One God .No religion.v

kneemos

Do is it really matter what religion you follow ?
I know the there's only one true religion line,but having created life do you think God really cares about your religion over what type of person you are ?

Don't think anybody could believe in a different creator for the myriad of different religions,so given there is one God surely it comes down to how you live your life rather than which church you attend ?

kneemos

Do is it really matter what religion you follow ?
I know the there's only one true religion line,but having created life do you think God really cares about your religion over what type of person you are ?

Don't think anybody could believe in a different creator for the myriad of different religions,so given there is one God surely it comes down to how you live your life rather than which church you attend ?

antiskeptic

kneemos wrote: »

Do is it really matter what religion you follow ?
I know the there's only one true religion line,but having created life do you think God really cares about your religion over what type of person you are ?

I don't think God cares what religion you are.

I don't think he "cares what type of a person you are" either. I'm assuming by this you mean how good or bad you behave in this life? This latter view (how you behave determines God's view of you) constitutes a religious view in itself. I mean, even atheists, when they are not denying their belief in God/gods, reckon the measure of a person, in God's view (where he to exist), depends on how good you are.

Skatedude

Religion by it's definition is impossible.
How can any person actually think they have even the slightest inkling of how an omnipotent all knowing being that if so far above their understanding thinks or wants?

antiskeptic

Skatedude wrote: »

Religion by it's definition is impossible.
How can any person actually think they have even the slightest inkling of how an omnipotent all knowing being that if so far above their understanding thinks or wants?

He tells them about himself?

Are you supposing that an omnipotent being can't do this?

Skatedude

antiskeptic wrote: »

He tells them about himself?

Are you supposing that an omnipotent being can't do this?

It would be like a person explaining them-self to an ant,

antiskeptic

Skatedude wrote: »

It would be like a person explaining them-self to an ant,

The limits are:

- how much God wants to reveal

- his desire to render us capable of accommodating what it is he choses to reveal.

- the limit of omnipotence (although commonly supposed to mean God can do simply anything at all, a more nuanced understanding of omnipotence supposes that not even it can create a square circle. For instance).

-

If supposing that there are limits within the above constraints then so what the person/ants scale of difference? I mean, if God is infinitely huge (I like reminding myself of this from time to time by looking at the opening sequence of the film Contact) then the comparative ant is still a stupendous thing compared to a person in whom God takes none of this action.

I have a 5 year old. So what that my powers are many times more than his. I still love him. He still loves me. We both have a great time. The point isn't that we become equals. The point is that we become God's children.

Sayeth the Bible in any case. Good enough for me!

Skommando

It only matters to those who are interested in what is the truth spiritually as well as physically.

Religion etc. is only a convenient human pigeonhole term for what some believe to be spiritually true.

Only one version can be true.

Was it Buddha ? Then the rest were lying about what they claimed to be true.

Was it Mohamed ? Then the rest were lying.

Was it Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or is it Enda Kenny, Mrs May or Hilary Clinton ?

Pilot mused "What is truth ?" - A common musing by those who place no particular value on it.

Ironically, the truth was standing right in front of him.

kneemos

Skommando wrote: »

It only matters to those who are interested in what is the truth spiritually as well as physically.

Religion etc. is only a convenient human pigeonhole term for what some believe to be spiritually true.

Only one version can be true.

Was it Buddha ? Then the rest were lying about what they claimed to be true.

Was it Mohamed ? Then the rest were lying.

Was it Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or is it Enda Kenny, Mrs May or Hilary Clinton ?

Pilot mused "What is truth ?" - A common musing by those who place no particular value on it.

Ironically, the truth was standing right in front of him.

Don't think any religion can be relevant if only one of them is. What about the billions of misguided souls ?

Skommando

It's not about people, it's about what's true, and there is only one truth not many.
From Atheism to Scientology.

Peregrinus

kneemos wrote: »

Do is it really matter what religion you follow ?
I know the there's only one true religion line,but having created life do you think God really cares about your religion over what type of person you are ?

Don't think anybody could believe in a different creator for the myriad of different religions,so given there is one God surely it comes down to how you live your life rather than which church you attend ?

Couple of thoughts:

1. Bit of a false dichotomy there. Which church you attend is surely an aspect of how you live your life, no?

2. But, I take your point. It's a pretty small aspect of the overall question of how you live your life. Does God really attach that much importance to it?

3. But this is itself obviously a religious question. Some religions teach that its completely unimportant. Others that it is of central importance. Still others accommodate a range of opinion about this, with some adherents assigning the question great importance, and others assigning it lesser importance.

