I had a outer body experience once,i did not believe what i did see.But i couldn't deny what i felt it was love,and i still feel a bit wounded in the head by the experience.
In socio-cultural context, a god (or a goddess, or a deity) is an entity (whether real, surreal, imaginary, superficial or other is irrelevant) that has at least one worshipper (a living being aware of the deity and observant of it). This is likely the only definition that can be applied to all deities ever worshipped on Earth. So, to answer your other question, being a god (again, in socio-cultural context) is not about power (as there do exist deities which their worshippers believe not to have any particular power) but about followers. That definition of godhood is very sad, though, as it implies I am not a god but, in turn, a Justin Bieber is. Meh. And that's why I am the God and not a god. And what makes the God the God? Being the God is basically being sexually differentiable from the Goddess and not consisting of Chaos (which I define as that which is neither the God nor the Goddess), as I explained this many times before. We might as well define it using logic: God = ¬Goddess ∧ ¬Chaos. Therefore, as you can see, Goddess = ¬God ∧ ¬Chaos and Chaos = ¬Goddess ∧ ¬God. This is of course merely my personal definition of actual godhood and I do not impose it to anyone whatsoever.
I do know a few things about deities and religions (even about that one weird tribal African religion that prays to one very big machungwa which long ago fell off "the holy tree", killing one very bad village chief), so I might be able to answer your questions. Though I am far from being impartial, so probably your best would be to ask @BelgarathMTH to recommend you some academic literature to refer to. I could do the same thing but I'm afraid the many of the writings I would recommend are hard to obtain (unless you don't mind archaeological excavation) and even harder to comprehend, being mostly illegible and written in extinct languages.
Well, in the original post I explicitly stated that I adjure the participants of the discussion to be respectful to one another. This does not mean I am merely suggesting that politeness is welcome here. What I meant is that respectfulness is required under pain of eternal torment and people who intend to be impolite would better avoid this discussion.
@God all fine and well, but what's the 'sociological survey'/experiment about (you don't have to say yet), when's it going to be over and when are we going to see the results (this you should definitely say).
edit: also, why are the questions so poorly constructed (bungled methodology), is it intentional or an honest mistake? or do you perhaps not think that it's poorly constructed (hard to believe but i'll take it)?
@God Okay, whatever. Although the topic itself is nice, the way you set this tread up and your subsequent posts make me fairly certain that you're an immature troll.
For example: "...I'm afraid the many of the writings I would recommend are hard to obtain (unless you don't mind archaeological excavation) and even harder to comprehend, being mostly illegible and written in extinct languages."
The definition of what makes a god a god in itself deserves its own thread. It can even be a partially on topic if we discuss Faerunian gods as well...
Come on dude... that's unnecessary. I've never seen him being rude or provocative in any previous discussions on other topics. A real troll wouldn't be able to help himself.
Totally not trying to appease @God to atone for earlier blasphemies...
Look, the topic as delineated in the opening post was human belief. That would be a realm of, firstly- common sense, than cognitive psychology and epistemology, a pretty straightforward and common subject actually and one that *really* is not about religion. It's even a poll thread which are even stricter as to what their purpose is, just by nature of their design - people respond, elaborate, discuss etc. Not many places to go from there.
Then people derail the thread (i don't blame them, happens all the time).
Then we hear from @God about some experiment of his. I didn't accept to take part in any experiment. He gives some non-answers when i ask him about it.
We see him being aloof to the discussion and what's going on and even going off topic himself, writing some fairly inane and unfunny stuff.
If it looks like a troll, if it feels like a troll, if it smells like a troll, guess what, it's a troll.
It is the nature of threads to derail, have side chats, have the topic treated with humor, and finally return to topic, if there wasn't on topic posting while everything else happened. It's all healthy behavior, that, at most, is treated with a thread split so that those who are interested on secondary or derived topics can go on chatting.
Unhealthy behavior such as name calling, trolling and flaming can only be cured by warnings, banishments and topic closing.
So if anyone is interested in discussing the nature of belief in the supernatural, faith, gods, etc, please feel free to open a new thread. Even place a link here as I'm sure many participating in this thread would be interested.
Anyway I don't think this thread is derailed to the point of needing to be closed. Name calling is completely unnecessary as @God's humor is well known in this forum and I wouldn't say I saw any trolling on his part.
And I'll be keeping an even closer eye in this thread than before.
Hmm, this topic made me think. I have studied some philosophy of science, that may have shaped my view of things (being indoctrinated into academics and whatnot). But my impulse - which I like to follow - is to believe what I hear unless there is some tangible reason not to. For instance, the language of a(n newspaper) article, the origins of the author of the content and so on.
@BelgarathMTH mentioned a few classic cases where the truth can be difficult to discern. I often start thinking about "Que Bono" (sp?) - I think it was Cicero who said it? (translates roughly to "Who profits?"). In the case of climate change there are obviously incredible massive monetary gains towards disregarding climate change, which frankly, the fledgling renewable energy industries cant be compared against. That alone would make me lean heavily towards believing in climate change. The there is the scientific results which are pretty one-sided, but that is beside the point.
Another more modern case is the conflict in Syria, which has been the subject of a real propaganda warfare. I dont know how it has been in other countries, but in Norway the media coverage at the start of the conflict was nearly shot and directed by the rebels (look how horrible the Assad regime is) and so on - but it has become more nuanced and more complicated lately - it seems that both the different rebel factions *and* Assad have a credibility problem. Again, the Que Bono rule is interesting to use. Who actually profits from huge newspaperheadings of "Assad is killing women and children!!!!!"?
Anyway, apart from these huge matters, when I dont have much prior information I tend to believe what people say. Im quite quick to change my mind if I recieve new perspectives tho - I am unsure if this is a characterflaw or a rational way to handle information, but I guess I am becoming much more able to discern reliable from unreliable information as I get more and more experience.
