Nature of God (and questions?)

[AndyHB]

Here is the thread I promised Tabba I'd start

I have been prompted to do so NOW, because of both Tabba's comments on the 'God-breathed=...' and 'Hello' threads and, more recently, Martin's comments on the 'Hello' thread.  I will start with Martin's.

Nor can God really.  Belief in God, for most people, is based upon faith, so any question that God 'answers' is an answer from a faith position - in other words not a logically derived answer from a progressive argument but something taken on trust, almost like a parent giving the answer 'because I say so', which is no answer at all.

But isn't this (and I know that's bad grammar!!) similar to science, Martin.  Whilst I appreciate that there is a lot that we can prove empirically, there are also areas of study where the empirical proof is as much of a hypothetical theorem that has been put forward to try to answer a question, as of concrete actuality.  Similarly, there is a lot that we can observe about life, people, chemical reactions, etc., but oftentimes there are too many contradictory observations for us to be able to categorically say that this or that event/result/outcome is as a result of this or that action/medicinal intervention/...

Take that last point as an example.  If you look at any medicine packet (or its equivalent write-up in the British National Formulary, there will be a list of contra-indications.  In some cases, such contra-indications will be easily explained, such as the patient taking some undeclared drug or substance that reacts with the prescribed medicine.  In other cases, though, there aren't such easy explanations - and the doctor will say that it could be a result of/caused by one of a number of circumstances.  In occasional situations, there is no known explanation of a contra-indication; after all, many now-understood contra-indications came about as a result of research into unexplained contra-indications.  Doctors often prescribe medicines based on the faith they have in the historical efficacy of that medicine on Patients 1-1000 - not on definitive knowledge that it will prove efficacious on Patient 1001.  That is partly why they invariable say something along the lines of 'If things haven't improved after a week, come back and we'll look at an alternative'.

I don't see the unfathomable ideas of purpose and worth to be questions really - not questions that need to be answered anyway. 

So, there are questions worth answering and questions that aren't? Questions that are questions and questions that aren't?  And if this is the case, who decides which are the OK questions and which aren't OK?  Sounds rather like a few Church leaders I know and have read about!! 

I'm not talking about fooling ourselves, about deliberately believing in an inconsistent idea in order to get the goodies - which is what so much of religion is about. I'm talking about being as honest and open as we can with ourselves about what makes us feel purposeful, of worth, truthfully fulfilled etc. recognising that there are perhaps no ultimate empirical answers within our grasp, but pursuing what we feel.  For me, and I expect the same is true for many others who try to do this, when I boil it all down I come to the one thing that I 'know' to be of worth and that is Love, in its broadest sense, in us and between us.

And what makes you an authority on what might and what might not constitute 'fooling ourselves'?  Surely different people will give different explanations of that idea?  And what is this about being effectively ruled by 'feelings'?  When empirical evidence shows that our feelings can change direction about as quickly as a ride on a roller-coaster, surely allowing ourselves to "pursu(e) what we feel" can lead us all over the shop.

[AndyHB]

Tabba,

Rather than continuing to answer your points individually, I'd like to address the question that is behind them all - that of the existence of God.

Many scientists tell us now that, once we can replicate the events of the nano-second following the Big Bang, all will be answered.  Others, on the other hand, seem to think that this may only create even more questions than questions it answers.

Now, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist (or any particular -ist other than a linguist at that), but as I understand the theory behind the Big Bang, the "universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. This expansion caused the universe to cool and resulted in the present diluted state that continues to expand today" (taken from Wikipedia as it puts it more succinctly than I can)

How did the 'stuff of universe' come to be in an extremely hot and dense state'?  How did that same 'stuff' actually come to be there in the first place?  Some scientists I have heard speak, suggest that something had to have happened outside of time and space, something that didn't adhere to scientific rules as we know them today (such as the Laws of Thermodynamics, of Gravity, or Relativity, ...) in order to trigger the formation and heating of that 'stuff'.  Yes, this could all of happened by happenchance, but similarly it could have happened at the behest of a purposeful being.  In view of the amazing order and purpose which I see around me in the world, I tend to think that this must be a reflection of a purposeful instigation rather than a happenchance-ful one.

[JJ]

But isn't this (and I know that's bad grammar!!) similar to science, Martin.  Whilst I appreciate that there is a lot that we can prove empirically, there are also areas of study where the empirical proof is as much of a hypothetical theorem that has been put forward to try to answer a question, as of concrete actuality.  Similarly, there is a lot that we can observe about life, people, chemical reactions, etc., but oftentimes there are too many contradictory observations for us to be able to categorically say that this or that event/result/outcome is as a result of this or that action/medicinal intervention/...