4. In short, from a religious point of view which church you attend is important if your religion teaches that it's important, but not important if your religion teaches that it's not important. Which means, ironically, that those who assert that it's not important are asserting the correctness of their own religious tradition and the falsity of others.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Threads merged.

antiskeptic

Skommando wrote: »

Only one version can be true.

Not necessarily. There are 60,000 odd versions of Christianity apparently. Which, if any, is true?

Now I understand that many of these will dovetail on many points but even if they suppose themselves dovetailing on 'essentials', that doesn't make them true.

The most essential truth, from our perspective perhaps, is how it is we come to stand on the right side of God when the fat lady sings. A significant proportion of Christianity supposes a person having to make some conscious declaration regarding Christ to obtain that standing. There is reason to doubt this is true - I've made the point in another thread (to which I've to return, apols solo) that Abraham couldn't avail of modern Christianities view on the matter.

God may have a subtler, wider ranging remit than present day Christian 'truth' is prepared to accommodate

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not necessarily. There are 60,000 odd versions of Christianity apparently. Which, if any, is true?

I would say that Christianity is true. And different versions of Christianity approximate to that truth to greater or lesser degrees. Some also stress one truth more than another truth - but that does not make them untrue.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

I would say that Christianity is true.

So would I. And would suppose that Christianity* to accommodate people from all religions and none in the final tally of who is saved and who not.

* let's call it God's interpretation:)

And different versions of Christianity approximate to that truth to greater or lesser degrees.

And some contradict each other, making at least one of them false. People are either predestined to salvation (in the sense of them having no contribution, positive or negative, to God choosing them) or they are not, for instance.

Some also stress one truth more than another truth - but that does not make them untrue.

True

Skommando

Nick Park wrote: »

I would say that Christianity is true. And different versions of Christianity approximate to that truth to greater or lesser degrees. Some also stress one truth more than another truth - but that does not make them untrue.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So would I.

* let's call it God's interpretation

Which version of Christianity would that be then ?
Would that be Jim Jone's version of Christianity, or the Jehovah witness version, the Morman's version or the branch Dravidian version, the Moonies version, or Westboro baptist version, or perhaps OSAS licenced to kill 'pastor' Billy Wright's version of Christianity etc etc etc ? All of which will claim they have God's interpretation.

antiskeptic

Which version of Christianity would that be then ?

The version indicated by the asterix.

Skommando

antiskeptic wrote: »

The version indicated by the asterix.

they all claim that, so which one is ?

antiskeptic

Skommando wrote: »

they all claim that, so which one is ?

They aren't God's interpretation. They are men's interpretations which they may claim (accurately or otherwise - but only God would know that) are God's interpretations.

God's interpretation is clearly the correct one.

Skommando

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's interpretation is clearly the correct one.

You nearly got there in the end, but not quite.
The truth is not an interpretation of the truth, it is the truth.

antiskeptic

Skommando wrote: »

You nearly got there in the end, but not quite.
The truth is not an interpretation of the truth, it is the truth.

Even God has to interpret a parable. Or a poem. They convey truth but are open to interpretation.

By interpret I mean "the action of explaining the meaning of something". God would be best placed to hit the bullseye with his interpretation.

Peregrinus

True. But the only person who can know what "God's interpretation" of any text is is, well, God. My attempts to discern what God's interpretation is can only lead me to my interpretation. And if I join with others and attempt a collective discernment of God's interpretation, what we will arrive at is our interpretation.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

True. But the only person who can know what "God's interpretation" of any text is is, well, God

My very point. The rest of us are, to one or other degree, off the ball.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Those who assert that it's not important are asserting the correctness of their own religious tradition and the falsity of others.

The principal problem with any dogmatic religious belief seems to be that it leaves no space for those with differing belief and tends to judge people based on whether they're part of the club rather then how they behave. Those with different beliefs are considered intrinsically bad or at least wrong, those with beliefs in common, good. I'm with the OP in that we deserve to be treated on how we behave rather than which religion we do or don't subscribe to.

Peregrinus

I disagree.

It seems a reasonable, defensible philosophical position to assert that truth is important, that discerning the truth is valuable in and of itself, and that true (or more true) beliefs have a value that false (or less true) beliefs do not.

Of course, this ducks the question of how we are to discern the truth, but that's a separate question. At this stage we're just asserting that the truth is important, and that a true belief is superior to a false belief.

