Magus55

Yes but the mother isn't infinite and holy - breaking china isn't deserving of death. Sinning against God is.

Viti

I wasn't the one using the parent child analogy to demonstrate God's supposed justice.

Gunnaheave

Magus:

It is perhaps less than compelling to answer a disanalogy by piling on still more distinctions. In any event, the answer is circular.

MrDarwin

luvluv, Magus55, et al., I think this is an interesting topic distinct from from reasons for disbelief so I have started a new discussion with regard to what I call "the problem of punishment out of proportion to the crime" here .

Jamie_L

Okay, hows this:

If I were to grant for a moment that atheism is a negative claim.

It is still different from (to borrow a previous example) a claim that "this chair is not blue."

The negative claim about the chair is expressing an independent claim.

The atheist claim is a response to the positive God claim. In the absense of the God claim, there is no negative claim to be made.

That is why I consider it to be the "default" position. In the absence of someone saying "God exists", there is no impotus to say "God does not exist." And that is why, regardless of what you "call" these claims, the burden of proof rests on the theist, not the atheist.

Jamie

Mageth

Pogue:

Please, some of the long-time posters please tell me if I have represented my view eloquently, or of I butchered it, lol..

A very good job indeed! Welcome to the board.

Incidentally, I didn't have time to respond to luvluv's post last night. What you said in response, I believe, is the most salient point, and the one I was thinking of stressing in response to luvluv's post.

In addition, this sentence from luvluv's post caught my eye:

Why was it necessary for nature to have provided us with an ability to percieve the divine if the divine did not exist?

Nice phrasing, as the first part of the sentence assumes the conclusion that the divine exists! A simple answer is that the "divine" does not exist; what we're perceiving is not the divine, it's merely a brain state around which we've conceived a notion of the divine. And I have no doubt that there is a naturalistic explanation for why we've developed this "ability", as there is a naturalistic explanation for why we can smell cookies. Not knowing what that explanation is is not licence to assign a supernatural explanation to it.

At the absolute best, the discovery of the biological nature of belief is totally neutral evidence.

Perhaps true, but with a bit more scientific research the pendelum could swing significantly in the naturalistic direction.

Marlowe

The way a built-in brain function lends credence to the notion of a spiritual realm (and neither I nor the scientists who did the research are necessarily getting at that here - this is a theoretical debate as far as I know) is that everything else our brain experiences is real, except for schizophrenic and drug induced hallucinations. The research shows that religious experiences are similar to what happens in our brains when we experience real phenomenon, and dissimilar to hallucinations, because religious experiences occur in completely healthy brains without chemical induction. True, it is possible to dismiss the research as simply a biological explanation - but that is reductionist and denies the data that this neural experience is as real as the neural experience of seeing, tasting, smelling or anything else perceived by our senses.

Fascinating article on Neuro-theology, ConsequentAtheist, though I find it interesting that the author discounts Newberg and D'Aquili's conclusions as pure metaphysical speculation (something they are quite straight forward about admitting they are doing), and then follows it with some metaphysical speculation of his own, but couched in logical semantics and therefore not being quite so honest about it being speculation:

I'm glad he thinks it's fair to give a high prior to the one he agrees with. I think it fair to give a high prior to the one I agree with. How's that?

I just want to clarify my position since we have two threads of arguments going on here from my post on brain biology. I am a pantheist. If you ask me, evolution, ie natural processes and the universe itself, these are god - and they contain a mystical aspect. A mystical aspect means there is a mystery beyond quanitification, but there is no personified being out there that "put" the biological funtion in our brains. Our brains have the biological ability to experience oneness and the intuitive perception of unknowable mystery because of the mystical aspect of the universe, not because of any Supreme Being.

Woo hoo! Excellent, luvluv! This too is what compels me about the biology of belief.

Hi, Pogue - I too am new here, and I liked your post very much. Some things I'd like to discuss from it:

This would be true - if you assume god is a being. As I said above, I'm a pantheist and therefore believe we are constantly explaining and detecting god in our pursuit of scientific and mystical knowledge. Scientific knowledge is knowledge of all that is quantifiable. But we all know through experience that there are many things about existence which are not clearly quantifiable. Have you ever been in love? Could someone measure how much in love you were? Do you not believe in love because you can't measure it? Some things are mysteries and they can only be explored through experience, not rational measuring and dissection.

