bd-from-kg

Thanks for the encouragement. Don't stop posting. It would be nice to see someone else's reaction to Kenny's rather unusual way of looking at things. Not to mention theophilus if he decides to rejoin us.

Samhain

I'm just curious about this, sorry, I'm new to the board, so pardon if you have answered this before. But aren't these mythologies as you call them the only link that we have to the existence of any god? Does man have some kind of inherent desire to pursue some kind of relationship with a metaphysical being who can neither be seen nor experienced? Of course, I see these mythologies starting as some form of ancient social control in which governments did not have the manpower to monitor all of it's citizens at the same time, but regardless, if everyone never knew of these mythologies, then would any god actually exist or would anyone have faith in it? The point is that the only true link we have to any form of metaphysical god can only be shown through these mythologies which you do not regard as pertinent. I do not believe that humans have some kind of inborn consciousness of a god, nor do I believe that we are born to think beyond what our own physical being entails. The only reason that these questions are brought up at all is because of some jokers who decided to write some books a few thousand years ago letting people know that they are always being watched so that they would in turn keep some kind of semblance of social control. Without these books, how can one even imagine such a thing as a god? Sorry if I get off the subject, I'm just curious.

GunnerJ

What I think mankind has an inherent desire for is to not be afraid. Thus, when confronted with forces unknown and dangerous, and questions too frightening to answer, we like to put a smiley face on the unknown. We anthropomorphicize that which we don't understand, and give birth to god(s).

Samhain

Of course, this is true, yes. But does that truly mean that man MUST seek out god(s)? Perhaps before when science was not as it is today, but why do we still lean on the crutch of these god(s) if reason and rationality draw us away from these things? Yes, it is still a fear of the unknown, but the idea that we HAVE to engender god(s) or religion as a result of this fear is illogical and irrational. The only way to truly find answers to the great mystery of death is to ask questions through science and try to draw a reasonable conclusion, but to lay out answers by saying that some great big white-bearded man in the sky has coffee and doughnuts waiting for us with beautiful music at the end of the tunnel with the light is just ridiculous and I think it is an insult to human intelligence (or rather human POTENTIAL for intelligence).

bd-from-kg

Samhain and Rimstalker:

My point in dismissing the “mythologies of primitive tribes” was that my argument here is a general argument against certain very popular versions of theism. It has nothing to do with specifically Christian notions like original sin, so introducing them into the discussion is inappropriate.

Your posts are aimed at analyzing the psychology of religious belief on the assumption that all such beliefs are irrational and false. This is an interesting subject, but in the context of an “Existence of God” forum, and this thread in particular, which are devoted to examining whether certain of these beliefs are indeed irrational and false, it is just another ad hominem attack, and as such is out of place.

Samhain

I was only curious as to why one would dismiss the only thing which could be called proof as per the existence of god. I do not mean to assume that all religions are irrational, and therefore false. I only mean to say that the only evidence that we have that any god exists has been written down in books for us to peruse at our pleasure, and therefore, why should we dismiss them, they are fundamental on how we tend to view religion. If one believed in god without support of the literature that went along with it, but just believed to believe, basically, then I doubt many people would have a problem with it. But the damage has been done already. Yes I know this is a forum based on the existence of any god(s), but the true sad fact of it is, many of those who believe in these supernatural dieties largely base their faith off of the books which "prove" (for them) their existence, which is why I feel that we must understand the base of the pillar of religions in order to understand the psychology of why people follow them. If the religious person just basically believed just to believe, as I stated earlier, then it would be a different story all together, and it would, perhaps, be much harder to disprove a diety such as that. But the fact is that religion is based off of writings, and writings are what people base their faith on if they are religiously inclined, so therefore religion and god(s) are all just writings and books if you look at it from that perspective. So to understand the mind of the follower we must first understand WHY they follow, which is contained within the tomes of religion. I don't think the purpose of the forum is to discuss a god who has no evidence of existence at all (including books), but to discuss the existence of the dieties which most people tend to follow. I don't feel it is necessary for someone to change their religious views, but instead, to view these religious books as you do, innacurate and inmaterial to the actual subject of god(s). This I feel would be a great leap forward for mankind, and would give me some kind of peace of mind with my views towards religions.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Books are not evidence of God(s) but, at best, characterizations of a belief.

Samhain

Books may not be evidence for god(s), but it is supposed to be evidence of how one should live their life according to such god(s). I test myself by refusing to discuss what brought god(s) into existence in the first place since it is all "assumption." These books may not be evidence for god per se, but they are evidence of how these gods would want one to live one's life if they existed

Philosoft

It's possible that modern religion has simply replaced the fear of the unknown with fear of the (presumed) known. We are no longer supposed to fear trivial things like lightning and thunder, but we are to fear crucial things like Satan, Hell and even God itself. I think it was this paradigm shift that marked the transition of religion from a purely explanatory framework to a control mechanism.

Kenny

What I am suggesting is that, in this case, X does not so much give Y certain properties by creating Y, but that those properties follow from the very nature of Y such that X could not have created Y without them. That �creating Y with certain properties,� in this instance, simply reduces, in a non-trivial way, to creating Y. Hopefully this will become clearer as I elaborate.

I�m not talking about giving Smith blue eyes instead of brown or something like that such that the blue eyed Smith is a different Smith than the browned eyed Smith. I�m talking about the set of essential characteristics which make up a particular possible person. By the label, �Smith,� I am referring to a particular possible person. I�m sure that you�re familiar with the concept of essential verses accidental properties, but for those readers who might not be, let me elaborate.