It does not follow, however, that those who don't share your discernment of what is true must be considered "intrinsically bad". If they are considered "wrong", it's only in the sense that their beliefs are wrong, but that's not in itself a moral judgment; lack of knowledge or understanding is not a moral failing. And this is particularly true in the Christian tradition, which holds that knowledge of God is revealed (by God), and that faith is an outworking of the grace of God. In other words, to the extent that my beliefs about God are true, I can't claim any credit for that, and it does not reflect any merit or virtue on me. So even if we assume for the sake of the argument that your beliefs about God are false, that doesn't diminish your merits or virtues in any way.

Against all this, we have to acknowledge the undoubted fact that history abound with examples of Christians considering themselves to be superior to non-Christians, and invoking this belief in defence of, e.g., slavery or colonialism.

I suggest, though, that this isn't intrinsic to or driven by dogmatic religious belief. Rather, it's an example of dogmatic religious belief being press-ganged into service as a rationalisation for attitudes which are driven by greed for wealth, greed for power or simple tribalism.

The history of Christianity in this respect is not edifying, I grant you. But if we're making or considering a claim about "dogmatic religious belief" in general, we can't test it just by reference to Christianity. We have to look at other instances of dogmatic religious belief.

Judaism is instructive here. Like Christianity, it's a dogmatic religious belief in that it asserts that its teachings are objectively true. (And in fact many of its dogmatic teachings about God are shared with Christianity). But Jews are, and always have been, supremely unbothered by the fact that non-Jews do not share their dogmas. They make no attempt to persuade them; they make no attempt to convert them. The Jewish tradition is absolutely clear that (a) it's not the business of Jews to pass judgments about non-Jews, and (b) when God passes judgments about non-Jews, it won't be based on what they believe, but on how they live, and in particular how they treat people.

And, when Jews fight other nations, it's never about dogma or about who is "better". It's always about land.

kneemos

Peregrinus wrote: »

I disagree.

It seems a reasonable, defensible philosophical position to assert that truth is important, that discerning the truth is valuable in and of itself, and that true (or more true) beliefs have a value that false (or less true) beliefs do not.

Of course, this ducks the question of how we are to discern the truth, but that's a separate question. At this stage we're just asserting that the truth is important, and that a true belief is superior to a false belief.

It does not follow, however, that those who don't share your discernment of what is true must be considered "intrinsically bad". If they are considered "wrong", it's only in the sense that their beliefs are wrong, but that's not in itself a moral judgment; lack of knowledge or understanding is not a moral failing. And this is particularly true in the Christian tradition, which holds that knowledge of God is revealed (by God), and that faith is an outworking of the grace of God. In other words, to the extent that my beliefs about God are true, I can't claim any credit for that, and it does not reflect any merit or virtue on me. So even if we assume for the sake of the argument that your beliefs about God are false, that doesn't diminish your merits or virtues in any way.

Against all this, we have to acknowledge the undoubted fact that history abound with examples of Christians considering themselves to be superior to non-Christians, and invoking this belief in defence of, e.g., slavery or colonialism.

I suggest, though, that this isn't intrinsic to or driven by dogmatic religious belief. Rather, it's an example of dogmatic religious belief being press-ganged into service as a rationalisation for attitudes which are driven by greed for wealth, greed for power or simple tribalism.

The history of Christianity in this respect is not edifying, I grant you. But if we're making or considering a claim about "dogmatic religious belief" in general, we can't test it just by reference to Christianity. We have to look at other instances of dogmatic religious belief.

Judaism is instructive here. Like Christianity, it's a dogmatic religious belief in that it asserts that its teachings are objectively true. (And in fact many of its dogmatic teachings about God are shared with Christianity). But Jews are, and always have been, supremely unbothered by the fact that non-Jews do not share their dogmas. They make no attempt to persuade them; they make no attempt to convert them. The Jewish tradition is absolutely clear that (a) it's not the business of Jews to pass judgments about non-Jews, and (b) when God passes judgments about non-Jews, it won't be based on what they believe, but on how they live, and in particular how they treat people.

And, when Jews fight other nations, it's never about dogma or about who is "better". It's always about land.

Doubt any religion has the low down,rather a pinch of this and a dash of the other.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems a reasonable, defensible philosophical position to assert that truth is important, that discerning the truth is valuable in and of itself, and that true (or more true) beliefs have a value that false (or less true) beliefs do not.

The problem here is that the 'truth' in question in this context is not verifiable and is actually a matter of faith. How exactly do we go about determining that one person's religious beliefs are any more or less true than another's? A Muslim for example can put up as reasonable arguments for their 'truth' being the real 'truth' as a Christian, at which point the philosophical argument degenerates into a dogmatic one.

I admit to knowing next to nothing about Judaism, but a quick google would suggest it is not dogmatic in the same sense as Christianity and Islam. From http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

What Do Jews Believe? This is a far more difficult question than you might expect. Judaism has no dogma, no formal set of beliefs that one must hold to be a Jew.

