-RRH-

The mentally delusional are the only people I feel would be capable of ignoring their own knowledge. As it stands, many sane people will change their religious beliefs, because those beliefs weren't supported by direct knowledge. But it would take a very deluded person to deny the existance of trees, for example, because we know a lot about trees.

I was mostly thinking of theological disputes. They wouldn't argue about whether god was one or three, whether god permits pre-marital sex or not, whether grape juice can be used in place of communion wine, whether or not petitionary prayer is effective, etc. Because they would really know, rather than be left to desperately squeeze information from what they have at hand.

If god tells one thing to one group of people, and a different thing to another group, then you probably would get more than two groups. You would also get people who decide that god is a liar, and stop believing anything he says.

This, I admit, is the biggest stretch. First, it assumes that god has some interest in proselytizing. But god has proven his willingness to present himself directly to some people, so if he was so interested in proving his existence to the world, he could do a lot more than feats of mentalism.

But, assuming he wanted to convince everyone, but had given himself some kind of rule that he could only directly reveal himself to this select group of people, then he could help his evangelists demonstrate what would amount to psychic powers.

This wouldn't necessarily prove %100 to those outside the god-society that the powers come from god, but it would certainly give them more credibility than every other religion in the entire world.

But that's only if god wants to play the game this way, and I can't really speculate about the motivations for our hypothetical deity.

Amos

Can't be. The concept sin as such is not needed but each mythology will have its own taboos and/or method to reach heaven, or Nirvana, or whatever they wish to call it. In the end the period of suffering must exist prior to redemption-- or redemption by any other name-- because salvation must take place in our own mind and each mythology will have its own way to deal with this. Some better than others but all of them do or they would not be.

Darkblade

The dictionary says yes. I would also say yes. Otherwise this "god" would just be a remarkably powerful (through technology or other natural means) person, which would be indistinguishible from a "true" god. In order for something to prove that it is a god, it must prove that it can do (at least some) impossible things, and prove that it did not alter your perception or mind, although this proof would require your mind to be altered (it would always be simpler and more rational to believe that you were experiencing falsities, as it would always be easier (or, at least, equally easy) for the being claiming divinity to produce them than to do what is categorically impossible).

Perchance

Hello, everyone.

I think I see what you're saying, though I would disagree that a mentally delusional person would automatically not be able to know about the deity. If the delusion was severe enough, it wouldn't occur to the person to question his own knowledge, I don't think, and he could have a hallucination that was the same as the deity by coincidence.

Still, it would probably be rare.

I wonder if perhaps suddenly being exposed to perfect knowledge about a deity could drive someone mad?

Ah, I understand. I think theological disputes would diminish as well. In fact, if everyone knew for certain what, in the past, a bunch of philosophers have spent their lives studying to guess at, there probably wouldn't be a need for theology at all.

True. I wonder if one group would wind up refusing to acknowledge the god at all, since he was a liar and couldn't be truested? Is there a word for people who believe a god exists but refuse to worship him?

True.

And probably at least persuade some scientists or other group to study them. So perhaps, if for some reason the god wanted to be indirect, he/she/it could use such things to lead people to knowledge indirectly.

Of course, it's impossible to list all the motives a hypothetical deity could have, but according to many myths of deities they seem to be human motives writ large (jealousy, lust, anger, compassion, and so on). I don't think it's out of the question that a hypothetical deity would want to proselytize.

******

I do think it's possible to conceive of a mythology without any need for the concepts of redemption or sin. This would be especially true if the mythology didn't include a "fall" of some kind that the people felt they needed salvation from. If, for example, all evil in the world was seen as external, something that was not under the control of either the people themselves or their god, but simply the hatred of an enemy, then I think it would be quite possible the people would manage to come to terms with it by thinking of themselves as blameless innocents.

Admittedly, this would require a less-than-omnipotent god.

*****
This, I think, is one reason I'm an atheist. The words "divine," "supernatural," "immortal," and "god" can usually only be defined in terms of what they are not- human, natural, and mortal- than by what they are. If they existed as independent concepts, they would have positive qualities that could easily be connfirmed.

-Perchance.

-RRH-

Not all deluded people would deny the deity, but all people who denied the deity would be deluded. That's what I was trying to say.

And most of these very rare deconversions would be observably unbalanced people, lending credence to the claims of those who have knowledge of the deity.

That would depend on the nature of the deity in question. And the extent of the knowledge

Not out of the question, no. But if this deity has given perfect knowledge to one select group, why would it turn around and decide to handle things differently for everyone else?

Perchance

Okay, I see what you mean. To deny an observable deity would be deluded in the same way that denying the existence of rocks and trees is deluded.

I suppose it would depend on the deity's level of power and good will. A god who just wanted worshippers and was all-powerful could probably reach through the delusion, and perhaps would. A Deist god who just didn't care probably wouldn't make any effort.

Yes, one could probably come up with a whole range of answers based on the deity's nature, even if the knowledge was perfect and total.

Well, a war-god (like the Ares of Greek myth) might enjoy seeing the strife. Or a not-very-powerful god might want a small group of worshippers it could control.

All this depends on god-like motives being human-like, of course. But then, if we just decided we couldn't understand deities, the discussion would be over already .

-Perchance.