I believe I can fly I believe I can touch the sky I think about it every night and day Spread my wings and fly away I believe I can soar I see me running through that open door I believe I can fly
I believe I can fly I believe I can touch the sky I think about it every night and day Spread my wings and fly away I believe I can soar I see me running through that open door I believe I can fly
i am sure @god has a reason not to tell us just yet what he wants this information for. it probably doesn't help though that his name has been god ever since he signed up, just kind of making such a thread derail to religion based on his name. he made it clear in his post this was not supposed to be the case, but his username said otherwise. i've been around here a long time however and know god's humor and always click a thread to see what he had to say if it is his or he made the latest comment.
honestly though who are we to care why he wants this information? even the maker of a private poll cannot see who picked what, so we are anonymous to everyone. i voted that I trust my intuition more than anything from personal experience. this is for almost anything, from religion to everyday. in religion I am like @heindrich1988, very open to all of the religions of the world, no need to say this is right and this is wrong. mortals cannot comprehend such things, but I do believe that there may be something out there, because my intuition also believes in ghosts. i have had my own experiences and heard others' stories and I really do believe in them. i remember after my Nan died and her email account was deleted that we actually got a blank message from that very account, as if a sign from her that "I am still here". another time my intuition got me mad at a friend who told me one of my old teachers died, but I was visiting that school back at that time quite often so I saw her not long ago. i apologized the following day when I returned home and was shown the paper with an article about her death.
there is my answer. i trust my intuition more than anything else. I better recieve evidence before I just believe what you tell me.
Talking about belief reminds me of Planescape Torment, because it says "Only belief can change, the Nature of a Man/Woman", and that happened to me so I am pretty sure that it is true.
I believe I can fly I believe I can touch the sky I think about it every night and day Spread my wings and fly away I believe I can soar I see me running through that open door I believe I can fly
Cats don't have wings. Or helicopter licenses.
...says a racoon =P "hides his redwhite fur under a bespoke human flesh cape by Reijek"
I have difficulty thinking the human mind can grasp any certainty concerning anything. All we can do is look at what seems the most plausible to us (what has more things proving it). That thing is the "truth". It is the best we can achieve at a given time.
When Newton presented his law of gravitation, he was wrong, we can see that today with our current models. However, what he said was what was best at the time, so it was "truth".
This is how science operates, this is the problem with the inductive reasoning, we cannot achieve certainty.
Our scientific models will always be shown in the future to be wrong on many levels, and this is how it will always be unless the human mind finds a way out of it. Even in science, all we can do is believe in what seems the most plausible, which is the "truth". It is not certainty, and never will be, but it's better than nothing.
So I guess we don't really have a choice in believing in any case (meaning religion or science).
Do not misunderstand me, there is a clear difference in my mind between religious beliefs and scientific "beliefs". I know science is backed with experimentation where religion is backed with sole faith.
What matters here is that we cannot achieve certainty in any case. So we always have to believe whether we want it or not. Because "truth" isn't certainty.
I really wonder sometimes what will happen to human religions if (and this is a big IF) we ever make contact with intelligent alien life forms...
I guess a long time ago there was someone saying something similar.
"I really wonder sometimes what will happen to human religions if (and this is a big IF) we ever find out the world is not flat..."
(and I think you can enter a lot of other things in there which might be fun to do)
I doubt any one thing is ever going to completely change how people think. However things like there being multiple references to the Earth being flat in the Bible(and in other religous texts like the Qur'an), certainly always cause a number of people to doubt if it actually is the unerring word of God.
Overall these things have lead to much more secular societies in many parts of the world.
Firstly, I can sympathize with @bob_veng, and I don't think he's asking too much in requesting some clarification. I also think that some of the answers @God has provided are lacking in either honesty or humor, particularly the comment about long-extinct languages. That aside, he has prompted an interesting discussion, and I'll certainly throw my thoughts on here as well. This is long, so I'll split it up into two posts--one on knowledge and one on religion.
In respect to the original poll, I don't feel that any of the answers fit me appropriately. The closest would likely be that I sometimes believe but do not do so strictly. However, that isn't entirely accurate, as I generally always initially believe information/"facts" (from sources that are considered reliable, such as acknowledged experts in academic fields, etc.), but am willing to change my beliefs should conflicting evidence arise.
There are also distinctions between the types of information that we rely upon. I think it's difficult--if not impossible--to argue against conceptual truths, such as 1+1 = 2, as such statements will always be true in any possible world due to the conceptual meanings assigned to them. Scientific facts (i.e., facts arrived at through repeated experimentation; not scientific theories) are also generally reliable, though I certainly do accept that there is still a chance that they can be wrong. Similarly, relational facts (locations, dates, etc.) are reliable, but are not necessarily true in all possible worlds.
Beyond this, I think most of what we consider to be true statements are based on informational and experiential sources, both of which may or may not be reliable. However, I would argue that the greater the consensus among people, the higher the likelihood that an experiential truth is in fact "true". For example, that most human beings feel that they do have true choices--that they have the will to choose--is a valid argument for free will in my opinion. (That example I actually feel is particularly compelling given that even those who argue that we do not have free will live their lives and make choices as if they do.)
In my daily life, I tend to be a person who relies heavily on a combination of these types of knowledge. I work as an administrator, often handling sensitive communications and public relations, so I feel drawing upon various types of knowledge sources--including factual information, psychology, research (peer-reviewed journals and similar sources)--is critical to conveying a compelling message to others. In my mind they're all valid sources of knowledge, and we simply need to be humble enough to accept that what we "know" can and often is wrong, and that it's okay if others think differently.
However, I also think the modern tendency toward hyper-skepticism is misplaced. While human beings may always have limitations in respect to knowledge, that doesn't mean it's wrong to hold to certain beliefs, particularly if you find certain evidence compelling enough to treat them as "true." The best example I can give of hyper-skepticism taken too far was a student I knew who insisted that Joseph Kony (during the Kony 2012 campaign) was not even a real person and that the U.S. government made him up for an unknown purpose. A healthy sense of doubt is good. Idiocy is not.
As for religion, I was raised in an evangelical Christian family. However, my parents had been agnostics and later members of a spiritual cult before converting to Christianity. When I was still quite young, they left the church they attended, and we never went to another one. They didn't encourage me to believe anything in particular, and I didn't have much of an interest in religious debate or discussion until university. By that point I began researching philosophy and religion a great deal and it has since become a passion. At one time I had planned to go on to get my Ph.D. in religious studies, and may still do so.
