On non-belief and the existence of God

[FallentoReason]

Well, the thing that strikes me there, F2R, is that you're working from the basis of a hidden God, but that's quite contrary to the Christian faith in the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus.

Granted, *something* needed to have happened in the past in order for Christianity to maintain a steady course through the ages. It's what all religions of today needed to have in their foundations. I don't mean this in a negative way, but it's what I call the religion's "gimmick":

Christianity - claims of everyday people reporting on the things Jesus said and did. Thus, a very organic piece of history in the first century C.E. was produced.
Islam - claims that an illiterate man wrote what is considered the most beautiful passages of arabic writing ever written (and hence why it's believed to be divinely inspired).
Hinduism - I've personally been told by a hindu that their holy book is *so* in line with reality, and expresses all that is and how it is, that it was possible to use it as the basis for software coding at a university.

Every other religion today will surely have its own gimmick, but the problem for me as an agnostic atheist is that none stand out more than any other as the accurate truth of this universe. I mean, what do I pick? The "genuine history" claim? The "impossibly beautiful book" claim? The "reality incarnate through text" claim? Etc etc.

But again, God simply showing himself here and now would make my chances at salvation more realistic, unless he doesn't wish for my salvation or he doesn't have the power to aid me on my journey to being saved. Ergo the non-belief problem.

But I do appreciate that God seems hidden to many people on an individual level. I think that is probably an even greater of an issue in a Western country that stresses the 'personal relationship to Jesus' as central to the Christian faith. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what that means to people. Personally I have a strong sense of the numinous, but I don't mind admitting it's terribly vague; I certainly don't get any clear specific messages from Jesus. So in that sense I don't think I do have a 'personal relationship with Jesus' in the American Evangelical sense of things. I pray to Jesus, but I don't hear anything specific back. I can't say I've ever been able to say "God told me to do such and such, or such and such was going to happen". I don't speak in tongues either (while I'm getting my almost total lack of evangelical credentials out on the table). Thankfully I'm not an American Evangelical so I'm not too worried. So while I experience great peace in prayer, and it gives me time, I feel, for the conscience to speak (in much the same way as it would for an atheist who spends time in quiet), if I want revelation of more specific guidance I'll read the bible and reflect on the lives of a people who together are in relationship with God. A key difference between Catholic and Protestant faiths here is we (Catholics) I think are much more focussed on the community ahead of the individual. I think that's largely the other way around in Protestantism (hence their 'personal relationship with Jesus'). So I learn from the community. We reflect on the lives of 'the saints' (today, for example, we remember Maximilian Kolbe, who gave his life for others in a German concentration camp). God, then, reveals himself in the lives of others, in our conscience, and most especially in Jesus. My sense of the numinous, if anything, just prepares me to see outside of a more highly constrained naturalism.

Sorry, that's a bit rambling, but I think the revelation of God is a subtle question. At least it is for me. Others may report clearer personal revelation.

That's great for you that you can have faith without having ever been given an explicit experience of God's existence. Great for you, and *only* you

Can I be blamed for not knowing which religion to place my faith in? God being omniscient and knowing of the myriads of lines of thought I could potentially take to end up at any religion... I would hope the answer is "no".

[Neo-Scholastic]

...an agnostic atheist is that none [religion] stand out more than any other as the accurate truth of this universe. I mean, what do I pick? The "genuine history" claim? The "impossibly beautiful book" claim? The "reality incarnate through text" claim?

Shallow thinkers say things like, “they cannot all be true and therefore they must all be false.” That’s not you, but it’s a common refrain around these parts. Why does diversity of human religious experience mean that the Divine must be rejected altogether?

Picking a tradition to me seems to be more about mining the depths of one’s own faith as opposed reading everyone else’s Cliff Notes. In my experience, truly spiritual people that are deeply seeped in their own faith traditions are remarkably similar with respect to their gentleness and humility.

That's great for you that you can have faith without having ever been given an explicit experience of God's existence. Great for you, and *only* you

So you do not count the whole of reality and your life’s experience in it as explicit enough? I often say, those who cannot recognize the Lord through His work cannot hope to see His countenance.

[FallentoReason]

...Hang on, so are you [Michael] essentially saying that knowledge of Jesus/God isn't required to gain access to heaven?

I want to answer this, not to put words into Michael’s mouth, but to contribute my own thoughts on your question.

Salvation is not an either/or proposition. In both Catholic (correct me if I’m wrong Michael) and New Church doctrine, both Heaven and hell have degrees to reflect either: 1) the maximum amount of happiness that can be attained by the blessed OR 2) the level of corruption present in the wicked. It is all based on how much light a person is capable of receiving; regardless of when the light is received. Thus if a person is incapable and resistant to receiving the Light of Truth during their earthly existence, they will not be able to receive it in the afterlife. Even though ‘the heathens’ failed to hear the Gospel truth, they may still move towards the Light of Truth in the afterlife, because the direction of their earthly life was already heading in that direction.