I would suggest that once you subscribe to a belief system that holds your beliefs as true and any contradictory belief systems as false, you do consider yourself intrinsically superior on the basis that you are right and they are wrong. This becomes more pronounced once you codify notions such as blasphemy and apostasy.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

The problem here is that the 'truth' in question in this context is not verifiable and is actually a matter of faith. How exactly do we go about determining that one person's religious beliefs are any more or less true than another's? A Muslim for example can put up as reasonable arguments for their 'truth' being the real 'truth' as a Christian, at which point the philosophical argument degenerates into a dogmatic one.

Of course, but this isn’t a problem just for religion. There are lots of important beliefs where truth is not verifiable - ethical beliefs are an obvious example. Our problem with such beliefs here is not to eliminate uncertainty, because that’s impossible. It’s how to live with uncertainty. What I believe about X may be wrong, but if I believed the exact opposite about X, I could still be wrong, and this is always going to be the case. Where does that leave me?

One possible reaction is to dismiss X as a question that cannot be answered, and therefore not worth our attention. But this isn’t really satisfactory. First of all, as a matter of principle, if we believe that truth has an intrinsic value, it may be frustrating that we cannot be certain about the truth, but that doesn’t mean that it ceases to be valuable. We still have to try and approach the truth, surely, even though we know we can never finally get there? And secondly, as a matter of practice, we may have to take a position one way or the other. Ethics again illustrate this; ethical questions are questions about how we should act, and we have to make choices about how to act. As Sartre points out, even refusing to make a choice is itself a choice. Thus, to live an ordinary human life, we have to commit to ethical positions which we believe to be true even as we know that they may, in fact, be false.

smacl wrote: »

I admit to knowing next to nothing about Judaism, but a quick google would suggest it is not dogmatic in the same sense as Christianity and Islam. From http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

Belief plays a lesser role in Judaism than it does in Christianity, certainly. A good Jew is one who observes the Law; his reasons or motivation for doing so are secondary. It’s entirely possible to be an atheist Jew, and if an atheist Jew observes the substance of the Law then he is considered righteous.

But there is a core of belief, and certain aspects of the Law do require belief. You can obey the commandment not to mix meat and dairy, for instance, without believing in God, or to abstain from work on the Sabbath. But it’s not easy to obey a commandment to love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength. Judaism is defined by (among other things) a belief in a monotheistic creator God (“Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one!”) But, as I say, Jews are unbothered by the fact that non-Jews don’t believe this.

smacl wrote: »

I would suggest that once you subscribe to a belief system that holds your beliefs as true and any contradictory belief systems as false, you do consider yourself intrinsically superior on the basis that you are right and they are wrong. This becomes more pronounced once you codify notions such as blasphemy and apostasy.

Again, no. If I [believe that I] know something that you don’t know, that makes me better-informed than you, but not “superior”, unless I also believe that a person’s intellect or information is the same thing as their intrinsic worth.

And while you (the generic ‘you’, not you, smacl) may believe that, there’s nothing intrinsic to dogmatic religion which means that the dogmatically religious are more likely to believe it than others. They may or may not. It’s certainly not something that any of the major monotheistic faiths teaches. Conversely, it’s possible to be a convinced atheist, and believe it, in which case atheists of that cast of mind will believe that they are superior to believers. (And, let’s be honest, we do sometimes come across language of that kind.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, but this isn’t a problem just for religion. There are lots of important beliefs where truth is not verifiable - ethical beliefs are an obvious example. Our problem with such beliefs here is not to eliminate uncertainty, because that’s impossible. It’s how to live with uncertainty. What I believe about X may be wrong, but if I believed the exact opposite about X, I could still be wrong, and this is always going to be the case. Where does that leave me?

One possible reaction is to dismiss X as a question that cannot be answered, and therefore not worth our attention. But this isn’t really satisfactory. First of all, as a matter of principle, if we believe that truth has an intrinsic value, it may be frustrating that we cannot be certain about the truth, but that doesn’t mean that it ceases to be valuable.

Here's the problem though, value clearly isn't intrinsic, it is relative and varies by the individual. For example, I might value wit over beauty where others would value beauty over wit. Beauty and wit have no intrinsic value, they both require an audience that will award them a relative value on a subjective basis. Similarly ethical beliefs are values held by an individual or group, they are not truths. When we talk about truth in the real world it can to be based on observation, which carries a degree of uncertainty and can be independently verified through re-observation, or it can be acceptance of stated assertions from a trusted source. Where those assertions cannot be independently verified the truth is actually no more or less than an article of faith. Faith though, like value, is not intrinsic but rather something held by the individual to varying degree. Thus to go back to my original post, a religiously held belief is clearly a personal thing, and while you (we) might assert what we believe is 'true' that is a matter of faith. This does not correspond to a universal truth as it is not true for those who do not share your faith. Similarly, the 'truth' of someone of a different faith is no more or less 'true' than your truth.