I now consider myself a non-denominational Christian and have not attended church or been a formal member of any Christian organization since childhood. It does affect my outlook and interactions with others, but I have very few Christian friends; most are agnostics or atheists.
The difficulty I often encounter in discussions on religion--and I mean no offense--is that most people are grossly misinformed and/or ignorant of specific religious claims and history. Compounding that is the fact that even many adherents of religions share that same lack of knowledge.
As one small example, the book of Genesis in the Old Testament is often discussed due to its "conflict" or "harmony" with evolution. The debate tends to center on whether or not the text is to be taken literally and whether evolution excludes the possibility of creation ex nihilo. Genesis 1:2 is typically translated as "Now the earth was void and formless" or in similar terms, hence the debate. However, the actual Hebraic terms used--tohu wa bohu--are found together in only two other verses, and in both cases refer to a judged or barren wasteland. You can likely see the implication and the meaning that has been missed by both Christians and non-Christians alike. Similar debates about Christianity and other religions often rely on the same types of faulty evidence, based either in misconceptions or errors.
My strongest area of interest is actually the philosophical implications of god's nature, as mentioned by @Heindrich1988. One of the most common objections raised to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is that of free will versus determinism. In other words, if god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would act to prevent the evil that occurs. That obviously is not the case. That implies that he either does not have the power to do so, or is not entirely good. The response relies on human free will: god choose to give us free will, and the responsibility for the evil that occurs is thus ours.
Many still reject this argument for a few different reasons. Some feel that god still bears responsibility, as he chose to create a world populated with individuals who choose to do evil. Others argue that he bears responsibility because he has determined what all of us will choose. For the layman, all the arguments against free will rely on a critical assumption: that due to his omniscience, god eternally foreknew the choices that we would make and still chose to create that reality. Thus, we would not be responsible for our choices, and god thus cannot exist as envisioned.
There are several positions that attempt to address this issue (primarily within Christianity, though other Western traditions also share similar discussions), including determinism, compatibilism, Arminianism, Molinism and open theism. In short, believers know that there's an issue, and they don't simply adhere to an absurd position of god being a bearded man in the sky who pulls strings yet holds us all responsible for our actions. Neither do they all adhere to a position of unbelievers burning in hell. There are healthy debates in religious circles as to universalism, annihilationism and other positions. Furthermore, all of this hasn't even touched on Eastern traditions.
Just as in the case of my position on knowledge, I feel we all need to have a bit more humility in our debates and acknowledge that people's beliefs are complex and are quite often based on rational evidence that they do feel is compelling enough to trust.
Thank you for such a well-considered and insightful response. I have studied some philosophy at university as part of a PPE course (Politics, Philosophy and Economics), and it became apparent pretty quickly that I was reading the commentary of a learned scholar.
I can't claim to have particularly enjoyed the philosophy part once we went beyond the basics. My passion was in political philosophy, and its practical application, as well as history, which is basically politics of the past.
As I said I hope u didn't find my criticisms offensive. It was not my intent to belittle or dismiss faiths, I respect most of them, even if I cannot personally accept them.
Your free will defence is certainly interesting, and you explain it well, but I cannot say that I am entirely convinced. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the "determinism, compatibilism, Arminianism, Molinism and open theism" responses to objection to the free-will defense.
I don't think you should be worried about the length of your response. This is not a simple topic. It cannot be adequately explained in a few lines.
That is of course if you are not too busy! I know how many portrait requests u must be getting
Well, the extinct language part was not actually intended to be funny. Nowadays, rather few (my sometimes overly vain self included) can read the so-regarded holy scriptures in their original form, as most of these are written in virtually extinct languages and the scriptures themselves rarely are well-preserved in their entirety (thus you need to know the ways of paleography/epigraphy in addition to the languages). As I recall, some 40, 50 years ago, a good classical education involved learning, among others, Latin, Greek and some Hebrew at the very least. Lately, @BelgarathMTH made it more apparent to me that this is no longer the case and not even those who specifically focus on religious study are expected to learn these languages. So, rather than referring some original scriptures to @Heindrich1988 for further study, I thought it might be easier for him to learn from some contemporary academic sources, which are mostly in English. Even though I am involved in research, I am not all that interested in materials for students, so I thought @BelgarathMTH would be able to give better recommendations, having studied for a taught degree. I apologize for any misunderstanding which I may have caused, as my choice of words was rather unfortunate and my intent was unnecessarily vague this time. Such is the fate of those who know too many languages and none they normally speak is their own, it appears.
@Isandir, thank you so much for your beautifully done, concise summary of the philosophical problem(s) presented by the poll, for both its general epistemological and religious implications.
I haven't written in serious philosophical style like that in a long, long time, at least not with your level of skill. I know how hard it is to write a clear philosophical summary while also being aware of venue (an internet forum), audience (mostly people who are here for fun, with a limited willingness to read long philosophical statements), and personal motivation ("Why am I doing this written exercise? Am I enjoying myself, and/or will my potential readers benefit from my work in writing it?).
As to my ability to suggest resources for reading about religion, I could do so, but I'd start with some internet research in order to compile the list, and honestly, anyone who's interested enough in a certain aspect of religious study to request resources, should be able to do that initial research work themselves, in this wonderful age of the internet.
Honestly, I haven't understood anyone to be specifically asking me for any resources.
My advanced theological study was focused in process theology, which I still find to be a compelling reinterpretation of the nature of God. Anyone who's interested should start with reading a simple Wiki summary of "process theology", and "process philosophy", which will list references, and continue from there.
My personal favorite process theologian is Henry Nelson Wieman. (Wieman was a founder of a particular sub-discipline of process theology known as "empirical theology."
The movement of process philosophy started with Alfred North Whitehead, and expanded out to a wider cluster of thinkers. Charles Hartshorne adapted Whitehead's more abstract, philosophical thinking to a more theological variant.
I'm also fond of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who attempted to apply process theology to biological evolution.
I could share a lot more about my background, both personally and professionally, but I question whether that would be all that interesting, and it also is probably off-topic for the thread subject.
I already posted my essay answer to the post topic in my very first post in this thread, before we got trolled and then derailed. I chose to take a more personal tone in that answer than your objective one.