Take that last point as an example.  If you look at any medicine packet (or its equivalent write-up in the British National Formulary, there will be a list of contra-indications.  In some cases, such contra-indications will be easily explained, such as the patient taking some undeclared drug or substance that reacts with the prescribed medicine.  In other cases, though, there aren't such easy explanations - and the doctor will say that it could be a result of/caused by one of a number of circumstances.  In occasional situations, there is no known explanation of a contra-indication; after all, many now-understood contra-indications came about as a result of research into unexplained contra-indications.  Doctors often prescribe medicines based on the faith they have in the historical efficacy of that medicine on Patients 1-1000 - not on definitive knowledge that it will prove efficacious on Patient 1001.  That is partly why they invariable say something along the lines of 'If things haven't improved after a week, come back and we'll look at an alternative'.

So, there are questions worth answering and questions that aren't? Questions that are questions and questions that aren't?  And if this is the case, who decides which are the OK questions and which aren't OK?  Sounds rather like a few Church leaders I know and have read about!! 

I'm not talking about fooling ourselves, about deliberately believing in an inconsistent idea in order to get the goodies - which is what so much of religion is about. I'm talking about being as honest and open as we can with ourselves about what makes us feel purposeful, of worth, truthfully fulfilled etc. recognising that there are perhaps no ultimate empirical answers within our grasp, but pursuing what we feel.  For me, and I expect the same is true for many others who try to do this, when I boil it all down I come to the one thing that I 'know' to be of worth and that is Love, in its broadest sense, in us and between us.

And what makes you an authority on what might and what might not constitute 'fooling ourselves'?  Surely different people will give different explanations of that idea?  And what is this about being effectively ruled by 'feelings'?  When empirical evidence shows that our feelings can change direction about as quickly as a ride on a roller-coaster, surely allowing ourselves to "pursu(e) what we feel" can lead us all over the shop.

Eh? Empirical proof is not a hypothetical theorem.
Empirical proof is something proved experimentally.

A hypothesis is a suggestion to explore and prove or disprove.

Side effects of prescribed drugs arise in some individuals, either for a psychological or biochemical reason - it's just that it's not understood at the moment.  It's not faith that makes a doctor prescribe, it's knowledge of a drug's effects.  Then that knowledge is enlarged upon if a certain patient comes back feeling worse.

Well, one is fooling oneself if one is basing one's hope on an unfounded assumption that others can see is erroneous - so I can be an authority up to a point if I spot that in others.

[JJ]

  In view of the amazing order and purpose which I see around me in the world, I tend to think that this must be a reflection of a purposeful instigation rather than a happenchance-ful one.

I think it's a mistake to impute order and purpose from looking around the world.  The world is as it is because it has to be.  It has evolved to be as it is.  There is no other way it could be given the constraints of universal physics and chemistry.  If the chemistry was different then the world would be different.  I just don't understand why people can't see this in a scientific way.

It's the laws of physics that govern what happens - not some mythical purpose.

[AndyHB]

Eh? Empirical proof is not a hypothetical theorem.
Empirical proof is something proved experimentally.

And I never said anything different, JJ.  All I pointed out was that it is possible to empirically prove a hypothetical theorem.

It's not faith that makes a doctor prescribe, it's knowledge of a drug's effects.  Then that knowledge is enlarged upon if a certain patient comes back feeling worse.

That's interesting, JJ.  I have heard several doctors express faith in medicines, not because they believe they will work 100 times out of 100, but because they and others like them have experienced the efficacy of the stuff.  Furthermore, some even say that they don't know how or why they work, just that they have seen them do so.  Doesn't this sound remarkably similar to what many Christians - even non-Christian religious people say?

Well, one is fooling oneself if one is basing one's hope on an unfounded assumption that others can see is erroneous - so I can be an authority up to a point if I spot that in others.

Well, I can think of several scientists who fell foul of this thinking when their findings were treated as impossible/false/contrived/ or whatever (think of the reponse to Einstein and his relativity theory) - and not a few politicians 

By the way, the Soviets had a whole governmental department working on disproving the existence of God.  When the USSR fell, it was found that they had been unsuccessful, despite some 50 years' of trying!

[AndyHB]

It's the laws of physics that govern what happens - not some mythical purpose.

And what developed the laws of physics, JJ.  Did they come into existence by chance?

[JJ]

quote AHB    "there are also areas of study where the empirical proof is as much of a hypothetical theorem that has been put forward to try to answer a question, as of concrete actuality."

It's not empirical proof then is it?  It's theoretical.