So when you say

What I believe about X may be wrong, but if I believed the exact opposite about X, I could still be wrong, and this is always going to be the case.

I agree entirely. The Christian might say what the Muslim believes is wrong, the Muslim might say what the Hindu believes is wrong, and the Hindu might say what the Christian believes is wrong. They could all be wrong, one might be right, but they can't all be right. My belief is that they are all expressions of faith that seem entirely questionable.

Peregrinus

"Value" is subjective, I agree. To say that something is valuable is to say that there is someone who values it, and therefore a valuable thing is always valuable to somebody, and it may be less valuable to somebody else, and not valuable at all to somebody else again.

But "truth" is not subjective in the same way. A statement may be true even if the world believes it to be false, or vice versa. (The whole of post-enlightenment science, after all, rests on the axiom that objective truths exist, and that science is an apt method for discerning them, or at least some of them.) It could be that in relation to a particular claim (which may or may not be a religious claim) we cannot know the truth with our present state of technology/understanding/information. Or it could be that we cannot know the truth about this claim at all, ever, no matter what our technology/understanding/information. But in neither case does it follow that there is no truth, or that attempts to approach the truth must be pointless or unimportant or meaningless.

I agree with you that certitude is an unattractive quality. A belief in the truth of a proposition is much more attractive if accompanied by humility, and the recognition that the belief may be wrong or inadequate. And to the extent that dogmatic religion requires or promotes certitude, that's not good. But I deny that it's a quality uniquely or particularly associated with dogmatic religion - the opponents of dogmatic religion can display just as much certitude, after all. And we can and do display certitude in relation to matters which are not religious at all.

And I disagree with you that those who display certitude necessarily think they are "superior" to others who display either certitude about a different belief, or no certitude at all. They may think they have superior knowledge - they do think that, in fact - but that is not the same thing as being superior. To believe that it is requires an unstated premise in there, which is that knowledge is the true measure of the worth or merit of a human being. If indeed they do consider themselves superior, then they have obviously accepted and internalised that premise. But if it is you who assert that they do or must feel that, it's you who has accepted and internalised that premise, and indeed who is displaying an altogether inappropriate degree of certitude about it.

smacl

The fact that there are others in addition to dogmatic religions who exhibit certitude in relation to unproven propositions may well be the case, but is also something of a red herring. The point is given that what is being put forward as truth in this context is actually faith, i.e. the belief that a stated proposition is true even though that proposition cannot be proven. The Muslim, Hindu or Christian will have the same degree of certitude that their faith is true, and on that basis the others are false, but objectively there is no reason to given any one faith more weight than any other, which is what I take as being the point of the OP.

I also think those with dogmatic beliefs which include notions that those with opposing beliefs are sinful do consider those people inferior at least until such time as they rescind their own strongly held beliefs. This is shown throughout history, e.g. the Crusades, and is still visible today, e.g. the Asia Bibi case. Even in this small community on boards we see posts on the topic of false Christian theologies (as opposed to alternative Christian theologies), suggesting that some Christians continue to belittle the beliefs of other Christians.

Again this clearly illustrates that dogmatic religious belief systems leave no space for opposing beliefs and promote judging people based on belief rather than behaviour.

Peregrinus

But somebody who believes that there is no God, a proposition which equally cannot be proven, is also adopting a faith position, and may also demonstrate the same degree of certitude in their faith.

The issue is not whether religious people can display certitude and assume or claim superiority on the basis of that certitude; they can unquestionably do both. The question is whether religious belief inherently involves certitude and claims to superiority. I'd go so far as to say that dogmatic religion is prone to certitude; it's a temptation that the religious need to identify and avoid, and we don't always succeed. But for reasons already explained, I think the claim to superiority is not one that can fairly be laid at the feet of religion; it depends on a premise which dogmatic religions typically do not teach, and indeed frequently explicity contradict, and it's a premise which the non-religious are just as prone as the religious to accept, if not more prone.

[And, I need to say this, I think you're being a little bit unfair to tatranska here. He doesn't present his quote as referring to people who hold non-Christian beliefs. I'm sure it's not your intention, but your bringing up his name in this context might give the impression that you're offering him as an example of someone who displays certitude and a belief in his own superiority, which would be most unfair to him. And particularly unfortunate, too, since right now he's not around to defend himself or explain his position; he's dealing with a family bereavement.]