That was always my problem in graduate school level philosophy and theology - I always wanted to apply theory to the personal concerns and feelings of myself and others, feeling no connection to the "dry as dust", emotionless, abstract style expected of graduate level academics. Thus, I never went higher than the master's degree level, and I only barely passed my final thesis and comprehensive examinations to get that.
I'd say my basic epistemological position resembles yours, @Isair, though probably a bit more skeptical, especially on matters of religion. I already explained in that first post that my current religious position is soft atheism.
Again, thank you so much for clarifying the issues presented by the thread. You sound to me like you're a prime candidate for a Ph.D.
@God, that's the first time I've seen you more or less break character. You started out using that account name just to interject humorous one-liners into discussions about Baldur's Gate. I've played along quite a bit, and I've always enjoyed and been delighted by your answers, which reflect that you have a lot of knowledge and insight about many subjects.
The trouble with your having picked that name, is that it kind of naturally encourages discussion about "God". Now that you have started a thread under that name that poses a serious philosophical topic, and I have had at least two colleagues address you and this topic with professional seriousness, I feel obligated as a philosopher and theologian to drop my playfulness, and be serious myself.
We've had several other users start accounts to roleplay - we've had Edwin, Korgan, Hexxat, and now, somebody wants to post as Viconia. You started out posting as God, and have been very entertaining and insightful in how you have been choosing to "play God."
I have been kind of wondering when anybody was going to call you out on it in seriousness, though.
Oh well. If you would like to drop the roleplaying and have more open, serious discussions with us, then I'm sure that would be welcome. With or without the "playing God" schtick, you're a pretty popular poster around here.
IF @God wishes to change his account name to avoid confusion just as what happened in this thread, he should drop a PM to Dee. If Forum Moderation detects a second account we will banish one of them.
As I had mentioned, I love these types of discussions and would post another more detailed response right away, but I have to leave for work in a few minutes.
@Heindrich1988, I certainly wasn't offended by your post whatsoever. I think one of the biggest issues in discussions of religion--again, from both sides--is that people do get offended so easily. I would also love to expound on the various approaches to the free will defense, but keep in mind that it does delve into more obscure arguments at times. As for portrait requests, they are unfortunately on hold...
@BelgarathMTH: I personally hold to open theism, and in particular Greg Boyd's interpretation. I'm quite familiar with process theology, as Boyd's own Ph.D. thesis was (brace yourself for this title) Trinity and Process: A Critical Examination and Reconstruction of Hartshorne's Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics. I believe the process theologians were right on target in respect to their rationale as to why the "traditional" view of god was flawed, but I also think they threw out the baby with the bathwater. Open theism seems to strike the right balance in my opinion, and despite having tried to find a compelling argument against it (one that does not have an equally appropriate response), I've been unable to do so, hence my position.
@God: I don't think anyone is harboring any hard feelings; your previous responses just didn't seem to provide any indication of why you were asking and whether or not you had been serious in some of the responses.
@BelgarathMTH: I understand your frustrations with the impersonal nature of theological academia, and open theism's engagement with the personal nature of god is one of many reasons why I believe it is the most rational depiction of the divine. Additionally, god's kenosis and suffering have played increasingly important roles in many modern theodicies, and I highly recommend reading some of the top scholars in those areas, particularly Wolfhart Pannenberg, if you haven't already. I also second your recommendation that anyone interested in these types of philosophy and theology simply begin by reading Wikipedia articles or other concise summaries. It's the best way to learn the basic principles.
@Heindrich1988: I'll try to very concisely summarize each of the explanations for the positions on free will I identified, but keep in mind this is from a Christian perspective, and that I personally believe that the defense open theism provides is the most convincing. Several of the views also encompass multiple theological claims, but I'll focus on their views of foreknowledge and free will. Finally, I also refer to god as "he" simply because that is the common usage.
Theological (hard) determinism This position actually opposes the other views in arguing that free will does not exist. Hard determinism from a theological perspective adheres to incompatibilism. In other words it claims that god's (complete) exhaustive determination of reality and free will are incompatible. In this view the fact that we are still responsible for our choices is quite often said to simply be a mystery. I have very rarely encountered any who hold to this position.
Compatibilism (soft determinism) As indicated by the name, compatibilists--of which Calvinists are the most commonly known--believe that theological determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Compatibilism argues that god created the world that he desired and that he has already selected those he would save (the elect); he thus possesses exhaustive, definite foreknowledge (EDF) of what will occur because of his determination of reality was based on his choice to create (Key point: God's omniscience and EDF derive from his act of creation).
However, in this view we are still responsible for the choices we make. Several arguments are offered to support this, including the observation that we can still be responsible for our predetermined choices if no external force compels us to make them, and if our will aligns with our actions; and the Frankfurt analogies (see the Wikipedia example).
On a side note, many notable naturalist philosophers such as Daniel Dennet adhere to a compatibilist position in which we possess free will even though our actions and choices are determined by a combination of environment and biology (rather than god).
Arminianism Named for its first known proponent, Jacobus Arminius, this view reverses the order by which god selects the elect, stating that he foreknew who would choose him and on that basis determined reality, including all free choices. It thus adopts an incompatibilist position--that god's determination of reality on the basis on his choice would exclude the possibility of free will. Free choices must instead be based on the actions of individuals (free agents). It's a subtle but highly important distinction, and every other position below falls under the umbrella of Arminianism. (Key point: God's omniscience and EDF derive from his observation of the reality he foreknew and chose to create.)
Molinism Molinism, named after Luis de Molina, adapts Arminianism, which it argues still does not provide sufficient explanation for free will. This is due to the fact that god--according to Arminianism--still chose to create a single reality of no possible alternative choices. In this view it would thus still face the same issue in explaining free will as compatibilism.
Molinists thus argue that part of god's knowledge is composed of counterfactuals, or statements or what would (not will) happen under certain circumstances. Possessing exhaustive knowledge of all counterfactuals, god chose to create the world in which he knew all free agents would make particular choices given the circumstances. This enables him to preserve free will while still foreknowing all that will occur. (Key point: God's EDF is based on his knowledge of how all free agents would choose in a particular world; as he chose to create this world, he knows what our choices will be.)
