KnightWhoSaysNi

Here's a question for conservative Christians:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that evangelical Christianity is the one true religion. My question is, why isn't it intuitively obvious that God exists? If he wanted to prevent billions of people from going to Hell, wouldn't it be in his best interest to make his existence obvious to everyone in an a clear unequivocal way? Why the hide and seek game?

If we look at the world today, it's clear that if God exists and Christianity is true, the it's not obvious to people. We have a myriad of different religions, each claiming their version of the truth and we have well read and educated skeptics who doubt Christianity.

And let's assume for the sake of argument that the Bible is divinely inspired. If so, then God didn't inspire it in a way that was very obvious or clear to understand for believers. The church has split and divided so many times based on differing biblical interpretation. We have plenty of people who claim to be Christians who evangelicals would say otherwise (e.g., Mormons, JW's, non-trinitarian sects, liberal Christians, Christian Reconstructionists, etc...). If the Bible is true, then it's not a very good communication device for certainty of all the "correct" theology and doctrines to accept.

Anyway, that's my rant Look forward to any responses

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

lpetrich

Not to mention such idolators as the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Which had been essentially all of Christianity before the Reformation.

Panta Pei

Didn't you hear?

Its all our fault for being such sinful, inherently defective miscreants that we cannot comprehend the Fairy King's messages to us.

We simply have to have faith in the leaders of whichever religion has the best chance to threaten us with tortuous death and damnation for our worship to be any good in the afterlife!

I thought everyone knew that by now

Jonsey3333

Yeah, that's about what I'm usually told by the Fundies. "It's the reader, not the readings."

-Mike

Hobbs

But it is obvious.

At least, it is to them. In fact, they find it so intuitively obvious that they can't imagine it not being obvious, to themselves or anyone else. Thus, all those who disagree are deceiving themselves, refusing to admit the obvious because they don't want to "submit" to their God who obviously exists, or there is something wrong with them (minds corrupted by sin nature, etc).

But that sort of thinking can be expected by those who consider themselves to be the measure of all things. If it is obvious to me, it is obvious, i.e. obvious to everyone. If I'm deeply moved by my church but not by yours, that means that your church is "spiritually dead," and if you would only visit my church, you would see how alive a church and a group of people can be in their relationship with God. And if you come to my church and don't feel like I do, then something is wrong with you.

What? You mean what is intuitively obvious to me, which type of church deeply moves me, is just my own subjective response to reality, and maybe my own subjective response is not necessarily an accurate assessment of that external objective reality? My own intuitive subjective response isn't necessarily any more accurate or certain than others' responses? You mean, maybe my own subjective response may mean nothing other than that this is my own preference, and it doesn't necessarily indicate anything about how external reality really is independent of how I subjectively experience it? There's a difference between subjectively, intuitively obvious and being objectively, evidentially obvious? And the latter isn't just intuitive, it takes rigorous and difficult experiment and analysis?

But if I realize all that, then I'd have to give up being a theologically conservative Christian (or Muslim, or whatever). I'd have to admit that I don't necessarily have a better intuitive understanding than others. I'd have to admit that others can find meaning, purpose, and other subjective qualities in life by means other than the way I do.

Well, that ended up being a rant of its own. But it's stuff I'd like conservative religious types take into account in responding to this problem.

Ender

Hobbs, your post indicate an endorsement of perspectivism.

It is a shocking and upsetting doctrine to the most of us, since we would much prefer that our single perspective isn't a constraint on our ability to ascertain truth, certainty, or objectivity. That the truth of one's perspective does not necessarily hold equal value in another's perspective nullifies any possible attempt at objectivity and does not cater to the fundamental drive of humanity- to conform to the prevailing current truths for certain purposes. If one were to reduce truths to merely values according to each perspective, then by implication we are wholly responsible for our part in constituting the "truths" or accepting whatever "established" truths, that the world is understood entirely by our own interpretation. This is where Sartre comes in.

The obvious and most jarring element of perspectivism deconstructs one of the most famous metaphysical monsters of philosophy, "objective truth" by removing any possible "correct" or "true" single perspective/interpretation, and negates all/any possible objective judges who may determine which ones is "correct" or "true." That the truths of most believers are actually their own accepted "truths" and are a consequences of their own interpretations destroys everything about their religion. Like all human beings, believers do presume that their perspective is deserving of overriding others.' I condemn that aspect of human behavior, that their unwitting demands of others to conform to their value systems is inherently dishonest, duplicitious and false.

We all have a tendency to pretend to be objective with most of our opinions and convictions, but very few of us are cognizant of the strong possibility that our intellects are constantly conditioned by "non-intellectual" elements- the will itself and the passions. None of our beliefs are free from the spot where we occupy in the world, that all truths are relative to our particular perspectives, which is utterly and inescapably historical and individually contingent as well. All our evaluations and cognition are nothing but interpretation that stem from our will and passions. Objectivity is an attempt to eliminate or disguise the will and sever the emotions by a means of "intellectual castration."

