Stuart Chase: lolquote

[Doc Savage Fan]

A corporeal being with personality, a non-corporeal being with personality, or a non-corporeal energy force with no personality?

The first two possibilities seem highly unlikely and there are many, many classic arguments why this is the case so I needn't bore you with long quotations or points I'm sure you've already heard before.

Now, I grant them as "unlikely" because neither I nor anyone else can say with certainty whether such a being exists or not. If one does, does it interfere in our day to day activities? What ramifications arise from that interference and how does it affect free will? If there is no involvement or guidance in earthly affairs, how can a being with personality create a universe, appear personally to many figures in the past which grants them an extraordinary advantage over us of having physical and personal encounters to affirm their faith, while we're left with nothing but 2,000+ year old texts written in the Iron Age long after the events have occurred that they testify to and mountains of empirical evidence that directly contradict many of those testimonies (age of the earth, great flood, etc.)?

In the case of the third example, I'd rate that as a solid "meh." If that case is true, then it doesn't affect us in the slightest. There could be an afterlife or there could not. Since the entity has no form or personality, it can't possibly care who we have sex with, what we eat, who or what we worship, or what words we say. It exists as a catalyst of the creation of the universe or a supernatural "glue" that allows this reality to maintain itself.

So if you'd like me to say "the belief in a creator is definitively, 100% incorrect" I can't provide that answer. What I can say is that when I apply reason and logic to the conundrum I can find no compelling evidence or justification for the belief in the first two creator scenarios I listed, however I'd be happy to hear where your reasoning differs from mine.

I didn't ask you about the possible attributes of a Creator...I asked you whether or not a Creator exists. A very simple question that you cannot answer with certainty based on 'reason and evidence'.

Yet this quesion is fundamental to your world view and everyone's for that matter. Believing in God takes faith...but not believing in God requires just as much 'faith' if not more.

 

[child of wonder]

I didn't ask you about the possible attributes of a Creator...I asked you whether or not a Creator exists. A very simple question that you cannot answer with certainty based on 'reason and evidence'.

Yet this quesion is fundamental to your world view and everyone's for that matter. Believing in God takes faith...but not believing in God requires just as much 'faith' if not more.

That was the whole point of my reply. If you're wanting to nail me on a definite "yes or no" on the existence of a creator, you won't get it. What I wanted to show you were many of the steps of reason that come to mind from your question.

Being an agnostic atheist, you're not going to get me to say "I am 100% certain there is no god." What you will hear is "I do not know 100% one way or the other that there is or is not a god, but it appears more likely that there is not."

In terms of my position being one of equal or more faith than, say, a Catholic priest, I would have to disagree and say my position requires less faith. I hate to use him as an example since it will immediately draw ire, but the belief a child has in Santa Claus is also completely dependent on faith. One cannot then say you need equal or more faith to not believe in Santa Claus, however, one could say that the possibility of Santa Claus existing is so minute, it requires very little faith at all to not believe in him.

Since I showed you how I cannot answer with certainty that a creator exists or not and gave a brief breakdown on my thought processes when confronted with that question, I would genuinely like to hear a little about your reasoning, which I assume to be contrary, on the subject.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

One cannot then say you need equal or more faith to not believe in Santa Claus, however, one could say that the possibility of Santa Claus existing is so minute, it requires very little faith at all to not believe in him.

actually it takes no faith to test whether or not someone lives at the north pole and delivers presents on Christmas aboard flying rain-dear.

it does, on the other hand, take faith to determine that the historical facts and experiences of many that support the existence of Jesus, victorious over death, existed.

It takes just as much to defy those facts and argue that the Jesus of the bible did not exist as is said he did; in fact, it may take more to ignore so very much evidence.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That was the whole point of my reply. If you're wanting to nail me on a definite "yes or no" on the existence of a creator, you won't get it. What I wanted to show you were many of the steps of reason that come to mind from your question.

Being an agnostic atheist, you're not going to get me to say "I am 100% certain there is no god." What you will hear is "I do not know 100% one way or the other that there is or is not a god, but it appears more likely that there is not."