Open theism Open theism sides with theological determinism in arguing that God's complete (exhaustive) determination of reality is incompatible with free will. It agrees with compatibilism in stating that god's omniscience is not based on an observation of reality, but rather in his act of creation.
The point of difference for open theists is the observation that all of the other positions assume that the world itself, and the choices of free agents, were created as definite ("only this way and not any other way"). They thus claim that god chose to create a reality in which the future is composed partly of actualities (events that will occur) and partly of possibilities (events and choices that might or might not occur; i.e. free choices). Because his omniscience is based on his act of creation, he knows reality perfectly as it exists--as both actualities and possibilities (which become actualities as free agents make their choices).
Thus, open theism claims that god is omniscient and possesses exhaustive foreknowledge, but the object (the world) of that knowledge is not what the other positions claim it to be. God sought to create a world with truly free creatures who would choose to accept him, but that requires a partly open reality in which he doesn't determine those choices.
Other thoughts There are obviously numerous philosophical, logical and experiential arguments I've left out, but again, I personally find open theism to have the most compelling evidence. It fits with our experience (that we have genuine choices, but are limited in those choices by other factors), with logic (an exhaustive, settled reality would exclude the possibility of free choices, as any such choices must be grounded in the free agents; this cannot occur if the agents' choices precede their existence) and (in my mind) with the descriptions of Jesus and god in the Christian bible.
On a completely different note, however, despite my passion for this particular area of philosophy and theology, I actually do not consider it that important. The primary basis for my beliefs and the way in which I choose to live my life is far more personal, similar to what BelgarathMTH wanted to experience as a graduate student. This is not to say I don't base them in evidence, as I certainly do, but the picture of god that I see emerge from that evidence is dramatically different from the image painted by many Christians and non-Christians alike. BelgarathMTH, I think perhaps if you had encountered Boyd's work when you were studying theology, you may not have been so disheartened. He's one of the most brilliant individuals I've ever encountered, yet his work is grounded in compassion and humility. He and the new pope are two individuals that I feel exemplify the stance Christians should seek to take in the world:
Comments
And that's why I am the God and not a god.
And what makes the God the God? Being the God is basically being sexually differentiable from the Goddess and not consisting of Chaos (which I define as that which is neither the God nor the Goddess), as I explained this many times before. We might as well define it using logic: God = ¬Goddess ∧ ¬Chaos. Therefore, as you can see, Goddess = ¬God ∧ ¬Chaos and Chaos = ¬Goddess ∧ ¬God. This is of course merely my personal definition of actual godhood and I do not impose it to anyone whatsoever. I do know a few things about deities and religions (even about that one weird tribal African religion that prays to one very big machungwa which long ago fell off "the holy tree", killing one very bad village chief), so I might be able to answer your questions. Though I am far from being impartial, so probably your best would be to ask @BelgarathMTH to recommend you some academic literature to refer to. I could do the same thing but I'm afraid the many of the writings I would recommend are hard to obtain (unless you don't mind archaeological excavation) and even harder to comprehend, being mostly illegible and written in extinct languages. Well, in the original post I explicitly stated that I adjure the participants of the discussion to be respectful to one another. This does not mean I am merely suggesting that politeness is welcome here. What I meant is that respectfulness is required under pain of eternal torment and people who intend to be impolite would better avoid this discussion.
all fine and well, but what's the 'sociological survey'/experiment about (you don't have to say yet), when's it going to be over and when are we going to see the results (this you should definitely say).
edit: also, why are the questions so poorly constructed (bungled methodology), is it intentional or an honest mistake?
or do you perhaps not think that it's poorly constructed (hard to believe but i'll take it)?
Draw Upon Holy Might!
Okay, whatever. Although the topic itself is nice, the way you set this tread up and your subsequent posts make me fairly certain that you're an immature troll.
For example:
"...I'm afraid the many of the writings I would recommend are hard to obtain (unless you don't mind archaeological excavation) and even harder to comprehend, being mostly illegible and written in extinct languages."
What's that, an attempt at humor?
Come on dude... that's unnecessary. I've never seen him being rude or provocative in any previous discussions on other topics. A real troll wouldn't be able to help himself.
Totally not trying to appease @God to atone for earlier blasphemies...
I'm legitimately frustrated.
Look, the topic as delineated in the opening post was human belief. That would be a realm of, firstly- common sense, than cognitive psychology and epistemology, a pretty straightforward and common subject actually and one that *really* is not about religion.
It's even a poll thread which are even stricter as to what their purpose is, just by nature of their design - people respond, elaborate, discuss etc. Not many places to go from there.
Then people derail the thread (i don't blame them, happens all the time).
Then we hear from @God about some experiment of his. I didn't accept to take part in any experiment. He gives some non-answers when i ask him about it.
We see him being aloof to the discussion and what's going on and even going off topic himself, writing some fairly inane and unfunny stuff.
If it looks like a troll, if it feels like a troll, if it smells like a troll, guess what, it's a troll.
There's a lesson about belief for you.
Unhealthy behavior such as name calling, trolling and flaming can only be cured by warnings, banishments and topic closing.
So if anyone is interested in discussing the nature of belief in the supernatural, faith, gods, etc, please feel free to open a new thread. Even place a link here as I'm sure many participating in this thread would be interested.
Anyway I don't think this thread is derailed to the point of needing to be closed. Name calling is completely unnecessary as @God's humor is well known in this forum and I wouldn't say I saw any trolling on his part.
And I'll be keeping an even closer eye in this thread than before.
I have studied some philosophy of science, that may have shaped my view of things (being indoctrinated into academics and whatnot). But my impulse - which I like to follow - is to believe what I hear unless there is some tangible reason not to. For instance, the language of a(n newspaper) article, the origins of the author of the content and so on.
@BelgarathMTH mentioned a few classic cases where the truth can be difficult to discern. I often start thinking about "Que Bono" (sp?) - I think it was Cicero who said it? (translates roughly to "Who profits?"). In the case of climate change there are obviously incredible massive monetary gains towards disregarding climate change, which frankly, the fledgling renewable energy industries cant be compared against. That alone would make me lean heavily towards believing in climate change. The there is the scientific results which are pretty one-sided, but that is beside the point.