Some of you may be muttering that all this perspectivism seems to reduce truths to inconsequence, but this doctrine actually exposes whatever dogmatism of a creed as a value or interpretation of the very people who hold them. If a person holds certain beliefs, i.e. christianity, then that reflects upon himself- not the beliefs in themselves. I do believe that that is a mistake most of us make by focusing upon the beliefs in themselves, as if they exist apart from their promoter.

~WiGGiN~

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

bgponder

Ender:

I thought Hobbs' post was a statement that theists generally practice perspectivism, rather than being an endorsement of it.

Also:
I realize that you are not advocating ad hominems here, but can you delineate a bit for a greenhorn?

Peace and cornbread Barry G.

thedoc

In reply to Nightshade:

I think to some people it is intuitively obvious that God exists. Some people can just look at the universe and know that there is something greater than human life. If there were other lifeforms living on other planets like on the Earth then I could understand the argument for evolution and the universe. It seems that we (humans) are the only living creatures of our kind anywhere in the universe. I do understand that not all people view things this way but I just wanted to throw it out there that to some people it is obvious. (Even if you think those people aren't right in the head. )

A side note. Sometimes I ponder why it is that oxygen is what gives us life. Why not some other gas? Why does only Earth have these mass amounts of life and not all the other planets? Couldn't life evolve on other planets? Couldn't an organism evolve into something that could live in the atmosphere of another planet? Just some crazy things that go on in my mind sometimes.

Ender

Actually Hobbs is trying to psychoanalyze the dogmatic believer's intuition, that the positions they take on certain ideological matters are seemingly irrevocable or indubitable- not that they practice perspectivism. if a theist practiced perspectivism, then they'd self-destruct their belief or faith in whatever deity or religious creed because all or most religious tenets operate from a dogmatic foundation. The less dogmatic the religious believer, the more tolerant he or she is of other religions, the less "certain" they are of their own preferred choice. I could have been more precise and said that his post included a perspectivist basis that denies the believer's right to "divine" truth.

the root of all religious belief is essentially a psychological one. Yes, by analyzing the person who holds certain faith is the object of scrutinity- while that may seem like an ad hominem to the superficial bypasser, the question of faith or belief is always a subjective one.

~WiGGiN~

lpetrich

Which one, I may add? Different people claim that different religions are self-evidently true. For example, in Aristophanes's The Clouds, someone claims that Zeus has to exist because rain has to have a rainmaker. And is anyone willing to volunteer a reason why that argument does not demonstrate the existence of Zeus?

So the Universe around us does not contain anything greater than us in some way? When people say things like that, I wonder if they live in some sort of cocoon, because it is self-evident to me that there are many things directly apparent to us that are superior to us in some way.

Try jumping up -- it's hard to jump upward more than a few feet. And that's a tiny fraction of the Earth's size. In fact, only a few people have been able to escape the Earth's gravitational pull -- several of the Apollo astronauts -- and they had to depart from Earth in rockets much larger than them.

Simple chemistry. Oxygen will release a lot of energy when combined with organic molecules, and the byproducts are simple compounds like water and carbon dioxide, which are easily excreted. This makes it possible to be very physically active in one's quest for food.

As to where the oxygen came from, we must consider an important feature of biological molecules: they contain a lot of hydrogen. And this hydrogen must come from somewhere. The most common hydrogen-containing compound on the Earth's surface is water -- and extracting its hydrogen leaves oxygen.

Some 2 billion years ago, some microbe succeeded in extracting hydrogen from water instead of from some easier source like hydrogen gas or hydrogen sulfide. This enabled its descendants to spread out of hot springs and other such places that have lots of outgassed hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide and methane and other such gases. And that microbe became the ancestors of not only the blue-green "algae", but also the chloroplasts of algae and plants.

An abundance of water eventually meant an abundance of algae and plants, which in turn meant opportunities for algae and plant eaters, eventually allowing us to come into existence.

In the Solar System, it would be difficult -- not much liquid water. However, Mars and Europa may have some subsurface liquid water.

Mars may still be geologically active, meaning that it could have hot springs like Earth hot springs. Some communities of microbes were recently discovered in some subterranean hot springs; these microbes were familiar sorts like methanogens, which live off of hydrogen and carbon dioxide and excrete methane and water. So there could be similar communities of microbes on Mars.

Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, has an icy surface that has few craters, meaning that it got resurfaced relatively recently by geological standards. This means that it may have an ocean of liquid water underneath that occasionally erupts to the surface, which could support something like those aforementioned microbial communities.

But outside of the Solar System is another story entirely.

Other planets' atmospheres are not the problem, their chemistry is either OK or tolerable in most cases; the problem is the availability of liquid water or some convenient substitute that will allow the molecules to interact.