Believe it or not, I think proponents of specific religious systems are actually trying to say something like what I just said above - some things are mysteries, but they have to remain true to very specific metaphors to discuss these things. It seems to me we have little to no ability to speak of mysteries anymore, due to histroical circumstances - because of the way science has consistently illuminated more and more of the physical universe. We have finally come to believe that eventually we will quantify and measure the entireity of existence and experience. Someone may well get on here and tell me love can be measured, or reduce it to a biological function, even though I know someone who committed suicide over love - the ultimate in anti-biology as an emotion overtook the survival instinct. In my experience rational materialists will be just as dodgy about things like this as theists will be about the abstract ideas they couldn't answer you about.

Not all religions are like the Abrahamic religions. Not all involve a Being worried about punishing. Buddhism has no god at all. Don't confuse Western religious thought with all religious thought. Mysticism from almost every religious system around the world warns against misidentifying human morality with divine morality, unfortunately people aren't too good at holding onto this idea.

I would agree as I'm not into supernatural explanations. But does that mean there is no spiritual explanation to be attributed to it? Supernatural and spiritual are not synonyms despite them being treated that way by Western philosophy. Why does the brain have an ability to have spiritual experiences? Is it necessarily indicative of a "spiritual realm", a phraseology that seems to assume a physical space or something like a physical space somewhere? Can it not be that there is a dimension of experience of this reality, of this physical space that we need, and it is more than what rationalizing reality gives us? Could it be that there is a gestalt reality, greater than the sum of its parts, that this function of our brain allows us to experience directly? If that is the case, what are the implications of that to us as humans and for the grand pattern of meaning we are constantly constructing?

Mageth

True, it is possible to dismiss the research as simply a biological explanation - but that is reductionist and denies the data that this neural experience is as real as the neural experience of seeing, tasting, smelling or anything else perceived by our senses.

I don't deny the neural experience is real. I do have serious doubts that the neural experience is an interaction with the "supernatural" or "divine", or is even evidence that such exists. Quite simply, we could experience the "sense" of the divine without it being real, and assign reality to it to explain that sense.

I also see a bit of a conflict or contradiction in a couple of things you said:

The way a built-in brain function lends credence to the notion of a spiritual realm (and neither I nor the scientists who did the research are necessarily getting at that here - this is a theoretical debate as far as I know) is that everything else our brain experiences is real, except for schizophrenic and drug induced hallucinations.

and:

But we all know through experience that there are many things about existence which are not clearly quantifiable. Have you ever been in love? Could someone measure how much in love you were? Do you not believe in love because you can't measure it? Some things are mysteries and they can only be explored through experience, not rational measuring and dissection

Now, admittedly, the experience of love is real, in a sense, in that we really experience it. But no supernatural explanation is needed for that experience, and "love", as you say, is not externally externally exist and quantifiable in the normal sense. Why, then would a supernatural explanation be needed for the experience of the "divine"? Why must the "divine" some people experience be real, be externally existent, if love need not be?

Further, as to your comment "everything else our brain experiences is real, except for schizophrenic and drug induced hallucinations," I beg to disagree. I can close my eyes and imagine an image; what I imagine is not "real", I think, in the sense you mean here. I can also imagine things that are not "real" in this sense without being schizophrenic or under the influence of drugs. I can also experience things that are not "real", e.g. love, without those things being "real" in the sense I think you mean and without being schizophrenic or under the influence of drugs (discounting normal brain chemicals).

luvluv

Philosoft:

Now, do you really believe that Christianity says that the decision of where we end up is entirely God's? Isn't the entire point of Christianity the fact that God has made provision for that decision to be up to us? That we can, by a very simply act, choose to be one place rather than the other?

All right, well what you are apparently assuming is that Christians believe that God has two seperate moral qualities, one of "justice" and one of "mercy" and that both of these qualities operate simeltaneously at full blast as regards every single incident of human behavior. Now this would constitute an absurd contradiction. Luckily, Christians don't believe any such thing. Christians believe that God is morally perfect, and two attributes of that moral perfection happen to be His mercy and His justice. These aren't independantly existent attributes they are portions of the overall attribute of moral perfection. There are times when being merciful to someone is just. We must remember that according to Christianity the obligation to be merciful is itself a law . By that standard a sufficiently repentant person, for example, deserves mercy. It is just to be merciful to him.

In my experience Christians have been very careful to keep the two attributes in tension, and it has always been regarded as bad doctrine to go overboard on either direction. Paul himself addressed Christians who believed that God was totally merciful in very strict terms. Jesus reminded the Pharisees that God was not only concerned with justice, but was also concerned with mercy. Christianity has never, ever held that either attribute has dominance over the other attribute, and we can see from human behavior that the two are not mutually exclusive. Mercy can even be seen as a function of justice, on occasion, and vice versa (when justice can help a person to improve their behavior, it could be merciful to be just to him, as opposed to letting the behavior slide and allowing him to get into worse trouble. It could be merciful to punish someone for stealing an apple if it prevents him from stealing cars in the future).

