faustuz

The freewill argument posits that God does not reveal Himself directly because to do so would negate our ability to believe in Him through our own volition. But is this really the case? Wouldn’t we still be free to apply other explanations to whatever miracles God chose to throw our way? Humans are masters of rationalization, after all. If God were to do something that would make the Universe seem like more than random events directed by mathematical laws He wouldn’t be negating our free will, or even negating our need for faith. He would simply be skewing things somewhat in our favor, making our task a bit easier. Surely a loving God would wish to make things easier on us.

Somebody (I think it was Doestoyevsky) said that Thomas would have continued to doubt if he weren’t inclined to faith to begin with, and that the faithless will reject even what they experience with their senses. Well, at least Thomas was given the opportunity.

John Page

Given? Really? By whom?

Thomas Metcalf

faustuz:

I think you make some good points. It's not clear why the amount of evidence God has already provided for His existence isn't enough to remove our free will, but more would be. God could even reach down and alter the chemicals in our minds so that we're not strongly more inclined to believe in Him.

And God is surely smart enough to know whether, if we didn't have that evidence, we'd still believe in Him. So He could separate the good little children from the bad little children without having to test any of us.

faustuz

Damn, you got me.

faustuz

The advocate of the freewill argument would likely say that the amount of evidence needed exactly the amount that is observed. After all, from the perspective of the freewill arguing theist God has supplied sufficient evidence, even if that happens to be none at all, otherwise they would not have of their own freewill become believers in God. Of course that begs the question. For the non-theist the view is likely to be that not enough evidence has been provided to support that claim. That is certainly my own view. I look around and see a world apparently generated by random fluctuations guided by mathematical laws. God, if he exists, owes me more evidence if I am to believe in Him.

gcomeau

I've always thought the better question was: What kind of an ass-backwards criteria for salvation is the requirement that someone believe in the existence of God? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to just come out and say "Here I am, this is what I'd like you to do, the rest is up to you." and then deal out consequences for disobedience as appropriate? Claiming that his obvious prescense would leave no choice but to obey God is refuted handily by the example set by Adam and Eve. They had face to face conversations with him and still managed to disobey him. Really, this only leaves us with one conclusion: We are told we must believe on faith because there sure isn't any other way to believe in something that doesn't exist.

Which brings me to another pet rant of mine... this whole "you must believe God exists through faith" deal is utter nonsense. Belief is not a volitional process, either you're convinced or you're not. If God exists he knows perfectly well exactly what level of evidence is necesary for me to be convinced, and if it is not presented the only options left are:

1. He doesn't exist.
2. He does exist but he doesn't want me to believe in him.

Either way, the ball is not exactly in my court.

-Grant

Keith Russell

Grant said:
"Belief is not a volitional process, either you're convinced or you're not."

Then why can two people be presented with the same evidence for a claim, and one of them believes the claim, and the other does not?

And why do I personally know at least five people who claim that they 'chose to believe' or 'willed themselves to believe in 'God'', even though they were not presented with what they would consider convincing evidence, but they simply got tired of trying to reason with religious spouses, friends, co-workers, etc.?

Keith.

gcomeau

Pick your reason...

-Because some people are more credulous than others.
-Because some people have more developed critical thinking skills.

etc...

Some people see a card trick and think "Wow! Look at that, there IS such a thing as magic!"

Others know better.

I would question whether or not they truly believe or just profess belief while ignoring their doubts.

There is a difference, in case you weren't aware... many people don't really get the distinction though.

-Grant

HaysooChreesto!

To me, this is just one part of the great bear trap that is called faith. A trap where despite what all your critical faculties tell you, you are urged to believe or face eternal torment.
So the person who "wills" their way to faith is on some level knowing they are living a lie and therefore know that at heart they are dishonest.
Believe and be unhappy or disbelieve and be unhappy-with the idea that the former is preferable to the latter.

Keith Russell

Grant said;
"I would question whether or not they truly believe or just profess belief while ignoring their doubts.

There is a difference, in case you weren't aware... many people don't really get the distinction though."

Grant, it is possible that they are just claiming to believe, but really don't.

Of course, only they know whether this is true--and they're not talking.

Sans such evidence, I believe it is rational to take them at their word...

Keith.