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

But somebody who believes that there is no God, a proposition which equally cannot be proven, is also adopting a faith position, and may also demonstrate the same degree of certitude in their faith.

The words believe, faith, know, like all words, need to have commonly agreed-upon definitions in order that conversation can take place between people. Or so the argument goes.

The words 'know' is usually hitched to notions of being able to demonstrate what is known to others. You can't know something unless others can observe the same thing as you.

And so you can't know God exists. You can only believe he does. Goes the thinking.

-

It strikes me that if God exists then he can demonstrate his existence to a person such that the person knows he exists. He is the one who would have created us such that we attain 'knowing' based on the support offered by common-observations of others around us.

It follows that common "knowing" only has the certainty-quotient it has because he assigned that quotient to it. He needn't have done. Clearly, he can assign a higher quotient of certainty to his direct, personal revelation of his existence and presence.

-

It seems to me that a person can say they know God exists - because he has made himself known. The fact that they can't prove it or demonstrate it to others, is neither here nor there.

It only requires that God exist and that he choses to let someone know he exists. If he does then they do. This doesn't prove God exists but that's a secondary issue. And not one that is that important to the knowee.

And so, I know God exists.:D

kneemos

antiskeptic wrote: »

The words believe, faith, know, like all words, need to have commonly agreed-upon definitions in order that conversation can take place between people. Or so the argument goes.

The words 'know' is usually hitched to notions of being able to demonstrate what is known to others. You can't know something unless others can observe the same thing as you.

And so you can't know God exists. You can only believe he does. Goes the thinking.

-

It strikes me that if God exists then he can demonstrate his existence to a person such that the person knows he exists. He is the one who would have created us such that we attain 'knowing' based on the support offered by common-observations of others around us.

It follows that common "knowing" only has the certainty-quotient it has because he assigned that quotient to it. He needn't have done. Clearly, he can assign a higher quotient of certainty to his direct, personal revelation of his existence and presence.

-

It seems to me that a person can say they know God exists - because he has made himself known. The fact that they can't prove it or demonstrate it to others, is neither here nor there.

It only requires that God exist and that he choses to let someone know he exists. If he does then they do. This doesn't prove God exists but that's a secondary issue. And not one that is that important to the knowee.

And so, I know God exists.:D

Doesn't mean you're right.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But somebody who believes that there is no God, a proposition which equally cannot be proven, is also adopting a faith position, and may also demonstrate the same degree of certitude in their faith.

Again, a red herring. The fact that some strong atheists for example behave much like dogmatic religious types is hardly relevant. Note that many atheists such as myself would take the stance that they don't believe there is a God or gods, which is a rather different proposition, i.e. there are an infinite number of potentially true yet unproven propositions out there, so what merit is there in selecting one as true and all contradictory ones as false?

The issue is not whether religious people can display certitude and assume or claim superiority on the basis of that certitude; they can unquestionably do both. The question is whether religious belief inherently involves certitude and claims to superiority. I'd go so far as to say that dogmatic religion is prone to certitude; it's a temptation that the religious need to identify and avoid, and we don't always succeed. But for reasons already explained, I think the claim to superiority is not one that can fairly be laid at the feet of religion; it depends on a premise which dogmatic religions typically do not teach, and indeed frequently explicity contradict, and it's a premise which the non-religious are just as prone as the religious to accept, if not more prone.

I would suggest that any religious instruction that talks to the student in the imperative is teaching certitude. For example, to state "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" and then list the consequences for doing so leaves no room for uncertainty.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The words believe, faith, know, like all words, need to have commonly agreed-upon definitions in order that conversation can take place between people. Or so the argument goes.

The words 'know' is usually hitched to notions of being able to demonstrate what is known to others. You can't know something unless others can observe the same thing as you.

And so you can't know God exists. You can only believe he does. Goes the thinking.

-

It strikes me that if God exists then he can demonstrate his existence to a person such that the person knows he exists. He is the one who would have created us such that we attain 'knowing' based on the support offered by common-observations of others around us.

It follows that common "knowing" only has the certainty-quotient it has because he assigned that quotient to it. He needn't have done. Clearly, he can assign a higher quotient of certainty to his direct, personal revelation of his existence and presence.

-

It seems to me that a person can say they know God exists - because he has made himself known. The fact that they can't prove it or demonstrate it to others, is neither here nor there.

It only requires that God exist and that he choses to let someone know he exists. If he does then they do. This doesn't prove God exists but that's a secondary issue. And not one that is that important to the knowee.