Another more modern case is the conflict in Syria, which has been the subject of a real propaganda warfare. I dont know how it has been in other countries, but in Norway the media coverage at the start of the conflict was nearly shot and directed by the rebels (look how horrible the Assad regime is) and so on - but it has become more nuanced and more complicated lately - it seems that both the different rebel factions *and* Assad have a credibility problem. Again, the Que Bono rule is interesting to use. Who actually profits from huge newspaperheadings of "Assad is killing women and children!!!!!"?
Anyway, apart from these huge matters, when I dont have much prior information I tend to believe what people say. Im quite quick to change my mind if I recieve new perspectives tho - I am unsure if this is a characterflaw or a rational way to handle information, but I guess I am becoming much more able to discern reliable from unreliable information as I get more and more experience.
I believe I can touch the sky
I think about it every night and day
Spread my wings and fly away
I believe I can soar
I see me running through that open door
I believe I can fly
honestly though who are we to care why he wants this information? even the maker of a private poll cannot see who picked what, so we are anonymous to everyone. i voted that I trust my intuition more than anything from personal experience. this is for almost anything, from religion to everyday. in religion I am like @heindrich1988, very open to all of the religions of the world, no need to say this is right and this is wrong. mortals cannot comprehend such things, but I do believe that there may be something out there, because my intuition also believes in ghosts. i have had my own experiences and heard others' stories and I really do believe in them. i remember after my Nan died and her email account was deleted that we actually got a blank message from that very account, as if a sign from her that "I am still here". another time my intuition got me mad at a friend who told me one of my old teachers died, but I was visiting that school back at that time quite often so I saw her not long ago. i apologized the following day when I returned home and was shown the paper with an article about her death.
there is my answer. i trust my intuition more than anything else. I better recieve evidence before I just believe what you tell me.
...says a racoon =P "hides his redwhite fur under a bespoke human flesh cape by Reijek"
Edit: custom-made changed to bespoke xD
I have difficulty thinking the human mind can grasp any certainty concerning anything. All we can do is look at what seems the most plausible to us (what has more things proving it).
That thing is the "truth". It is the best we can achieve at a given time.
When Newton presented his law of gravitation, he was wrong, we can see that today with our current models. However, what he said was what was best at the time, so it was "truth".
This is how science operates, this is the problem with the inductive reasoning, we cannot achieve certainty.
Our scientific models will always be shown in the future to be wrong on many levels, and this is how it will always be unless the human mind finds a way out of it. Even in science, all we can do is believe in what seems the most plausible, which is the "truth". It is not certainty, and never will be, but it's better than nothing.
So I guess we don't really have a choice in believing in any case (meaning religion or science).
Do not misunderstand me, there is a clear difference in my mind between religious beliefs and scientific "beliefs". I know science is backed with experimentation where religion is backed with sole faith.
What matters here is that we cannot achieve certainty in any case. So we always have to believe whether we want it or not. Because "truth" isn't certainty.
Overall these things have lead to much more secular societies in many parts of the world.
In respect to the original poll, I don't feel that any of the answers fit me appropriately. The closest would likely be that I sometimes believe but do not do so strictly. However, that isn't entirely accurate, as I generally always initially believe information/"facts" (from sources that are considered reliable, such as acknowledged experts in academic fields, etc.), but am willing to change my beliefs should conflicting evidence arise.
There are also distinctions between the types of information that we rely upon. I think it's difficult--if not impossible--to argue against conceptual truths, such as 1+1 = 2, as such statements will always be true in any possible world due to the conceptual meanings assigned to them. Scientific facts (i.e., facts arrived at through repeated experimentation; not scientific theories) are also generally reliable, though I certainly do accept that there is still a chance that they can be wrong. Similarly, relational facts (locations, dates, etc.) are reliable, but are not necessarily true in all possible worlds.
Beyond this, I think most of what we consider to be true statements are based on informational and experiential sources, both of which may or may not be reliable. However, I would argue that the greater the consensus among people, the higher the likelihood that an experiential truth is in fact "true". For example, that most human beings feel that they do have true choices--that they have the will to choose--is a valid argument for free will in my opinion. (That example I actually feel is particularly compelling given that even those who argue that we do not have free will live their lives and make choices as if they do.)
In my daily life, I tend to be a person who relies heavily on a combination of these types of knowledge. I work as an administrator, often handling sensitive communications and public relations, so I feel drawing upon various types of knowledge sources--including factual information, psychology, research (peer-reviewed journals and similar sources)--is critical to conveying a compelling message to others. In my mind they're all valid sources of knowledge, and we simply need to be humble enough to accept that what we "know" can and often is wrong, and that it's okay if others think differently.
However, I also think the modern tendency toward hyper-skepticism is misplaced. While human beings may always have limitations in respect to knowledge, that doesn't mean it's wrong to hold to certain beliefs, particularly if you find certain evidence compelling enough to treat them as "true." The best example I can give of hyper-skepticism taken too far was a student I knew who insisted that Joseph Kony (during the Kony 2012 campaign) was not even a real person and that the U.S. government made him up for an unknown purpose. A healthy sense of doubt is good. Idiocy is not.
I now consider myself a non-denominational Christian and have not attended church or been a formal member of any Christian organization since childhood. It does affect my outlook and interactions with others, but I have very few Christian friends; most are agnostics or atheists.
The difficulty I often encounter in discussions on religion--and I mean no offense--is that most people are grossly misinformed and/or ignorant of specific religious claims and history. Compounding that is the fact that even many adherents of religions share that same lack of knowledge.
My strongest area of interest is actually the philosophical implications of god's nature, as mentioned by @Heindrich1988. One of the most common objections raised to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is that of free will versus determinism. In other words, if god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would act to prevent the evil that occurs. That obviously is not the case. That implies that he either does not have the power to do so, or is not entirely good. The response relies on human free will: god choose to give us free will, and the responsibility for the evil that occurs is thus ours.
Many still reject this argument for a few different reasons. Some feel that god still bears responsibility, as he chose to create a world populated with individuals who choose to do evil. Others argue that he bears responsibility because he has determined what all of us will choose. For the layman, all the arguments against free will rely on a critical assumption: that due to his omniscience, god eternally foreknew the choices that we would make and still chose to create that reality. Thus, we would not be responsible for our choices, and god thus cannot exist as envisioned.