For the record, I didn't want to 'nail' you to get a definite "yes or no" answer….you asked me to provide you with an example of a religious belief and you offered to tell me whether it was right or wrong. I just wanted you to see that 'reason and evidence' (as you define it) can only go so far and doesn't answer a straight-forward and fundamental question about our origins with any degree of certainty. If anything, 'reason and evidence' (as you define it) validates an agnostic "I don't know" perspective. You say you're an "agnostic atheist" which I interpret to mean that you want to be an atheist but you're rational enough to realize that you cannot make that leap of 'faith' necessary to be an atheist based solely on reason and evidence. So…it appears that you are truly an agnostic…at least from my perspective based on what little information you've given.

But you say it is more likely God does not exist and this is where you lose me…how did you come to this conclusion?

Since I showed you how I cannot answer with certainty that a creator exists or not and gave a brief breakdown on my thought processes when confronted with that question, I would genuinely like to hear a little about your reasoning, which I assume to be contrary, on the subject.

This is one of the few times in this forum that anyone has actually asked me what I thought instead of just assuming they knew what I thought based on some ignorant strawman stereotype they've imagined. Thanks for asking!

As previously stated, I believe as you do...that 'reason and evidence' are fundamental. My belief in God is based on many personal experiences throughout my life….evidence that's personal and incredibly compelling. My beliefs mostly align with theistic existentialism. I bolded those parts that I think best reflect my world view. Right or wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism
Christian existentialism
Christian existentialism describes a group of writings that take a philosophically existentialist approach to Christian theology. The school of thought is often traced back to the work of Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855).[1]

Kierkegaardian themes
Christian existentialism relies on Kierkegaard's understanding of Christianity. Kierkegaard argued that the universe is fundamentally paradoxical, and that its greatest paradox is the transcendent union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ. He also posited having a personal relationship with God that supersedes all prescribed moralities, social structures and communal norms,[citation needed] since he asserted that following social conventions is essentially a personal aesthetic choice made by individuals.[citation needed]

Kierkegaard proposed that each person must make independent choices, which will then comprise his or her existence. No imposed structures—even Biblical commandments—can alter the responsibility of each individual to seek to please God in whatever personal and paradoxical way God chooses to be pleased. Each person suffers from the anguish of indecision until he makes a "leap of faith", and commits to a particular choice. Each human being is faced first with the responsibility of knowing of his own free will, and then with the fact that a choice, even a wrong one, must be made in order to live authentically.

Kierkegaard also upheld the idea that each person exists in one of three spheres (or planes) of existence: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. Most people, he observed, live an aesthetic life in which nothing matters but appearances, pleasures, and happiness. It is in accordance with the desires of this sphere that people follow social conventions. Kierkegaard also considered the violation of social conventions for personal reasons (e.g., in the pursuit of fame, reputation for rebelliousness) to be a personal aesthetic choice. A much smaller group are those people who live in the ethical sphere, who do their best to do the right thing and see past the shallow pleasantries and ideas of society. The third and highest sphere is the faith sphere. To be in the faith sphere, Kierkegaard says that one must give the entirety of oneself to God.

Major premises
One of the major premises of Christian existentialism entails calling the masses back to a more genuine form of Christianity. This form is often identified with some notion of "early Christianity," the type of Christianity that existed during the first three decades after the Resurrection of Christ. Beginning with the Edict of Milan, which was issued by Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 313, Christianity enjoyed a level of popularity among Romans and later among other Europeans. And yet Kierkegaard asserted that by the 19th century, the ultimate meaning of New Testament Christianity (Love) had become perverted, and Christianity had deviated considerably from its original threefold message of grace, humility, and love.

Another major premise of Christian existentialism involves Kierkegaard's conception of God and Love. For the most part, Kierkegaard equates God with Love. Thus when a person engages in the act of loving, he is in effect achieving an aspect of the divine. Kierkegaard also viewed the individual as a necessary synthesis of both finite and infinite elements. Therefore, when an individual does not come to a full realization of his infinite side, he is said to be in despair. For many contemporary Christian theologians, the notion of despair can be viewed as sin. However, to Kierkegaard, a man sinned when he was exposed to Kierkegaard's idea of despair and chose a path other than the life in accordance to God.

