcoming to show that the text has not been added to, or modified, or enhanced in any way to suit man’s purposes.

Wrong again. You can quote Scripture if you want to, but that says nothing to the question on the table. When Scripture says believers get privileged treatment over non-believers regardless of their actions, that on the face of things seems to contradict the notion of a just God. The “get out of jail free” point is in response to the “it’s a mystery” reply to that question.     

Now if I started a post with dire warnings of the consequences of unbelief for atheists and quoted several passages in support, you may have some justification to tell me that you reject my claims as you considered the basis for my arguments to be unproven.

Yes.

But when the atheist directs a question at Christians and then rejects the use of Scriptures by the believers in reply, I rapidly start losing interest in the debate.  You cannot expect meaningful debate if you insist on tilting the playing fields so far in your favour.

First, as in most team sports the sides change ends at half time tilting the playing field makes no difference to the outcome 

Second, it’s not tilted in any case for the reasons I’ve just explained. For me the interesting conversation is about why people believe as they do, not about what the content of their beliefs happens to be (ie, Scripture). You seem to want only to cut and paste bits of your “holy” text. As others have pointed out, there is a faith sharing area for that kind of thing. What would be more interesting here though would be if you were prepared to talk about why you think these things to be true, especially when they present you with inconsistencies and contradictions.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the  discipline enforced by religions all these centuries.   If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.

Why would you think that? How on earth do you think we survived for so long before religions finally showed up at the equivalent to five minutes to midnight?

Do you really not think that, at best, what religions did was to codify behaviours that had become embedded over the millennia?

[torridon]

I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the  discipline enforced by religions all these centuries.   If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.

So...you have to thank religions for the discipline enforced on earlier generations ...such that today you have enough self control and sense of justice that you will not commit a fraud or a murder. But having said that, without law enforcement of today, how long this self discipline will last...no one can say.

I'm not so sure about that.  Take Buddhism, for instance, it features no reliance on any sky-born extra-terrestrial judger, someone to be feared, looking down and evaluating our behaviour; and Buddhists are often among the most gentle and peaceful of peoples.

[DaveM]

DaveM,

Nope. This is an approach you take a lot – essentially the reification fallacy again. The question wasn’t, “what does a book you think to be “holy” have to say about X?” at all. I may as well have asked what The Big Book of Leprechaunology has to say about the musical tastes of the wee green folk. Rather it’s a question about how Christians would go about squaring inconsistencies in their beliefs – in this case, a just god who appears to act unjustly. 

Two questions.  First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?

Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?

[Sriram]

I'm not so sure about that.  Take Buddhism, for instance, it features no reliance on any sky-born extra-terrestrial judger, someone to be feared, looking down and evaluating our behaviour; and Buddhists are often among the most gentle and peaceful of peoples.

torridon, Blue,

I think you misunderstand Buddhism. Only the Theravada teaches no God, no Atma etc. But more on that some other time.

Almost all religions, including the Mahayana Buddhism have a God of some sort (not necessarily Jehovah type)  or a spiritual objective of some sort that regulates and enforces discipline. 

Without the centuries of such discipline and such enforced love, altruism, charity, brotherhood....humans would never have learned to live together or trust anyone beyond their immediate geographical, linguistic and racial groups. 

Religion is the first and the most powerful institution that has made people feel a kinship beyond such natural boundaries.  In fact this is largely true even today.

[floo]

Two questions.  First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?

Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?

Would you use the Harry Potter books as an information source? Much of the Bible is as fanciful as those books.

[Gordon]

But when the atheist directs a question at Christians and then rejects the use of Scriptures by the believers in reply, I rapidly start losing interest in the debate.  You cannot expect meaningful debate if you insist on tilting the playing fields so far in your favour.     

I'm happy to take these scriptures seriously provided that you can show that they are free of bias, mistake, exaggeration or propaganda - the claim that they are reliable is yours to demonstrate.

If your position seems to be that the Bible is true because it is the Bible is circular, and also represents special pleading, confirmation bias and arguments from authority/tradition. It may be true for you, but that would be the relativist fallacy unless you can show (as opposed to claim) that it is equally true for me too.

[DaveM]

Would you the Harry Potter books as an information source? Much of the Bible is as fanciful as those books.

Well I am eagerly awaiting bhs' reply on his information sources.  I sincerely hope he does not quote Harry Potter as the information source for his belief in an unjust God!

[Walter]

Two questions.  First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?

Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?

what about critical thinking, employment of the scientific method , experimentation, peer reviewed papers and an accepted conclusion .
That's what I would do.

[DaveM]

I'm happy to take these scriptures seriously provided that you can show that they are free of bias, mistake, exaggeration or propaganda - the claim that they are reliable is yours to demonstrate.

If your position seems to be that the Bible is true because it is the Bible is circular, and also represents special pleading, confirmation bias and arguments from authority/tradition. It may be true for you, but that would be the relativist fallacy unless you can show (as opposed to claim) that it is equally true for me too.

I think you are missing the point.  If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions.  You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.

[floo]

I think you are missing the point.  If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions.  You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.

You can't use the Bible as an accurate information source as much of it can't be verified.

[Stranger]

Two questions.  First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?

Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?

Surely the point is that what you have said, based on your holy book, appears to make your god manifestly unjust. How do you believe that your god is just at the same time as believing what you think your holy book is telling you?

[Gordon]

I think you are missing the point.  If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions.  You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.

By all means use them on a personal basis as they stand but at least accept that as they stand the risks of mistake, exaggeration, lies and propaganda remain unaddressed. The problem is though that some Christians, although not necessarily yourself  Dave, expect the rest of us to take these scriptures seriously.

The Bible may be an information source - the concern is whether or not it be considered as a credible information source in view of the risks I've mentioned: I think not.