There are several positions that attempt to address this issue (primarily within Christianity, though other Western traditions also share similar discussions), including determinism, compatibilism, Arminianism, Molinism and open theism. In short, believers know that there's an issue, and they don't simply adhere to an absurd position of god being a bearded man in the sky who pulls strings yet holds us all responsible for our actions. Neither do they all adhere to a position of unbelievers burning in hell. There are healthy debates in religious circles as to universalism, annihilationism and other positions. Furthermore, all of this hasn't even touched on Eastern traditions.
Just as in the case of my position on knowledge, I feel we all need to have a bit more humility in our debates and acknowledge that people's beliefs are complex and are quite often based on rational evidence that they do feel is compelling enough to trust.
And now this is far too long...
Thank you for such a well-considered and insightful response. I have studied some philosophy at university as part of a PPE course (Politics, Philosophy and Economics), and it became apparent pretty quickly that I was reading the commentary of a learned scholar.
I can't claim to have particularly enjoyed the philosophy part once we went beyond the basics. My passion was in political philosophy, and its practical application, as well as history, which is basically politics of the past.
As I said I hope u didn't find my criticisms offensive. It was not my intent to belittle or dismiss faiths, I respect most of them, even if I cannot personally accept them.
Your free will defence is certainly interesting, and you explain it well, but I cannot say that I am entirely convinced. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the "determinism, compatibilism, Arminianism, Molinism and open theism" responses to objection to the free-will defense.
I don't think you should be worried about the length of your response. This is not a simple topic. It cannot be adequately explained in a few lines.
That is of course if you are not too busy! I know how many portrait requests u must be getting
Nowadays, rather few (my sometimes overly vain self included) can read the so-regarded holy scriptures in their original form, as most of these are written in virtually extinct languages and the scriptures themselves rarely are well-preserved in their entirety (thus you need to know the ways of paleography/epigraphy in addition to the languages). As I recall, some 40, 50 years ago, a good classical education involved learning, among others, Latin, Greek and some Hebrew at the very least. Lately, @BelgarathMTH made it more apparent to me that this is no longer the case and not even those who specifically focus on religious study are expected to learn these languages. So, rather than referring some original scriptures to @Heindrich1988 for further study, I thought it might be easier for him to learn from some contemporary academic sources, which are mostly in English. Even though I am involved in research, I am not all that interested in materials for students, so I thought @BelgarathMTH would be able to give better recommendations, having studied for a taught degree. I apologize for any misunderstanding which I may have caused, as my choice of words was rather unfortunate and my intent was unnecessarily vague this time.
Such is the fate of those who know too many languages and none they normally speak is their own, it appears.
I haven't written in serious philosophical style like that in a long, long time, at least not with your level of skill. I know how hard it is to write a clear philosophical summary while also being aware of venue (an internet forum), audience (mostly people who are here for fun, with a limited willingness to read long philosophical statements), and personal motivation ("Why am I doing this written exercise? Am I enjoying myself, and/or will my potential readers benefit from my work in writing it?).
As to my ability to suggest resources for reading about religion, I could do so, but I'd start with some internet research in order to compile the list, and honestly, anyone who's interested enough in a certain aspect of religious study to request resources, should be able to do that initial research work themselves, in this wonderful age of the internet.
Honestly, I haven't understood anyone to be specifically asking me for any resources.
My advanced theological study was focused in process theology, which I still find to be a compelling reinterpretation of the nature of God. Anyone who's interested should start with reading a simple Wiki summary of "process theology", and "process philosophy", which will list references, and continue from there.
My personal favorite process theologian is Henry Nelson Wieman. (Wieman was a founder of a particular sub-discipline of process theology known as "empirical theology."
The movement of process philosophy started with Alfred North Whitehead, and expanded out to a wider cluster of thinkers. Charles Hartshorne adapted Whitehead's more abstract, philosophical thinking to a more theological variant.
I'm also fond of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who attempted to apply process theology to biological evolution.
I could share a lot more about my background, both personally and professionally, but I question whether that would be all that interesting, and it also is probably off-topic for the thread subject.
I already posted my essay answer to the post topic in my very first post in this thread, before we got trolled and then derailed. I chose to take a more personal tone in that answer than your objective one.
That was always my problem in graduate school level philosophy and theology - I always wanted to apply theory to the personal concerns and feelings of myself and others, feeling no connection to the "dry as dust", emotionless, abstract style expected of graduate level academics. Thus, I never went higher than the master's degree level, and I only barely passed my final thesis and comprehensive examinations to get that.
I'd say my basic epistemological position resembles yours, @Isair, though probably a bit more skeptical, especially on matters of religion. I already explained in that first post that my current religious position is soft atheism.
Again, thank you so much for clarifying the issues presented by the thread. You sound to me like you're a prime candidate for a Ph.D.
@God, that's the first time I've seen you more or less break character. You started out using that account name just to interject humorous one-liners into discussions about Baldur's Gate. I've played along quite a bit, and I've always enjoyed and been delighted by your answers, which reflect that you have a lot of knowledge and insight about many subjects.
The trouble with your having picked that name, is that it kind of naturally encourages discussion about "God". Now that you have started a thread under that name that poses a serious philosophical topic, and I have had at least two colleagues address you and this topic with professional seriousness, I feel obligated as a philosopher and theologian to drop my playfulness, and be serious myself.
We've had several other users start accounts to roleplay - we've had Edwin, Korgan, Hexxat, and now, somebody wants to post as Viconia. You started out posting as God, and have been very entertaining and insightful in how you have been choosing to "play God."
I have been kind of wondering when anybody was going to call you out on it in seriousness, though.
Oh well. If you would like to drop the roleplaying and have more open, serious discussions with us, then I'm sure that would be welcome. With or without the "playing God" schtick, you're a pretty popular poster around here.
@Heindrich1988, I certainly wasn't offended by your post whatsoever. I think one of the biggest issues in discussions of religion--again, from both sides--is that people do get offended so easily. I would also love to expound on the various approaches to the free will defense, but keep in mind that it does delve into more obscure arguments at times. As for portrait requests, they are unfortunately on hold...