Even if salvation isn't a discrete matter (taking a value of 0 or 1), but rather a continuous line between the two extremes, it has no bearing on the potential to be saved, all things considered. Why? Because the silence on God's behalf is still undermining our ability to move "towards the light", since there doesn't seem to be a light shining--

--but on the other hand, if heathens fail to hear the Gospel, yet they are able to "move towards the light", then that's quite clearly saying Jesus - now a.k.a. the middle man - is unnecessary; a proposition with *its* own prima facie problems for Christianity. I mean, you can bite the bullet here and say "yes, this is the case" in order to get out of the problem of non-belief. We can explore this possibility, but I think it's very clear to you and I that the notion of Jesus being unnecessary - even if logically sound - is a radical and inherently un-Christian proposition.

Missionary work remains important, because salvation is more than a one-time confession based and affirmation of a specific doctrine. Missionaries use the Gospel to deliver people from the false religious beliefs that foster strife and unnecessary bondage to false doctrines in this life. This allows the newly saved, as a community of believers, to bring healing, education, and love into this world.

Faith without works is dead, as one of the epistles states.

…If we remember that God is omniscient, then he would know precisely how to reveal himself such that we wouldn't be mistaken about his existence… it would still make a world of difference … if God undeniably showed himself. That way, those who lack the will to act on this knowledge are *absolutely* responsible for the life they've lead. … it's unjust to punish the unbeliever to an eternity of damnation just because God didn't make it clear…

And why must it be undeniable clear and not simply clear enough?

Because evidently it's not good enough, given the state of affairs in today's world. A mere ~33% of this world believes Jesus to be God [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations] so for every 3 people that pass away, 2 are guaranteed to be suffering in the afterlife, and that's if we grant the best case scenario where both orthodoxy *and* orthopraxy are the way to heaven.

Did God forsee his Divine Plan to be under achieving? Yes, he's omniscient.
Was this God's intention? No, his will is for us to be in relationship with him.
Did he have the power to make states of affairs different than what they are? Yes, he's omnipotent.
Is it actually the case in this world? No.
Well then.. does God exist? ____

I don't know how to make it any clearer.. but it seems to me that the hypothesis of the god of the Bible being real are extremely slim.

---

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='730639' dateline='1408069964']...an agnostic atheist is that none [religion] stand out more than any other as the accurate truth of this universe. I mean, what do I pick? The "genuine history" claim? The "impossibly beautiful book" claim? The "reality incarnate through text" claim?

Shallow thinkers say things like, “they cannot all be true and therefore they must all be false.” That’s not you, but it’s a common refrain around these parts. Why does diversity of human religious experience mean that the Divine must be rejected altogether?

The only thing that needs to be rejected is the uncommon idea that all religions are the way to the divine, because it just so happens that certain religions themselves claim only theirs is the way, and so a universal philosophy stating they can all be correct will be self-refuting.

Picking a tradition to me seems to be more about mining the depths of one’s own faith as opposed reading everyone else’s Cliff Notes. In my experience, truly spiritual people that are deeply seeped in their own faith traditions are remarkably similar with respect to their gentleness and humility.

No True Scottsman. Truly spiritual people have also been remerkably similar in wanting to shed blood.

That's great for you that you can have faith without having ever been given an explicit experience of God's existence. Great for you, and *only* you

So you do not count the whole of reality and your life’s experience in it as explicit enough? I often say, those who cannot recognize the Lord through His work cannot hope to see His countenance.

I do not. As it stands for me, any religion could be true. And God being omniscient/omnipotent could change this in a heartbeat.

[Whateverist]

Too bad so many people have been slaughtered over something so uncertain. I'd be much less disgusted with a few dozen million executions if this god guy would show himself.... NOT!

Same old atheistic inability to distiguish between the profanation of religion for political ends and actions motivated by piety. (Yawn)

Yeah, I have to say, I'm really only interested in talking about the most appealing forms of theism now. Every shade of fundamentalism is pretty much self-refuting. I'd like to think that there are good ways to be in the world as a theist, but I'm beginning to think these would find more useful work in raising the quality of theism in their fellow Christians than in seeking to convert more neophytes.

[Michael]

That's great for you that you can have faith without having ever been given an explicit experience of God's existence. Great for you, and *only* you ...Can I be blamed for not knowing which religion to place my faith in? God being omniscient and knowing of the myriads of lines of thought I could potentially take to end up at any religion... I would hope the answer is "no".

I'm with Kierkegaard on this one. The choice is to take a risk or never find anything. But is it really *only* me who doesn't have an explicit meeting with God other than a general sense of the numinous, and trust in his guidance in my conscience and in the lives and narratives of people who have sought the way of God, and trust in the person of Jesus? My impression is that I'm in the majority rather than the minority, and I'm quite sure I'm not in a minority of one. Indeed the writer of the letter to the Hebrews describes faith as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. It may be that you come from a different background where lots of people talk of much more direct experiences.

On the topic of other religions, even across religious divides we can often find deep connections . In many ways I feel a stronger connection to a devout Muslim, or Hindhu, or Buddhist, than to someone who does not engage with any religion. That's not to say all paths are equal, but they are not totally mutually exclusive either. That's why I meet and sit with Buddhists once a week. We find a commonality in silence (silence often unites where words would divide), and then we share our different paths.