Darkblade

Perhaps this deity would be Yahweh? :banghead: :boohoo:

Luiseach

I agree with you that perfect knowledge would entail all the things you refer to (such as mental contact, physical proof, and so on). At the same time, however, I would wonder if even with scrupulous verification for the deity's existence available, might there not be some people who would continue to resist the idea? I'm thinking here about evolutionary theory, or even something easier to verify (such as the space station or the lunar landings). There are groups who deny all of these things, despite evidence for their existence. Goodness, we're getting into murky waters here...how much evidence should we demand before we assume that we have perfect knowledge of something?

Yes, I agree with you about the nature of the deity dictating the behaviour patterns of the worshipful to a certain extent. I think though, going by the past record of the human race, that there would still be people who despite their perfect knowledge of a deity, would behave in ways that perhaps went counter to the attested wishes of the deity. After all, there have been staunch believers who claim to adhere to the tenets of Christianity (thou shalt not kill, etc.) at the same time as they transgress them. Would the adherents still commit acts of evil? Would evil exist if the deity were perfectly knowable? My gut reaction is to say yes, perfect knowledge of any fact (deity or otherwise) does not preclude dissension, denial, transgression or rebellion.

I don't think that a deity has to be supernatural to be considered a deity. There are religions which see the deity (or deities) as embodied in the natural world, and so the line between nature and supernature is somewhat blurred at times.

A deity with a personality. Yes if the deity had a personality then I suppose people would respond to him/her on a more personal level. Many Christians, though, already 'interact' with God on a one-to-one basis - seeing Jesus as a friend, or approaching the Virgin Mary as an intermediary between the human and the celestial worlds, or heeding the 'still small voice' of God, etc. Again, though, there are religions/cultures that see the natural world as the deity, or at least as sentient on some level (trees, totem animals, running water, storms), so I guess that the hypothetical deity we're talking about doesn't have to conform to the monotheistic model.

I agree with you that interaction with and verification of the deity would keep a lot of ritual behaviour alive, and, like you say, perhaps intensify it. I think there would be more adherents, especially if the deity whose demands were clear, whose punishments for dissension were certain, and whose rewards for obedience were sweet enough to toe the line for. Faith, though, which is not based on knowledge of the facts, but rather on the absence of verifiable evidence, would decline. No longer would we have to have faith in God - because we would 'know' for sure that God exists. On this level religion would be a whole different ball game...indeed, it would be more mundane, like paying your taxes every year because you know that the government exists, that it demands that you pay, that it will punish you if you refuse to pay, and that it might even reward you if you comply.

Again, this was an interesting question to bring up. :-)

Seraphim

sorry for the late reply, totally forgot about this thread. Better late than never.

Interesting! So no one could think anything new because a deity is everything? Or are you applying these criteria to religion alone- there would still be new thinking going on outside the field, but not in the field of religion?

My reply : No one will bother to think at all because they will assume that God/Diety has ALL the answers and this God/Diety will tell them When and IF the times comes.

Such criteria is not related to religion alone, ANY beliefs (including Science) where a person sees what he knows is ALL there is to it follows such criteria.
Such society will be closed-minded society where all they see and understand is what they see and what they understood. Outside knowledge is considered to be something of a taboo.

If this is the only criteria for being human, then I've met a lot of nonhumans. There are people who are satisfied with the answers they get, but this doesn't mean that they're wrong (for example, if a new phenomenon that defied gravity were found, of course it would have to be accounted for, but I don't think everyone goes around doubting the laws of gravity just for the hell of it). And there may be emotional traumas that someone can't bear to question.

My reply : Why do you think the world is such a mess? Because of what you said above, NOT because some Diety or God responsible to make the world in such a state.

That said, while I get frustrated with people who don't and won't ask questions, I don't think everyone can be divided into two neat groups. The people who really get on my nerves are the ones who ask questions of everything except their faith, but get angry when their faith is questioned. And then there are those who question faith but aren't really interested in the questions science asks...

My reply : There are a third type - one who ask question on everything and seeks to find answers for everything - including their own faith even so others in their faith will look down on them for what they sees as lack of faith.

A true faithful is one who finds God within himself, not in a book or in a temple or mosque somewhere. God isn't hiding, we are the one not looking.

Of course, all of this again assumes that knowing the deity in questions is equivalent to knowing the universe. I would be interested in why you think this.

My reply : Hpmh ... How arrogant could that be.
Let assume you are a teacher in a class and you teaching something to a group of students, will ALL of them understand what you teach? I don't think so.

When such situation arises, what will a teacher do? Ignore the less intelligent students and teach only the smart ones? Try and reteach the less intelligence once with another approach?

In same way, understanding a diety doesn't mean you will understand the universe ... you will only understand some part of it but NEVER all.
You will still need Science (side by side with religion), you will still need to question and you will still need to find the answer yourself.

I still think this reasoning only applies if we're talking about an omnimax deity, and knowing everything that it knows is equivalent to knowing the universe. If we're talking about a deity like Zeus, then just because I am in mental contact with him doesn't mean that I know everything about the oceans, for example (Poseidon's domain).

My reply : In that case, even a diety like Zeus has a limit ... following him means you will only know some things but never all. IF diety have limits, why not humans? How are we going to fix our limitations by following a limited diety?

Well, thank you. I think I might have questions forever, though...

My reply : Questioning is OK, trying to find the answer to your question is better. Don't simply ask but never bother answering since increase in questions will only serves to confuse you.