A final major premise of Christian existentialism entails the systematic undoing of evil acts. Kierkegaard asserted that once an action had been completed, it should be evaluated in the face of God, for holding oneself up to Divine scrutiny was the only way to judge one's actions. Because actions constitute the manner in which something is deemed good or bad, one must be constantly conscious of the potential consequences of his actions. Kierkegaard believed that the choice for goodness came down to each individual. Unfortunately, most people do not choose. As a result, humanity will continue to relegate itself to self-imposed immaturity, thus living in both stunned apathy and agonizing inertia.

The Bible as an existential writing
Christian Existentialism often refers to what it calls the indirect style of Christ's teachings, which it considers to be a distinctive and important aspect of his ministry. Christ's point, it says, is often left unsaid in any particular parable or saying, to permit each individual confront the truth on their own.[2] This is particularly evident in (but is certainly not limited to) his parables. For example, in Matthew 18, Jesus tells a story about a man who is heavily in debt. The debtor and his family are about to be sold into slavery, but he pleads for their lives. His master accordingly cancels the debt and sets them free. Later the man who was in debt abuses some people who owe him money, and he has them thrown in jail. Upon being informed of what this man has done, the master brings him in and says, "Why are you doing this? Weren't your debts canceled?" Then the debtor is thrown into jail until the debt is paid. Jesus ends his story by saying, "This is how it will be for you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

Often Christ's parables are a response to a question he is asked. After he tells the parable, he returns the question to the individual who originally asked it. Often we see a person asking a speculative question involving one's duty before God, and Christ's response is more or less the same question—but as God would ask that individual. For example, in Luke 10:25, a teacher of the law asks Jesus what it means to love one's neighbor as oneself. Jesus replies by telling the story of the Good Samaritan. In the story a man is beaten by thieves. A priest and a Levite pass him by, but a Samaritan takes pity on him and generously sets him up at an inn—paying his tab in advance. Then Jesus returns the question, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?". Jesus does not answer the question because he requires the individual to answer it, and thus to understand existence in the Bible, one must recognize who that passage is speaking to in particular. To Kierkegaard, it is the individual hearing the passage.[3]

A good example of indirect communication in the Old Testament is the story of David and Nathan in 2 Samuel 12. David had committed adultery with a woman, Bathsheba, then murdered her husband to cover up the incident. David initially thought he had gotten away with murder, until Nathan arrived to tell him a story about two men, one rich and the other poor. The poor man was a shepherd with only one lamb, which he raised with his family. The lamb ate at his table and slept in his arms. One day a traveler came to visit the rich man; instead of taking one of his own sheep, the rich man seized the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for his guest. When Nathan finished his story, David burned with anger and said (among other things): "As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!". Nathan responded by saying "You are the man!". Realizing his guilt, David becomes filled with terror and remorse, tearfully repenting of his evil deed.

An existential reading of the Bible demands that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject, studying the words that God communicates to him personally. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of "truths" which are outside and unrelated to the reader.[4] Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him from inside. This is the task Kierkegaard takes up when he asks: "Who has the more difficult task: the teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor's distance from everyday life, or the learner who should put it to use?"[5] Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn't become an authority in a person's life until they authorize the Bible to be their personal authority.

Notable thinkers
Christian existentialists include American theologian Lincoln Swain, German Protestant theologians Paul Tillich and Rudolph Bultmann, British Anglican theologian John Macquarrie, European philosophers, Karl Jaspers, Gabriel Marcel, Miguel de Unamuno, Pierre Boutang and Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev. Karl Barth added to Kierkegaard's ideas the notion that existential despair leads an individual to an awareness of God's infinite nature. Some ideas in the works of Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky could arguably be placed within the tradition of Christian existentialism.