And so, I know God exists.:D

Fair enough. So by that logic substitute 'Allah' or 'Ganesh' for 'God' and explain why they don't exist? The answer is simply that belief based on faith is subjective, so what you know to be true is different from what a similarly devout Muslin or Hindu believes to be true. The question then becomes why is your faith more valid than their's?

Advbrd

Does anybody believe that you have to be a Christian to be saved.
Are Jews and Muslims damned (to single out two mainstream religions that have certain contradictory beliefs about Jesus)?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

I also think those with dogmatic beliefs which include notions that those with opposing beliefs are sinful do consider those people inferior at least until such time as they rescind their own strongly held beliefs. This is shown throughout history, e.g. the Crusades, and is still visible today, e.g. the Asia Bibi case. Even in this small community on boards we see posts on the topic of false Christian theologies (as opposed to alternative Christian theologies), suggesting that some Christians continue to belittle the beliefs of other Christians.

Again this clearly illustrates that dogmatic religious belief systems leave no space for opposing beliefs and promote judging people based on belief rather than behaviour.

You might think it, but your thinking is an unjustified generalisation.

Most people in the religious circles in which I move hold strong beliefs with a great degree of certitude. They also believe that all human beings (including those of other beliefs and also ourselves) are sinful. These are pretty core beliefs in Evangelical Christianity.

Yet I don't think I've ever heard any of my thousands of religious acquaintances ever express the idea that people of other faiths are inferior. Nor have I ever encountered any who who leave no space for opposing beliefs. Rather they would advocate equality and freedom for people of all beliefs (and those with no belief).

Many of us certainly believe that some theologies are false, whereas others are true. But we think we will be judged by God on the basis of whether we have accepted His offer of salvation and entered into a relationship with Him, not on the basis of whether we believed all the right things or not.

As for your final comment of "promoting judging people based on belief rather than behaviour". It's unclear what you mean by this. If you mean judging whether someone's theology is correct or not, then of course their belief is a crucial factor. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Theology is an expression of belief.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough. So by that logic substitute 'Allah' or 'Ganesh' for 'God' and explain why they don't exist? The answer is simply that belief based on faith is subjective, so what you know to be true is different from what a similarly devout Muslin or Hindu believes to be true. The question then becomes why is your faith more valid than their's?

The logic stops where the logic stops. To distill down:

IF God exists AND chooses to let a person know he exists THEN the person will know he exists. (They will also know that Allah and Ganesh, in so far as they depart in essence from God, don't exist*)

There is no place for subjectivity in this logic statement since there is no reliance on the person for their knowing. The act is an act of God.


* I have no doubt that God is active in communicating with all people. I have no doubt either that people have a tendency to be religious. This whether through religion or through their moral/ethical/meaning of life interest, perhaps framed atheistically.

I don't think it matters which religion/worldview this trait is expressed through. Insofar as that expression deals with the matters God is concerned with communicating to them about, they are engaging in God's project. God will obtain an answer to the same question posed everyone - there is no place to hide from it.

So what if the God they believe in isn't the Christian God - they needn't necessarily be any further from the essential truth than a Christian who could well be falling short of a correct view of God. They can still be giving their answer to his question. They can still be urged by him to take the hand that offers eternal life.

The issue isn't whether you believe in the right God. The issue is whether you are engaging (even if unbeknownst to you) with God in a way which will bring about that which God wants to bring about for and in you.

And so, I believe 'heaven' will contain (religiously speaking) Christians, Buddists, Atheists etc. As Nick Park said:

Nick Park wrote:

But we think we will be judged by God on the basis of whether we have accepted His offer of salvation and entered into a relationship with Him, not on the basis of whether we believed all the right things or not.

antiskeptic

Advbrd wrote: »

Does anybody believe that you have to be a Christian to be saved.

In the religious sense of the word, no. Abraham, the 'father of the faith*' was saved before Christ even walked the earth, before there was such a thing as Christianity.

He was saved through what Christ subsequently did. So he was a Christian in that operational sense.

*father, in the sense of the means of his salvation shown to us is the model used for all of us. I'm sure folk were saved before Abraham was. I wonder whether Adam or Eve were, subsequent to their rebellion, saved

Are Jews and Muslims damned (to single out two mainstream religions that have certain contradictory beliefs about Jesus)?

A question somewhat dealt with in the post above this. Not necessarily, not because of their being Jews or Muslims

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The logic stops where the logic stops. To distill down:

IF God exists AND chooses to let a person know he exists THEN the person will know he exists. (They will also know that Allah and Ganesh, in so far as they depart in essence from God, don't exist*)

There is no place for subjectivity in this logic statement since there is no reliance on the person for their knowing. The act is an act of God.