An accidental property is a property which is held by an individual in some possible worlds but not in all of them in which that individual exists. In some possible worlds, for instance, I weigh less and in others I weigh more, but I am still the same individual in those worlds as I am in this one. Essential properties are properties which are such that they define a particular individual in all possible worlds in which that individual exists. In other words, alter any of those properties and you are no longer talking about the same individual. Alter the essential properties which belong to Smith, and you are no longer talking about the same possible person named Smith as you were before. My contention here is that properties reflecting deep moral choices, choices that an individual would make in all possible worlds, may be part of the essence of what makes that individual the particular person that they are as opposed to another person. In other words, had Smith been created such that he would have made a different moral choice, he would no longer be the same �Smith� anymore. The person, Smith, that we had been talking about would have never existed, and a completely different person would have been there in his place.

In the latter case, God did not create Smith�s nature or give Smith the nature he had (more on this latter). God simply selected Smith�s nature from the set of possible persons and chose to give it actuality. God could not have created Smith with any other nature. Had God chosen to actualize a different nature instead, then the person we are referring to as Smith would have never come into being. The former case might suggest that there are no essential properties to individual persons and that the set of properties which make up an individual person are wholly arbitrary such that God can create a particular person anyway he wants. The latter view suggests that possible persons are made of sets of interconnected logical properties such that it is impossible to actualize a particular possible person without actualizing that whole set of those properties. This would mean that God is logically restricted in the manner in which He can create a particular possible person and that he can�t just make a particular possible person anyway he wants. God may have been able to select someone other than Smith for existence, but He could not alter the essential properties that make Smith who he is.

On the view I am espousing, a creature�s nature is something distinct from the creature itself. A creature�s nature is an abstraction � the set of properties that creature holds in all possible worlds in which it exists. As a Platonist, I do not believe that God created abstractions. Rather I believe abstractions are mental objects which reside eternally in the mind of God. I believe that God did create Smith, but that He did so by selecting Smith from the set of possible persons and giving Smith�s nature actuality. The set of possible persons itself, however, was simply a given. God had no choice over which possible individuals occupied that set, only over which possible individuals to give actuality from that set (and that choice may have been further restricted by other factors such as the possibilities which have been suggested up to this point). For more on this sort of Platonist view of natures, see Plantinga�s The Nature of Necessity

Actually, there�s nothing �weird or novel� about the terminology I�ve been using. It�s standard fare in philosophy of religion and discussions of the application of modal logic to God and the doctrine of Creation.

God is not culpable for Smith�s actions insofar as those actions are directly caused by Smith and not God. God could, however, be culpable for creating Smith knowing that He would do certain evil actions if God did not have a morally sufficient reason for doing so, just as I might share a certain measure of responsibility for not preventing evils that I could have without a morally sufficient reason for my restraint. However, since God is defined as all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely good, it follows that God does have morally sufficient reasons for creating Smith.

I would argue that in order for God to be justified in actualizing a world with a certain measure of evil, there must be some greater amount of good which permitting that evil allows. Furthermore, the moral dignity of all personal beings must be respected. If these two criteria are not fulfilled in a particular possible world, then I would argue that God would not actualize it. Every evil that takes place in our universe, I believe, creates a greater good in terms of the context of the whole. Furthermore, I would argue that God treats all personal beings with justice and fairness, so that their moral dignity is upheld.

No being is culpable for the fact that God chose to actualize it. Beings are not responsible for that which they have no control over, especially the fact of their existence. They are culpable for how they choose to act, given their existence.

Actually, I would argue that an entity is culpable for what it does acting out of it�s own nature precisely because it is its own nature out of which it acts. A being�s nature is simply the abstract set of characteristics which describe the essential qualities of that being. To say that a being acts from it�s own nature is to say that it acts from within itself. If a being were not acting out of its own nature, then something else besides itself would be compelling it to act rather than itself. It�s nature is not, in itself, a causal force that holds some sort of power over the agent; but merely an abstract description of that agent.

I would argue that if Smithy is a free moral agent who, acting from within himself, freely chose to kill Jones, then yes, Smithy is culpable for the act, and worthy of punishment. Your culpability in the matter hinges on whether you had morally justifiable reasons for setting into motion a chain of affairs which you knew would result in the murder of Jones, but your culpability for the murder and Smithy�s culpability for the murder are two separate issues.

I think iv is questionable without qualification. It may have been that Smith was created for some purpose, but his other actions may have been a necessary, but still undesirable by-product of that purpose. It may be that God would much rather have it that Smith not act in the manner He does, but sometimes not even God can have His cake and eat it too. Furthermore, v also needs qualification for two reasons. There may have been a difference between Smith�s intention in committing an action and God�s intentions in creating Smith. Smith may have meant to cause harm or to do that which he knew was wrong. God, in creating Smith and permitting His actions, did so for some good morally sufficient reason. Intention, I believe, is part of moral culpability. Second, in fulfilling the purpose for which God created Him, Smith may have made the universe a better place, but that still doesn�t mean that all the other things that Smith did weren�t contributing to the positive amount of moral evil in the world. Furthermore, even if Smith�s actions did contribute to the overall good, they still could be evil on Smith�s part. Say for instance that someone had chosen to kill Hitler when he was a boy (not knowing anything about what he would do latter). That may have resulted in a lot less evil in the world, but the act of the person who committed the murder would still have been evil.

Well, what you call the �mythologies of primitive tribes� is what primarily informs my views about God, namely the Bible, so I can�t help but refer to it. Regardless of what you might think of its truth value, it still may contain logically possible scenarios which are of relevance.

I believe that it is always irrational to refrain from choosing the good. So, if that view and your arguments here are correct, anyone who knowingly chooses evil is insane. I disagree. I think that we can knowingly and culpably choose evil even though it is irrational to do so. We can also culpably engage in forms of self-deception because we do not want to face up to the rational consequences of our choices.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>