If you have 15 minutes spare at some point I can recommend the video below, with Philip Goodchild who is Professor of Religion and Philosophy at the University of Nottingham in the UK. It considers various ways of looking at religious diversity. It's not a particularly slick production, but it is thoughtful and without polemics. I like the last position he describes (from about 10 minutes in the video), though to some extent I can relate to all positions apart from the first.

[FallentoReason]

That's great for you that you can have faith without having ever been given an explicit experience of God's existence. Great for you, and *only* you ...Can I be blamed for not knowing which religion to place my faith in? God being omniscient and knowing of the myriads of lines of thought I could potentially take to end up at any religion... I would hope the answer is "no".

I'm with Kierkegaard on this one. The choice is to take a risk or never find anything. But is it really *only* me who doesn't have an explicit meeting with God other than a general sense of the numinous, and trust in his guidance in my conscience and in the lives and narratives of people who have sought the way of God, and trust in the person of Jesus? My impression is that I'm in the majority rather than the minority, and I'm quite sure I'm not in a minority of one. Indeed the writer of the letter to the Hebrews describes faith as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. It may be that you come from a different background where lots of people talk of much more direct experiences.

Well, I was brought up a catholic, but I started going to a protestant church in my late teens, towards the end of my faith.

But as for the discussion at hand, can it not be said that God revealing himself would remove so much of the unnecessary confusion in trying to find the absolute truth? It's a question irrelevant to the claims of Christians about whether they've had personal experiences with God or not. From a philosophical point of view, I'm showing that God should show himself if he were in fact real, given what is claimed about the nature of God.

On the topic of other religions, even across religious divides we can often find deep connections . In many ways I feel a stronger connection to a devout Muslim, or Hindhu, or Buddhist, than to someone who does not engage with any religion. That's not to say all paths are equal, but they are not totally mutually exclusive either. That's why I meet and sit with Buddhists once a week. We find a commonality in silence (silence often unites where words would divide), and then we share our different paths.

If you have 15 minutes spare at some point I can recommend the video below, with Philip Goodchild who is Professor of Religion and Philosophy at the University of Nottingham in the UK. It considers various ways of looking at religious diversity. It's not a particularly slick production, but it is thoughtful and without polemics. I like the last position he describes (from about 10 minutes in the video), though to some extent I can relate to all positions apart from the first.

As a Christian, wouldn't you be compelled to believe the Bible is the absolute truth? The Word of God? I don't think it's possible to believe other religions have any merit, especially when Jesus says "...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." in John 14:6.
And p.s. thanks for sharing the video. I found it very interesting indeed.

[Mudhammam]

If even a single irrefutable, concrete, empirical manifestation of God's powerful, miraculous presence could eliminate the possibility for free will, how did any choose to accept or reject Jesus' actual, verbal call to discipleship after he multiplied fish, calmed storms, and erupted out of his tomb?

[bennyboy]

With regards to the varieties of religious experience: I don't see this as a good argument against God. In fact, it accords with what I'd expect to find if God were a real entity.

An actual creator God who maintained ties to the universe, we would have to assume, would be so complex that it could not be encapsulated by the understanding of any given person. Given such a God, we'd expect a lot of people with strange flashes of insight and inexplicable feelings-- the sense that "something is there," but a near complete inability to describe, define, or recognize it. The fact that all cultures in the world have some kind of theistic framework indicates that there is "something" that they take great interest in. The fact that they all have radically different theologies indicates that they are ignorant of the complete nature of this "something"-- which is to be expected.

Now, I'm not arguing that God exists. I'm saying that the confusion and strife among religions is consistent with the idea that God is real.

[Minimalist]

Such confusion and divergence is also typical of power-hungry men who are trying to gain power for themselves in different places.

Guess which argument I buy?

[FallentoReason]

With regards to the varieties of religious experience: I don't see this as a good argument against God. In fact, it accords with what I'd expect to find if God were a real entity.

An actual creator God who maintained ties to the universe, we would have to assume, would be so complex that it could not be encapsulated by the understanding of any given person. Given such a God, we'd expect a lot of people with strange flashes of insight and inexplicable feelings-- the sense that "something is there," but a near complete inability to describe, define, or recognize it. The fact that all cultures in the world have some kind of theistic framework indicates that there is "something" that they take great interest in. The fact that they all have radically different theologies indicates that they are ignorant of the complete nature of this "something"-- which is to be expected.

Now, I'm not arguing that God exists. I'm saying that the confusion and strife among religions is consistent with the idea that God is real.

They are all describing different things, but touching the same elephant.

Except, if we go into more detail with different religions, we in fact find that someone is touching and describing an elephant, while another describes what sounds like a tiger.
There's way too many claims being made that are mutually exclusive. A simple example is Christianity saying God can be human (aka Jesus) while Islam holds that God could never do that.

"I'm touching big hoofs"
"Yeah, well I'm touching claws"