Topic: Jesus Loves The Little Children Of The World (Read 1433 times)

Cogito · « **on:** July 01, 2006, 12:45:39 AM »

I have two daughters, a son, and 300 million dollars. I, like any other loving father, desire for all three of my children to know me and to love me for who I am, not for the inheritance that I may leave them. In fact, whomever among the three that I judge to sincerely love me is the one (or ones) to whom I plan to bequeath my fortune. I shall not, however, simply ignore the ones who choose not to love me: him, her, or them, I plan to have imprisoned and tortured for the remainder of his, her, or their lives.

I've not told any of my children about my plan directly but I have left hints about it for my youngest child to find. My youngest (or my "baby" as I call her) lives nearby and we see each other on a regular basis. The middle child, who lives out-of-state with his mother the [censored], hasn't seen me in more than 20 years. The eldest, who lives God-knows-where, has never seen me as far as I know. I put her up for adoption on the day she was born.

I plan to be completely impartial about this and to leave it up to my kids' free will as to which expresses his or her love for me in the most sincere fashion. It will be their decision to make and theirs alone to either love me, reject me, or ignore me.

Aren't my three children lucky to have a just, loving Father like me?

Cogito · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2006, 12:54:56 AM »

If the Christian God provides each of us with an equal opportunity to know and to experience his reality then why do so many more people in Dallas, percentage-wise, compared to those in Riyadh, for instance, believe in the Christian God's reality?

Why should place of birth be such a huge factor in a just God's decision to sentence someone to eternal hell since none of us get to choose where he or she is born?

If the Christian God provides each of us with an equal opportunity to know and to experience His reality then why do so many more fundamentalist Christian children believe in God's reality, percentage-wise, than do those whose parents are atheist college professors?

Why should the beliefs of one's parents be such a huge factor in a just God's decision to condemn one to an eternal hell since none of us gets to choose his or her parents?

If God desires so deeply that everyone should believe in His reality that he will condemn those who do not so believe to eternal hell and if God then does not make it equally probable that all may choose to believe in His reality (not equally certain that all will so choose, but only equally probable that they may; this is an important point) is God just?

Bdean · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2006, 03:13:34 AM »

Quote

If God desires so deeply that everyone should believe in His reality that he will condemn those who do not so believe to eternal hell and if God then does not make it equally probable that all may choose to believe in His reality (not equally certain that all will so choose, but only equally probable that they may; this is an important point) is God just?

It seems pretty clear to me that God is not just, Cogito; at least not in the way that you understand the meaning of the word "just". I can see how it would be hard to accept the reality of such a god even if the evidence were overwhelming that such a god did exist.

For those who do believe that God exists, the dilemma that you pose is a very real and important one. For many of us it is perplexing...even unsettling, and we sometimes wonder why God wouldn't just declare: "Everyone goes to heaven no matter what." After all, Jesus himself taught to "turn the other cheeck" and to "repay evil with good." Wouldn't sending everyone to heaven be a great model of those teachings?

Some believers seem to have this neatly sorted in their minds. I don't. But I do trust that God is indeed just and that I simply don't get it. God is the all time knower of all things, while I am, at best, the sometimes knower of some things.

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2006, 01:39:18 PM »

Bdean is certainly right that this problem is deeply perplexing to many believers, and there is wide variation in how they come to grips with it. I have met some who do argue that everyone ends up in heaven, regardless. Others seem to revel in the thought that those who are so stubborn as to reject belief will be punished. What I find fascinating are the endless and varied attempts to rationalize such a being.

It never seems to occur to most that a superpowerful being might feel no need at all for companionship, love, respect, or worship from beings such as ourselves. Why would it? Humans, being social animals, are evolved for such feelings. We find strength and security in belonging to groups, and such emotions are part of what makes the group cohesive. But, assuming this superbeing to have such social feelings or needs, why would it be so resentful of people for not believing in its existence or not worshipping it? According to doctrine, it is perfectly capable of making its existence known and getting everything it wants. (And this is where the elaborate rationalizations come in--the Free Will Defense, among other things.)

Why are there consequences for belief in our gods? Why does it matter so much? I think that there is a very good explanation for that. If there were no consequences for lack of belief, then the belief itself would have little value to people. It could not be used to influence the behavior of others, which is one of the major uses that people have for religion. It is a method of control over other people's behavior. And people do need some incentive to believe in beings that would otherwise seem preposterous to rational adults. Fear and social ostracism are powerful incentives.

Bdean · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2006, 07:52:35 PM »

Quote

What I find fascinating are the endless and varied attempts to rationalize such a being.