 

[child of wonder]

For the record, I didn't want to 'nail' you to get a definite "yes or no" answer….you asked me to provide you with an example of a religious belief and you offered to tell me whether it was right or wrong. I just wanted you to see that 'reason and evidence' (as you define it) can only go so far and doesn't answer a straight-forward and fundamental question about our origins with any degree of certainty. If anything, 'reason and evidence' (as you define it) validates an agnostic "I don't know" perspective. You say you're an "agnostic atheist" which I interpret to mean that you want to be an atheist but you're rational enough to realize that you cannot make that leap of 'faith' necessary to be an atheist based solely on reason and evidence. So…it appears that you are truly an agnostic…at least from my perspective based on what little information you've given.

Now that I've got a few spare minutes I can finally formulate a reply!

More specifically, I wanted to see the reasoning and logic behind the conclusion to come up with a "right" or "wrong" response. I'll take what I can from the wikipedia blurb you posted about Christian existentialism and go with that.

As an agnostic atheist, I wouldn't say I want to be an atheist but lack the "faith" to become one. I simply don't think any evidence exists that I should particularly care. As I said, a divine being with personality is an unlikely scenario (especially if we're to believe this being is the anthropomorphized "god" in the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc.) which leaves us with the more likely "god," in the general sense, as a non-corporeal energy with no personality. In this case, we are not under judgement, there are no inherent rules or limitations with this existence, and we can derive no external meaning or motivation for why we're here.

In my case, I shrug my shoulders and move on. We've reached, what I feel, is point in which we are free to assign our own attributes and meanings to life because we have no way of knowing what will happen afterwards. My hope is to learn as much as I can, leave this place better than when I found it, and hopefully exit this life as more than just a talking bag of flesh.

This is a little off topic, but wanted to give you more background info about myself.

But you say it is more likely God does not exist and this is where you lose me…how did you come to this conclusion?

That depends on how in depth we want to go. I'll give a high level summary.

Per my previous explanation I stated that the existence of a divine being with personality is unlikely. I make this claim based on a few different reasons.

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient god with personality exists, I believe we can assume it reasons in ways that are logically consistent.

2. If this being exists, we can also assume it has guidelines or its own "morals," for lack of a better term, that drive its decision making.

3. Let us also assume this being is all good, cares for us, and generally wishes to promote our well being in an eternal sense.

If "god" does not fall within these assumptions we have a problem. A god that does not reason in ways that are logically consistent would be, for all intents and purposes, a mad man whom we cannot possibly hope to please or follow its own rules. Therefore, attempting to make it happy would be fruitless. The same also goes if we make the claim that the logic of "god" is different than ours.

If "god" has no guidelines it follows in its dominion over everything, we are also forced to either admit this being does not exist or is not worthy of praise any more than any other dictator.

If this being is not all good or does not wish to promote our well being, then there is no sense in worshipping something that is indifferent or harmful to us.

How can we judge these criteria?

There are many classic examples and Epicurus sums it up well:

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

One may counter by saying that "god" understands this life is temporary and wishes us to look at the big picture of eternal life after death. Unfortunately, how can any being that operates logically and cares about us expect a creation given reason, curiousity, and intelligence to look past earthly evil and misfortune based on an ideology whose binding principle is that of faith -- to believe despite a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary? A god that puts its creations in such a scenario is not willing of adoration IMO.

Simply put, if there is a "god" creature with personality that created the universe and mankind, but expects us to choose one correct religion out of thousands else face eternal and unimaginable torment then it is either insane, capricious, malicious, or even downright evil.

This is one of the few times in this forum that anyone has actually asked me what I thought instead of just assuming they knew what I thought based on some ignorant strawman stereotype they've imagined. Thanks for asking!

As previously stated, I believe as you do...that 'reason and evidence' are fundamental. My belief in God is based on many personal experiences throughout my life….evidence that's personal and incredibly compelling. My beliefs mostly align with theistic existentialism. I bolded those parts that I think best reflect my world view. Right or wrong?

Hmm.... now I'm sure you've already picked up on my existentialist viewpoints so the only contention I see between us is that your existentialism revolves around the existence of a divine being while mine does not.

If you don't mind, can you share any of your personal experiences and, with all due respect, how you have reasoned that they indicate the existence of a god?