So really, I just see no basis for the notion that the two are mutually exclusive. And I further do not see where Christianity has ever stated that one attribute must outweigh the other. A person can be perfectly just if he has perfect knowledge of how to apply justice for the ultimate good. A person can be perfectly merciful if he has perfect knowledge of how to apply mercy for the ultimate good. Being perfectly just or merciful means simply being pefectly knowledgeable about when to be just and when to be merciful. This is consistent of God's description of being morally perfect.

Mr.Darwin:

At the same time this is not taking the car for a joyride we are talking about. We are talking about the accumulated murder, deceit, dishonesty, and harm a person has inflicted on himself and others for an entire lifetime. And it is likely that this is only half the reason for being consigned to hell, the other half would be the refusal to submit to divine authority and having the full intention of continuing to live as one will. I agree with C.S. Lewis that if there was no Hell, every living soul would basically have veto power over God. God could not eliminate the existence of evil so long as there was a single living sole intent on being disobedient to God's order. Such a person could make things miserable for the rest of us if allowed to simply go on forever doing whatever he likes. In a way God's decision to terminate a person's ability or intention of doing evil is merciful to the rest of us.

I'm going to remind you that we simply don't know what heaven or hell entail, and the picture in your mind which you consider to be unjust likely has more to do with Dante than with the Bible. We do not even know for certain whether the suffering of Hell is everlasting in duration or in implilcation. (Annihilationism is possible, and is suggested by several scriptures in the New Testament). I think it further begs the question to assume that the suffering in Hell is inflicted by God or is a natural consequence of disobedience. Further, I do not believe that anyone will end up in hell from a simple lack of knowledge, and most Christians don't either. I believe you will only end up in Hell if, after having a full and complete knowledge of the truth and reality of God's existence and His provision for sin, you still will not submit to His leading. I believe that Hell (whatever form it takes) exists as much for the prospect of your continued disobedience (and all the wars, rapes, murders, lies, deceit, and hurt that will inevitably follow) as from your past disobedience. If God is good and just, it is likely that He intends the universe of evil forever at some point. How can He do this, if you will not submit? If the anti-semite, in the afterlife, intends to go on hating Jews, how should God deal with this? How would it be merciful or just to continue to allow such a person to continue in his hatred, and to allow his hatred to affect all of us?

An even more apt analogy would be that your son steals and wrecks your car over and over again. You plead with your son to stop this behavior and even provide him with a means to get his own car. He denies your good intentions and continues to steal and wreck your cars despite continued warnings and offers of mercy. At a certain point, you have your son put in jail, perhaps for life (if this is california) for a couple of dozens of counts of grand theft auto. What else were you supposed to do?

What sends people to hell is not the sins they commit, but the fact that they will not repent. If you refuse to stop doing evil, what is God supposed to do with you?

Mageth:

Fear is merely a brain state. Fear can be simulated in a laboratory with chemicals. Does that mean that when you experience fear in the real world that there is nothing actually dangerous about? The very point Marlowe is trying to make (and making quite well) is that if the perception of the supernatural (or the spiritual, as Marlowe would say) is indistinguishable in your brain from the perception of any of your other senses, then ALL OF YOUR SENSES are vulnerable to the same criticisms you are levying against our spiritual perceptions.

Right. You have faith in your philosophy, and I have faith in mine.

Unless, of course, it swings in the supernaturalistic direction.

I think what Marlowe was trying to say is that our spiritual perceptions are indistinguishable from our other sensory perceptions. They are phenomenae which are more or less identical to the perception of color or the smell of freshly baked cookies. Your imagination is a different phenomenon altogether. He did not say that religious perception is indistinguishable from imagination. He said it is indistinguishable from other modes of perception. Every other way in which our brain perceives the outside world is real, and when spiritual perception takes place, it is indistinguishable from our other ways of perceiving the outside world. Which seems to suggest that it is perceiving something real.

Bill Snedden

/Theologist hat on

I would say that orthodox Christian soteriology is quite clear on this point: Salvation is only available through God's grace. There is no "act" on the part of any human that guarantees salvation. None. The belief that salvation is somehow granted as a result of or justified through acts is formally heretical.

The choice to follow or not follow God is supposedly up to us, but choosing "God" doesn't guarantee salvation. Salvific grace is extended to those whom God wills to be saved, by his will and beholden to no act of Man.

Remember, "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven..." Simply put, there are no guarantees. Grace is available to all, even the supposedly "unsaved." (see Dominus Iesus).

/Theologist hat off

Regards,

Bill Snedden