[JJ]

quote AHB "That's interesting, JJ.  I have heard several doctors express faith in medicines, not because they believe they will work 100 times out of 100, but because they and others like them have experienced the efficacy of the stuff.  Furthermore, some even say that they don't know how or why they work, just that they have seen them do so.  Doesn't this sound remarkably similar to what many Christians - even non-Christian religious people say?"

Are we using the word faith in a loose way here?  It seems to me that what the doctors are using is their knowledge not their faith.

Like for example : I use washing up liquid and a mop to wash most of my dishes because I know it will shift most stuff.  If something is not shifted then I use a scrubber.

[Martin]

And what makes you an authority on what might and what might not constitute 'fooling ourselves'?

There are views of God which are logically inconsistent - They simply can't be true because they are self-contradictory.  One doesn't have to be an 'authority' to point this out - it is simply self-evident.

And what is this about being effectively ruled by 'feelings'?  When empirical evidence shows that our feelings can change direction about as quickly as a ride on a roller-coaster, surely allowing ourselves to "pursu(e) what we feel" can lead us all over the shop.

Being ruled by a book like the Bible is far less consistent than being ruled by what we feel in our hearts to be wholesome and true. Human morality generally has a common theme - a theme  that says that compassion, mercy, respect, peace, grace, kindness, generosity, empathy and restorative justice are good things, things to aspire to, things that are of worth.  It is actually that common theme, recognised by humans throughout generations, that has been the basis for most long lasting religions (not the other way around).  In Christianity, you can see it changing the rules of the Hebrews/Jews over the course of time.. the unfairnes of some of the old testament rules and ideas about God had, even before Jesus, begun to be sidelined, and, if you look at Judaism today, you don't see people in Israel being stoned to death if they pick up sticks on a Saturday.  So religions evolve away from the nasty rules.  What is the driving force for that?  Why it's as simple as a four lettered word - Love.  The work of Love in the world changes it despite religions and not because of them.

 

[pow wow]

Martin,
If human morality truly has this wonderful theme I have to tell you that the human heart is ruled by something very opposite. As evidence I give you the world and our history. Humans by nature are not so good and all our history proves this out. For us to be good is a struggle, to follow our nature is easy.

[JJ]

Wow,  what a statement. And so insistent.  And so wrong.  The human heart is full of love - until it's abused and brutalised by others who are damaged.
Have you ever seen a mother beating and eating her newborn?  Apart from those who are mentally ill or damaged?

Most mothers love and cherish their offspring - it's the most basic instinct of all. And from that basis develops love for others until mistakes and circumstances affect the outcome.   it's not a struggle to be good.  It's a strain to be bad - that's why people suffer when they are abusers.

[Martin]

Martin,
If human morality truly has this wonderful theme I have to tell you that the human heart is ruled by something very opposite. As evidence I give you the world and our history. Humans by nature are not so good and all our history proves this out. For us to be good is a struggle, to follow our nature is easy.

I agree to an extent. Humans do not necessarily do what they inwardly recognise to be good. But the recognition of what is good and right is there in humanity.  You should believe that, even with your faith-based restrictions, after all, what tree did Adam and Eve eat from?

I also agree with what JJ has posted above. In the main, and most fundamentally, the human heart is prepared to respond to Love.

[pow wow]

So the human heart is full of love. So where did the brutality and abuse come from? It came from what is in the human heart. My people the Cree fought our traditional enemies the Blackfoot, for thousands of years. French and English missionaries brought us the Bible and today we are friends. Through Christ we can replace the evil in our hearts with love. We use to scalp our enemies, we would slaughter man women and children. Where was this phantom love in our hearts? Where was this phantom love in the hearts of the cannibals and head hunters? No, our history paints an entirely different picture. Sin and evil came to us by our rebellion against God. Of course a woman loves her child but this same woman can hate her neighbour. Is it hard for this loving mother to hate her neighbour? I don't believe so. Often we don't need a reason, we just hate because it's quite natural and unfortunately very, very common.

[JJ]

From the toughness of the world, things like cold, famine, hurricanes, floods, psychic shocks, disease, malformations, bereavements, distress and fear.

[Martin]

Yes I agree with JJ.

Actually the Bible (or more accurately European culture) didn't bring a better world in many of the cultures into which it was taken, but that isn't really the point. Though those who changed your culture brought the Bible, they also brought other things like democracy and a united country, which has allowed the possibility for people to opt for good. Religion has been used as a vehicle upon which people who Love have ridden to get further, faster, but the work of Love is not dependent on the Bible, it pre-dates it and, if things carry on going the way they are going in western society, Love will probably supersede religion.

If the story of Jesus has one most enduring message it is the Love endures.