And yet the predicate 'If God exists' could equally well read 'If Allah exists' or 'If Ganesh exists'. A Christian will assume God exists, a Muslim Allah and and a Hindu Ganesh (among many others). These are all subjective beliefs insofar as there is no objective test we can carry out to verify any one is more or less true than any other. Based on your statement, we could also state the following;

"If someone believes Ganesh exists AND believes that Ganesh has let them know he exists THEN the person will know he exists." By your logic, this statement holds true for all devout Hindus. You are right, on the basis that God does exist and has told you so, and they are wrong because they merely believe Ganesh exists (he doesn't). Of course we can swap God and Ganesh depending on whether we address the argument to a Christian or a Hindu.

Using 'If God exists' as a predicate effectively turns the subsequent argument into a tautology. You could equally well say 'IF anything I assert but can't prove is true THEN...'. Logic it aint. It is simply a statement of faith.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Yet I don't think I've ever heard any of my thousands of religious acquaintances ever express the idea that people of other faiths are inferior. Nor have I ever encountered any who who leave no space for opposing beliefs.

And yet we still see churches from various religions sending out missionaries to actively spread their beliefs to people who already may have a religion or be happy not to have a religion. Surely this is a clear encroachment on the space of opposing beliefs. Just finished reading a second book on the Alibigensian Crusade* and making space for opposing beliefs certainly doesn't seem to be part of the Catholic tradition


(*One you recommended wasn't available, so ended up with The Rise and Fall of the Great Heresy and Massacre At Montsegur. Both informative enough, enjoyed the second more).

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

And yet we still see churches from various religions sending out missionaries to actively spread their beliefs to people who already may have a religion or be happy not to have a religion. Surely this is a clear encroachment on the space of opposing beliefs.

Stuff and nonsense. Missionaries are simply an example of people who hold a belief sharing that belief with others. It's something that happens in every area of life in the marketplace of ideas.

Religious beliefs, like any other beliefs, are propositions that people either accept or reject. They are free to be discussed, criticised, advocated and rejected. They should not have 'space' which is deemed their exclusive territory.

You are, in effect, arguing that, if I have experienced something that I find to be useful and share it with others, then I am treating them as inferior and denying them space to be anything different. Such an argument, if applied to any other area of life, would rightly be derided as nonsense. It is no less-nonsensical because you try to apply it to religion.

kneemos

Nick Park wrote: »

Stuff and nonsense. Missionaries are simply an example of people who hold a belief sharing that belief with others. It's something that happens in every area of life in the marketplace of ideas.

Religious beliefs, like any other beliefs, are propositions that people either accept or reject. They are free to be discussed, criticised, advocated and rejected. They should not have 'space' which is deemed their exclusive territory.

You are, in effect, arguing that, if I have experienced something that I find to be useful and share it with others, then I am treating them as inferior and denying them space to be anything different. Such an argument, if applied to any other area of life, would rightly be derided as nonsense. It is no less-nonsensical because you try to apply it to religion.

Thing is though the missionaries have been educated and their students primitive. Not familiar with the history of missionaries,but enticement or enforcement I presume was not unusual.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

You are, in effect, arguing that, if I have experienced something that I find to be useful and share it with others, then I am treating them as inferior and denying them space to be anything different

Share or foist upon? Historically missionaries have used a significant amount of coercion to proselytise those who do not share their beliefs, according to this article from the Huffington post many still do. It is no accident that missionaries target the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable in society, some good discussion in an article in OnFaith here. Once conversion of the unbeliever becomes a goal in and of itself, as is the case with many missions, various forms of coercion typically accompany that goal. This is very different to putting forward a proposition or idea that may be accepted or rejected purely on its own merits.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Share or foist upon? Historically missionaries have used a significant amount of coercion to proselytise those who do not share their beliefs, according to this article from the Huffington post many still do. It is no accident that missionaries target the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable in society, some good discussion in an article in OnFaith here. Once conversion of the unbeliever becomes a goal in and of itself, as is the case with many missions, various forms of coercion typically accompany that goal. This is very different to putting forward a proposition or idea that may be accepted or rejected purely on its own merits.

As I said before, 'an unjustified generalisation'. Some missionaries have been, and some still are, eejits. Others are the most compassionate and tolerant people you will ever encounter in your life.

Yes, missionaries do help the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable in society. And, in my experience, most of them do so out of a genuine desire to help.

The irony here is that if Christians indulged in similar generalisations about atheists based on the actions of some of them in the past then you would probably be one of those bleating the loudest.