@BelgarathMTH: I personally hold to open theism, and in particular Greg Boyd's interpretation. I'm quite familiar with process theology, as Boyd's own Ph.D. thesis was (brace yourself for this title) Trinity and Process: A Critical Examination and Reconstruction of Hartshorne's Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics. I believe the process theologians were right on target in respect to their rationale as to why the "traditional" view of god was flawed, but I also think they threw out the baby with the bathwater. Open theism seems to strike the right balance in my opinion, and despite having tried to find a compelling argument against it (one that does not have an equally appropriate response), I've been unable to do so, hence my position.
@God: I don't think anyone is harboring any hard feelings; your previous responses just didn't seem to provide any indication of why you were asking and whether or not you had been serious in some of the responses.
Believe in others and you will have many friends.
Believe in yourself and you will go far.
Believe in something greater than yourself, will keep you humble... and subservient... I obviously haven't figured it all out yet...
@BelgarathMTH: I understand your frustrations with the impersonal nature of theological academia, and open theism's engagement with the personal nature of god is one of many reasons why I believe it is the most rational depiction of the divine. Additionally, god's kenosis and suffering have played increasingly important roles in many modern theodicies, and I highly recommend reading some of the top scholars in those areas, particularly Wolfhart Pannenberg, if you haven't already. I also second your recommendation that anyone interested in these types of philosophy and theology simply begin by reading Wikipedia articles or other concise summaries. It's the best way to learn the basic principles.
@Heindrich1988: I'll try to very concisely summarize each of the explanations for the positions on free will I identified, but keep in mind this is from a Christian perspective, and that I personally believe that the defense open theism provides is the most convincing. Several of the views also encompass multiple theological claims, but I'll focus on their views of foreknowledge and free will. Finally, I also refer to god as "he" simply because that is the common usage.
Theological (hard) determinism
This position actually opposes the other views in arguing that free will does not exist. Hard determinism from a theological perspective adheres to incompatibilism. In other words it claims that god's (complete) exhaustive determination of reality and free will are incompatible. In this view the fact that we are still responsible for our choices is quite often said to simply be a mystery. I have very rarely encountered any who hold to this position.
Compatibilism (soft determinism)
As indicated by the name, compatibilists--of which Calvinists are the most commonly known--believe that theological determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Compatibilism argues that god created the world that he desired and that he has already selected those he would save (the elect); he thus possesses exhaustive, definite foreknowledge (EDF) of what will occur because of his determination of reality was based on his choice to create (Key point: God's omniscience and EDF derive from his act of creation).
However, in this view we are still responsible for the choices we make. Several arguments are offered to support this, including the observation that we can still be responsible for our predetermined choices if no external force compels us to make them, and if our will aligns with our actions; and the Frankfurt analogies (see the Wikipedia example).
On a side note, many notable naturalist philosophers such as Daniel Dennet adhere to a compatibilist position in which we possess free will even though our actions and choices are determined by a combination of environment and biology (rather than god).
Arminianism
Named for its first known proponent, Jacobus Arminius, this view reverses the order by which god selects the elect, stating that he foreknew who would choose him and on that basis determined reality, including all free choices. It thus adopts an incompatibilist position--that god's determination of reality on the basis on his choice would exclude the possibility of free will. Free choices must instead be based on the actions of individuals (free agents). It's a subtle but highly important distinction, and every other position below falls under the umbrella of Arminianism. (Key point: God's omniscience and EDF derive from his observation of the reality he foreknew and chose to create.)
Molinism
Molinism, named after Luis de Molina, adapts Arminianism, which it argues still does not provide sufficient explanation for free will. This is due to the fact that god--according to Arminianism--still chose to create a single reality of no possible alternative choices. In this view it would thus still face the same issue in explaining free will as compatibilism.
Molinists thus argue that part of god's knowledge is composed of counterfactuals, or statements or what would (not will) happen under certain circumstances. Possessing exhaustive knowledge of all counterfactuals, god chose to create the world in which he knew all free agents would make particular choices given the circumstances. This enables him to preserve free will while still foreknowing all that will occur. (Key point: God's EDF is based on his knowledge of how all free agents would choose in a particular world; as he chose to create this world, he knows what our choices will be.)
Open theism
Open theism sides with theological determinism in arguing that God's complete (exhaustive) determination of reality is incompatible with free will. It agrees with compatibilism in stating that god's omniscience is not based on an observation of reality, but rather in his act of creation.
The point of difference for open theists is the observation that all of the other positions assume that the world itself, and the choices of free agents, were created as definite ("only this way and not any other way"). They thus claim that god chose to create a reality in which the future is composed partly of actualities (events that will occur) and partly of possibilities (events and choices that might or might not occur; i.e. free choices). Because his omniscience is based on his act of creation, he knows reality perfectly as it exists--as both actualities and possibilities (which become actualities as free agents make their choices).
Thus, open theism claims that god is omniscient and possesses exhaustive foreknowledge, but the object (the world) of that knowledge is not what the other positions claim it to be. God sought to create a world with truly free creatures who would choose to accept him, but that requires a partly open reality in which he doesn't determine those choices.
Other thoughts
There are obviously numerous philosophical, logical and experiential arguments I've left out, but again, I personally find open theism to have the most compelling evidence. It fits with our experience (that we have genuine choices, but are limited in those choices by other factors), with logic (an exhaustive, settled reality would exclude the possibility of free choices, as any such choices must be grounded in the free agents; this cannot occur if the agents' choices precede their existence) and (in my mind) with the descriptions of Jesus and god in the Christian bible.
On a completely different note, however, despite my passion for this particular area of philosophy and theology, I actually do not consider it that important. The primary basis for my beliefs and the way in which I choose to live my life is far more personal, similar to what BelgarathMTH wanted to experience as a graduate student. This is not to say I don't base them in evidence, as I certainly do, but the picture of god that I see emerge from that evidence is dramatically different from the image painted by many Christians and non-Christians alike. BelgarathMTH, I think perhaps if you had encountered Boyd's work when you were studying theology, you may not have been so disheartened. He's one of the most brilliant individuals I've ever encountered, yet his work is grounded in compassion and humility. He and the new pope are two individuals that I feel exemplify the stance Christians should seek to take in the world: