Ted Hoffman

This thread is going to be largely hypothetical in nature so bear that in mind. Its meant to subject the theistic belief system to a test of rationality.
Most of the points are from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000350&p=2" target="_blank">This thread</a> where I asked a theist some questions and he ducked them citing lack of time.

Anyway, my main questions are these:

If God created us, on what basis should we worship him? If we could create intelligent Robots, should we expect them to worship us? In case God tells us explicitly to worship him, why should we go ahead and do as he tells us to do?

If God created us and told us how to live, why should we treat what he says as more "correct" that what we say/ think? Does it follow that just because you have created some being, only you knows what is best for it? On what basis?

Why should we expect God to "love" its creation? Isn't it a form of anthropomorphism? For example, if cows could express themselves as us, they could expect their "God" also to mow have a tail etc. On what basis do we assume that the has human qualities and emotions?

And if indeed he has those human qualities and emotions (anger, love, benevolence paternalism etc) isnt he then, just a powerful "man"? And if that is the case, why then should we worship him?

Why did God create us ? If what he wanted was someone to "fellowship" with and know him (as some claim), why did he create a being inferior to him? If you were omnipotent and needed a relationship with another being, would you create beings that are lesser (read inferior) than you or beings that equal you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence?

In the same vein, if you wanted beings to worship you and fear you, would you create inferior beings or beings that match you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence?

If God wanted true love (one not based on indebtness, fear or expectation of rewards) why couldn't he have created beings that equal him in omniscience then ask them to love and worship him? Would such beings pose a challenge to him? If not, why would he create inferior beings like ourselves (who cannot even perceive him or treat the diseases that afflict them)?

Based on the above three questions, what kind of relationship does God want to have with us? Is it one where people treat each other with some form of respect?

Based on your answers above, what does that tell us about the kind of being God is?

Why does God need recognition form us? Why does he want us to love him? (please try to avoid the anthropomorphism trap)

And if you were God, what caused you?

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

seebs

I'm not sure it makes sense to speak of creating "another" omnipotent being... as to why we're as we are, I dunno, but I have generally assumed that, as time passes, we'll get better.

If we created robots, I would hope we wouldn't try to convince them to worship us, because we aren't gods. I think we should worship God for the same reason I think we should admire sunsets, pet or cuddle cats, and program computers; these are the natural responses to these things.

I don't think "because He made us" is a sufficient reason to treat God as correct; there's two different arguments I've seen, one of which is that He's all-knowing, and therefore able to be correct, and the other is that, as the sole owner and creator of the system, he gets the single vote as to how it's supposed to work. I'm not real comfortable with the latter, although I can see the point.

I don't know why we should *expect* God to love creation. It is, to a certain extent, anthropomorphization - and yet, the Christian religious text tells us that we were made like God. Since only a very few people would take this to mean that He is a biped, we must take it to mean that He is like us, in some ways, *mentally*. We love our creations; shouldn't He love His? (Also, the book says he loves us.) I have a number of other reasons for believing that God loves us, but they're not very good theology.

I believe that creating omniscient beings would have missed some of the point. The wonder of love, as we experience it, is that we are able to take some of the loved one's nature on faith. Also, once again, I'm not sure it's logically consistent to speak of "making" omniscient beings.

The impression I have always gotten is that God wants us to experience and enjoy the world, and help each other do this.

I object somewhat to the phrase "anthropomorphism trap". It's not a trap if it's one of the articles of faith. I'm not entirely sure about God's need for recognition; I think He wants us to recognize Him for the same reason He wants us to study the world and grow to understand it; because comprehension of truth is good.

I have no idea how to even form an answer to a question like "what caused God". From here, I can't answer that, or even tell whether it means anything.

Jobar

seebs, from reading your opinions on this board, it seems to me you look at the Bible as sort of a rough hypothesis, an admittedly primitive and often incorrect groping towards an understanding of the nature of God- but at least a groping in the right direction. Is this a fair statement?

You say that comprehension of truth- knowledge- is good. So that all the science and logic we apply to the idea of God, all our attempts to know Him, are good. Correct?

Given that the thrust of our scientific knowledge has delimited God more and more over historical time- things once thought to be His direct handiwork, like lightning or the motion of the heavens, are now understood to be 'part of the machinery' and not require any supernatural agent(s). Given that the dogma of Christianity (primitive and often incorrect) is so tightly tied in with all the anthropocentric ideas of God you are attempting to defend, wouldn't it be simpler to simply abandon it all and start from scratch? I am not myself a deist, but I do not know of any evidence which makes such a 'hands-off' God impossible. Why do you attempt to justify the parts of Christianity you think are correct, given that you see so very much of it is incorrect?

Ted Hoffman

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

seebs
I think we should worship God for the same reason I think we should admire sunsets, pet or cuddle cats, and program computers; these are the natural responses to these things
But we can see sunsets, pets and cats. Cant do the same for God now can we?
False analogy. Try again.
Since when did worship become a natural response?
And regarding sunset as beautiful depends on ones background. Africans for example, dont tend to romanticize such mundane things as sunset and cats.

one of which is that He's all-knowing
And how do we get to know that He's all-knowing?

he gets the single vote as to how it's supposed to work
Vote? from who? are you saying God is democratic?
As soon as he creates sentient, intelligent beings, then it follows that he cant be the only one who has a say.
What is our intelligence and creativity for if thats the case? To interpret his commands?

Since only a very few people would take this to mean that He is a biped, we must take it to mean that He is like us, in some ways, *mentally*.
I dont agree with the "very few" people part. In any case, numbers are irrelevant. Whats important is what the bible says: beaven his throne and earth his footrest or something like that. The bible is like a flute and anyone can blow it in a way they like.

We love our creations; shouldn't He love His? (Also, the book says he loves us.) I have a number of other reasons for believing that God loves us, but they're not very good theology
ha ha

your apologetic approach is amusing. Lets get some theists now...(*looks around*...*points to a theist with a raised hand*) Ok, you.

seebs

It's at least close, I think. I believe that it can be read so as to reveal the important truths; I also know that humans can read *ANYTHING* and get it wrong.

It's a good goal, not all the steps on the way will be "more accurate" than previous ones, and there may be some botched attempts. We tend to say "seeking to learn about ..." when we really mean "seeking to confirm what we already believe about..." sometimes.

At one level, I agree; at another, I think that the physical laws are a direct and active result of God's ongoing will. But yes, I do think people are getting a better feel for what the normal rules are.

I don't think that much of Christianity itself is incorrect; I think a lot of people read incorrect things into it. Thus, looking at the old testament, look at the various comments on interracial marriage. Some people used to use the stuff in Ezra to show that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will. In so doing, they ignore the story of Ruth, and other stories that clearly show that people are people, and that exclusionism like that is unhealthy.

As to why I defend the rest... because it seems to me to be true. Occasionally, I have an experience which I would describe as an external force preventing me from acting, and generally, if I stop and think, I can figure out why what I was about to do would have been wrong. Sometimes, it takes a while to figure out - which makes it hard for me to believe that this is *me* doing it.

This is consistent with a personal God who, when given permission, will occasionally help us be better and more moral people. It's not particularly consistent with deism.

As a secondary point, to some extent I am defending, not that every last bit of this is true (because I'm not sure myself), but rather, that people who believe these things are not ravening monsters, intent only on destroying the freedoms of others.

When disagreement about religion is treated a little more like disagreement about music, I think we'll all be a lot better off; people will be able to make their decisions without fear of harassment, by either side.

I suspect that, if there were less intolerance, a sizable number of people would be on the other side of the debate from where they are now. Certainly, the active hostility to coherent thought I saw in many Christians was one of the reasons I was unwilling to look seriously at the faith for a long time; likewise, I think some of the theists would be likely to admit to their doubts if there were less social pressure on them not to have any.

seebs

I happen to think that worship is a natural response to a god. I can't see any way to prove or disprove this belief.

I think that people who don't think sunsets are beautiful are objectively mistaken; they are failing to experience the world fully.

Well, if you start with one of the faiths, it's generally one of the axioms. I don't know how you'd prove it.

I was sort of joking about the "democratic" thing. And I don't agree that it follows necessarily that everyone gets a say in everything; just as we don't all get votes on science that isn't in our fields, there's some cases where someone simply isn't qualified to get a vote on an issue.

Our intelligence and creativity are for exactly what you might expect - but *within a framework*.

Indeed. I call those "metaphors", but I know not everyone believes in metaphors.

What do you mean by "theists", if not people who believe in God?

Ted Hoffman

seebs
I happen to think that worship is a natural response to a god. I can't see any way to prove or disprove this belief.
But can you prove it? Your argument from ignorance means atheism is unnatural right? "natural response to a god" assumes the god exists. This is an ad-hoc explanation and is a subverted effort on your part. The ancients worshiped as a response to a world they found chaotic and incomprehensible. So they created Gods of thunder and fertility and so on. It was an attempt to create order where there was no order.

In any case, what kind of worship are you talking about? Cutting out ones heart as a sacrifice to the sun? The word natural is meaningless here. For instance Murder is a very natural thing. So is rape. What does that tell us about natural things?

I think that people who don't think sunsets are beautiful are objectively mistaken; they are failing to experience the world fully.
They however live very happy and healthy lives. For example, they think the smell of bamboos and smoked fish are very refreshing. Your idea of what constitutes romance is simply different from theirs.

Well, if you start with one of the faiths, it's generally one of the axioms. I don't know how you'd prove it.
You mean you dont know how theyd prove it.


Our intelligence and creativity are for exactly what you might expect - but *within a framework*.
Does "within a framework" bring any new meaning to this discussion?

Indeed. I call those "metaphors", but I know not everyone believes in metaphors
And father is also a metaphor and "God said" is also a metaphor?
Thanks for sharing your interpretation.

What do you mean by "theists", if not people who believe in God?
With all those smiling graemlins, I assume you are not a theist thats why I dont take you seriously. Are you a theist? If you are, WTF are all those smilies supposed to mean?

seebs

I don't think I can prove it.

Actually, I'm not sure that this presumes the god exists. If I say "the natural response to discovering your spouse is cheating on you is to be hurt", this doesn't imply that the reader's spouse is cheating. If there's no god, then it doesn't exactly matter what the natural response to a god would be.

So... mostly what I mean is, *if* you find yourself confronted with a god that you believe in, I think "worship" is the most plausible response.

Good point; "worship" is an awfully broad term. I'd have to think about this one for a while.

Where did "romance" come from? I think they're probably right about the smell of bamboo, too. When someone tells me a thing is beautiful, and I don't see the beauty, I see this as most likely a flaw in me, not an error in their description.

That was the "generic you". I don't know how anyone would go about proving such a thing; it's either one of your axioms, or not.

I'm not sure. Essentially, it's like saying "why are we strong, if not to beat people to death"? Some moral systems impose constraints on what uses of our capabilities are "appropriate" - without denying that these capabilities can be good things.

They mean I'm smiling a lot, and that I don't feel the discussion is entirely a meaningful one. Some of these questions don't really mean much within the Christian framework. Sometimes, it's a bit like watching someone attack evolution by asking how these non-intelligent creatures could have "decided" to become intelligent, if they weren't already; the question simply doesn't make any sense in terms of the system that it's aimed at.

I suspect we're at least somewhat talking at cross-purposes, but it's hard for me to be sure.

I will try to remember to get back to you on the question of what I mean by "worship", you've pointed out a substantial ambiguity I'm not sure how to address. I'm not sure I'll come up with anything coherent; it's one of those things that gets the "I know it when I see it" label, meaning I probably don't understand it yet.

Ted Hoffman

I don't think I can prove it.
Do you know why?

If I say "the natural response to discovering your spouse is cheating on you is to be hurt", this doesn't imply that the reader's spouse is cheating
The reader has "discovered". What has he discovered if not that the spouse is cheating?
You said "worship is a natural response to a god" You should have said, "worship is a natural response to the belief in existence of a god".

If there's no god, then it doesn't exactly matter what the natural response to a god would be
We don't know what the response would be.
We don't even know what the "natural response" of the gods would be either if they existed.

So... mostly what I mean is, *if* you find yourself confronted with a god that you believe in, I think "worship" is the most plausible response.

Which brings me back to my original question: why worship? Is it a rational reaction?

Good point; "worship" is an awfully broad term. I'd have to think about this one for a while.
You go ahead and do that.

Where did "romance" come from? I think they're probably right about the smell of bamboo, too. When someone tells me a thing is beautiful, and I don't see the beauty, I see this as most likely a flaw in me, not an error in their description.
To say that the sunset is beautiful is to romanticize sunset. Is taking a crack a beautiful thing? And rotting in a grave? What about going mentally crazy? Is it beautiful?

That was the "generic you". I don't know how anyone would go about proving such a thing; it's either one of your axioms, or not.
The one who makes a claim is the one who should prove it. Otherwise, it remains just a claim.

I'm not sure...
Get back to me when you are sure. And moral systems are quite irrelevant to our topic.

They mean I'm smiling a lot, and that I don't feel the discussion is entirely a meaningful one
Meaningful to who?

Some of these questions don't really mean much within the Christian framework.
And how do you know that?

Sometimes, it's a bit like watching someone attack evolution by asking how these non-intelligent creatures could have "decided" to become intelligent, if they weren't already; the question simply doesn't make any sense in terms of the system that it's aimed at.
Which question - your strawman?

I suspect we're at least somewhat talking at cross-purposes, but it's hard for me to be sure.
That much is evident

I will try to remember to get back to you on the question of what I mean by "worship", you've pointed out a substantial ambiguity I'm not sure how to address.
You dont sound sure about many things. What do you expect me to do? Tell you I understand?

I'm not sure I'll come up with anything coherent; it's one of those things that gets the "I know it when I see it" label, meaning I probably don't understand it yet.
I hope that next time you post, you will be sober.