At times I agree. Although, I do think there is a conscious and/or unconscious belief that directs the way in which most Christians work through issues like the question of God and justice. Throughout the history of the church, there have been a variety of stances on the way in which one obtains or pursues understanding in matters of Christian faith and life. Some have seen reason as magisterial, being a primary source of knowledge about God. The most prevalent in this camp today are those from the Calvinist and Christian reformed traditions. We also have people like Aquinas and later Malebranche whose work illustrates this position well. Other saw reason as ministerial, always subservient to that which was believed to have been apprehended first by faith. Lutheran theology is a good example of this position today. Sacramental theology has its roots here. It is also from this camp that we get the phrase: "faith seeking understanding." Even others empahsized direct (God to indvidual, apart from a sacred text or sacrament) communication and/or personal experience as a primary means of understanding. We see this everywhere from Assemblies of God to Catholic mysticism to the Quakers.

I tend to fall into the second camp, although I find it very difficult, at times, not to fall head over heels into the third camp.

Quote

And people do need some incentive to believe in beings that would otherwise seem preposterous to rational adults. Fear and social ostracism are powerful incentives.

It makes sense to me that belief in the Christian God seems preposterous to those who think that reason and rationality should be magesterial in directing one's life, beliefs, and coduct in all spheres. I think I am safe in suggesting that the vast majority of people on this planet do not believe that reason should be magisterial in all spheres of life, belief, and conduct. Not that the majority is always right (I know one who suggests that this majority is always wrong

). But, I am not sure that humanity or any nation can make it very long by elevating reason as supreme in all areas of life, belief, and conduct.

Come to think of it, an evolutionary perspective of human origins doesn't seem to elevate conscious reason as magisterial, does it? Only time and circumstance will tell if human notions of justice best propogate survival of the species, not conscious human reason. Does this make sense or am I missing something about the evoluationary framework? I am the first to admit that my understanding of evolutionary thinking is piecemeal.

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2006, 01:14:53 PM »

Quote from: Bdean

It makes sense to me that belief in the Christian God seems preposterous to those who think that reason and rationality should be magesterial in directing one's life, beliefs, and coduct in all spheres. I think I am safe in suggesting that the vast majority of people on this planet do not believe that reason should be magisterial in all spheres of life, belief, and conduct. Not that the majority is always right (I know one who suggests that this majority is always wrong ). But, I am not sure that humanity or any nation can make it very long by elevating reason as supreme in all areas of life, belief, and conduct.

I wonder why "faith seeks understanding" if reason and rationality are not magisterial. My own view on this is that religious faith compels one not to seek understanding but to find ways of circumventing one's instinct that reason and logic ought to prevail. I certainly do agree with you about what the vast majority believe, but that does not justify suspension of logic and reason, which are necessary for our long term survival. Indeed, we seem to have gotten ourselves into something of an environmental pickly by ignoring reason and logic for too long now. Doubtless there will be some who think that their gods will fix the problem for them, but gods are notorious for helping only those who help themselves.

Quote

Come to think of it, an evolutionary perspective of human origins doesn't seem to elevate conscious reason as magisterial, does it? Only time and circumstance will tell if human notions of justice best propogate survival of the species, not conscious human reason. Does this make sense or am I missing something about the evoluationary framework? I am the first to admit that my understanding of evolutionary thinking is piecemeal.

I think that you are missing something huge in the evolutionary framework. The fossil record shows that this planet has hosted a huge number of different hominid species in the past. Humans are the only surviving hominid species, and it is no coincidence that humans are the only ones to have developed advanced civilization. We have been so successful that we have quite literally begun to consume more resources than the planet offers us. Logic and reason have brought us further than any other species, and logic and reason are the only thing that can ensure our continued prosperity and survival.

Bdean · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2006, 01:41:05 PM »

Quote

I wonder why "faith seeks understanding" if reason and rationality are not magisterial.

The phrase is usually meant to suggest that without faith, understanding of God is extremely limited. Once an individual has faith, then they find their capacity for reason to serve and enhance their understanding of God. Of course, this likely doesn't hold up against an attack by one from the first camp. In the same way arguements about God by the first camp fail to appease those in the second camp. The difference is so fundamentally epistemological, that there is always room for one camp to criticize the other.

I suspect that differences in epistemology are central to a vast majority of threads on this board, and this thread illustrates that fact very well. Of course, I still see much value in the dialogue. I just enjoy thinking through things with ya'll, learning to see things from different perspectives, learning the important skill of respect and rigorous thought in a pluralistic world, sometimes coming to find common ground, other times finding it necessary to agree to disagree...and learning quite about about myself, others, and the world in the process.

Quote

Humans are the only surviving hominid species, and it is no coincidence that humans are the only ones to have developed advanced civilization. We have been so successful that we have quite literally begun to consume more resources than the planet offers us. Logic and reason have brought us further than any other species, and logic and reason are the only thing that can ensure our continued prosperity and survival.

Fair enough. But, what about all of the evolution that took place before conscious logic and reason? From what was logic and reason born? I understand your position that logic and reason is important for the survival of the species, but that wasn't always the case. It seems like the importance of conscious logic and reason is, from an evolutionary framework, a rather recent occurrence, correct?

Again, I preface this with reference to my admitted limited knowledge in this area, but aren't there other living speicies (that lack logic and reason) that appear to be far more stable, and have a far more promising future?

Also, isn't it possible that reason (in the applied form of technology) has contributed to the dangers of human extinction just as much as it is a possible solution to these dangers?

Copernicus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2006, 03:13:40 PM »

Quote from: Bdean

Quote
I wonder why "faith seeks understanding" if reason and rationality are not magisterial.

The phrase is usually meant to suggest that without faith, understanding of God is extremely limited. Once an individual has faith, then they find their capacity for reason to serve and enhance their understanding of God.

In that case, I would expect different wording, e.g. "faith evokes understanding". I do agree that the wording suggests a path to understanding, but it starts from the presumption that understanding will have no bearing on faith. As you know, I see a conflict between faith and understanding, and this conflict underlies the widespread perception that religion and science are at odds with each other, a perception that provokes frequent, but telling, denials from the faithful.

Quote

Of course, this likely doesn't hold up against an attack by one from the first camp. In the same way arguements about God by the first camp fail to appease those in the second camp. The difference is so fundamentally epistemological, that there is always room for one camp to criticize the other.

I get the impression that you see sntjohnny as occupying a position in the first camp.

Quote

Fair enough. But, what about all of the evolution that took place before conscious logic and reason? From what was logic and reason born? I understand your position that logic and reason is important for the survival of the species, but that wasn't always the case. It seems like the importance of conscious logic and reason is, from an evolutionary framework, a rather recent occurrence, correct?

To some extent, yes, but there is plenty of evidence of intelligence in other species. The brain itself seems to have evolved initially as a guidance system for mobile organisms. It allows them to survive by planning, and that offers the opportunity for all kinds of goal-oriented activity, not just navigation in a limited physical space. Humans are just very specially adapted for predicting future consequences. We are better at long-range planning than any other species we have encountered.

Quote

Again, I preface this with reference to my admitted limited knowledge in this area, but aren't there other living speicies (that lack logic and reason) that appear to be far more stable, and have a far more promising future?

Absolutely. Spiders are an excellent case in point, although they do possess complex brains and are able to execute actions that have future consequences. Nevertheless, we know that some spiders have existed in roughly their present form for hundreds of millions of years. Humans have only been around in their present form for only about 200,000 years, and we have evolved for intelligence rather rapidly. We breed ourselves naturally for intelligence. Women tend to prefer more intelligent males for mates, because they tend to be better providers. (A recent study suggests that this trend is slowing as women gain economic independence from males. Women are lately becoming more interested in brawn than brains.

)

Quote

Also, isn't it possible that reason (in the applied form of technology) has contributed to the dangers of human extinction just as much as it is a possible solution to these dangers?

Of course, but reason has allowed us to be more successful than our competitors at the survival game. It could be argued that we know only enough to be dangerous--that we lack the collective wisdom to prolong our survival beyond our first few millenia of civilization. We got too big for our britches. Perhaps less intelligent species such as spiders will be the ultimate winners, although they don't have the capability of engineering their own survival beyond the death of their home planet and star. I think that humans do have that capability.

Bdean · « **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2006, 08:14:05 PM »

Quote

In that case, I would expect different wording, e.g. "faith evokes understanding". I do agree that the wording suggests a path to understanding, but it starts from the presumption that understanding will have no bearing on faith. As you know, I see a conflict between faith and understanding, and this conflict underlies the widespread perception that religion and science are at odds with each other, a perception that provokes frequent, but telling, denials from the faithful.

I think I will step out the debate about the best way to state it. I will leave that for you and St. Anselm to work out

.

Regarding the rest of the thread, I appreciate your responses/reactions. You provided some good food for thought. At the same time, those questions were partially intended to frame the role of consious rational thinking in the larger picture of an evolutionary framework. It still seems to be that conscious reason is not majisterial in the evolutionary explanation of the history of living creatures. Given an evolutionary framework, it also seems as if the importance of conscious reason (especially in a majisterial role) as the key to human survial is yet to be determined.

Cogito - Sorry for taking this so far off track. At the same time, thanks for getting us started on a journey with a few unexpected twists

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2006, 08:52:21 PM »

"I get the impression that you see sntjohnny as occupying a position in the first camp."

Not that I know where Bdean puts me, but I am perfectly comfortable with 'faith seeking understanding.' Succinctly, I would be willing to bet that what you think 'faith' is, Cop, is worlds apart from what I think it is.

2 to 1, Bdean and I won't see eye to eye, but after a reasonable amount of time I would wager that we could hammer out the differences mainly as being semantic. Ie, we would be in agreement about what 'faith' is and you would still be on the outside looking in, wondering how it is our definitions don't match your caricatures. That's my guess, anyway.

Author Topic: Jesus Loves The Little Children Of The World (Read 1433 times)