The Hearsay Contract

[Strongbad]

---

theVOID: tells me that my assertion that God isn't obligated under this contract is bullshit; I'm not sure in what sense he means that, whether that it is untrue, unfair or simply grotesque, I don't know. You're welcome to point out biblical or mainstream exegesis that shows that Christians do not believe this, but I don't think that viewing God as obligated is a fair characterization of Christian theology.

Failing that, we are left with a contract in which one side is not obligated to perform. I know of no modern framework which considers such an arrangement a valid contract. Which brings me to the central question: what are you attempting to demonstrate, illuminate or prove by this talk about contracts and hearsay. I see no way in which making up a bogus legal framework, where contracts that aren't contracts exist, and where the complicated legal concept of "hearsay" plays some pivotal role, makes a valid point that can't be made without it. And since I see this thread as devolving into "Christian's proof is insubstantial", I fail to see how talk of contracts and hearsay improves upon that argument.

What's more, it appears that the complaints voiced thus far rest upon demonstrating that we have no examples of God's good faith completion of such a contract, and some doubt as to whether the possibility of fulfilling the "happy everafter" part of the contract exists. I'm not sure, again, how the legal framework enters into this. There is nothing illegitimate about entering into contracts that are either minimally or completely unsupported by one or the other parties ability to fulfill that contract. A contract IS hearsay -- I take it on faith that if I mow your lawn, and you've promised me five dollars for doing so, I have nothing more than your word that you will do so. I may promise to marry someone if we both live 1000 years without wedding. Is this contract fulfillable? Likely not, but that doesn't make it invalid. If I promise to give my spare change to homeless people at the end of each day, have I made a contract? No! If I do so and a homeless person washes my windshield for me, does that change the nature of my promise? No. In short, this talk of contracts and hearsay is not merely wrong, I don't see what it adds to the question. Is the God "contract" unfair? Probably; doesn't make it invalid. People complain about the contract being unfair because it is made under duress -- but they don't complain that a limited lifespan likewise forces choices upon them that they wouldn't make if they lived forever? There are apologetics for all such questions, most falling under the category of theodicy, but it is illegitimate to deny their validity simply because you find them grotesque. (ETA: Grotesque is wrong; what I mean is that the validity of a theodical view does not revolve around who does or does not get the short end of the stick. The fact that police prevent me from killing people at random, despite my wish to do so, is not an argument against having police and laws. Unfairness is always generous to some, and depriving to others. It's possible there will always be winners and losers.)

I think a more serious question, aside from all this nonsense about contracts and hearsay, is what is the nature of evidence. And how do we weigh differing kinds of evidence. I've been enjoying a stroll down the boulevard of solipsism lately, and while it has its own questions, to me, it is a more sensible position than any form of realism that I have encountered. It seems to require a leap of faith to believe that the world is real, given the evidence involved. I haven't died lately -- what evidence do I have that I will die? Little more than sloppy inductions which aren't properly formed. If I take the leap to realism upon such flimsy support, what other flimsily supported monstrosities might I also accept? It seems that once you've let the axiom of realism in, you've lowered the standard of evidence or proof so low that almost anything can satisfy it. At least, that is my first gander. I'm still exploring. What evidence can any of you present that you are real that isn't equally as much hearsay, conjecture and groundless speculation as that of the theist's world-view? Ultimately, I have yet to discover any reason for postulating my "existence" as more than some sort of Hegelian dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective). Can you provide reasons for believing that the dream you are dreaming is not a dream, reasons which themselves are not overly inconclusive -- axioms which, once justified, could not be used to justiify things you are unwilling to accept or believe?

Again, my main complaint is not with the idea that religious arguments are weak, but I think this point about contracts and hearsay is an attempt to make the case against theism stronger than it is without this pseudo-legalistic framework. Not only does it not do so (why should the form of contracts among men dictate the form of "contracts" with gods or other higher forms of reality?), it stumbles right out of the gate in asserting that a contract exists where indeed there is none.

ETA: It occurs to me that there are paradigm "contracts" which exist which put the assumptions of the OP in even more doubt. Countries form contracts (called treaties) amongst themselves; the field of international law is based on it. But there are other ways in which nation "persons" interact with each other and the validity, legality and fairness of such behaviors is as much a question of whose side you are on than of the specifics of the relationship. War is the epitome of such unilateral and bilateral actions, but there are lesser examples. Enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq prior to the second Iraqi war was in many parts considered very justifiable, though I doubt the Iraqis agreed. Nixon and others have coddled up to China in the hopes of improving human rights conditions in the PRC, without any material consideration being promised in return. Embargoes and blockades litter the history of nations. Though Saddam Hussein could not make good on his promise to make the streets of his enemies run red with blood (nor Osama bin Laden), in no sense were such "promises" ignored. The more I think about it, the less this talk of contracts and hearsay makes sense in the given context.

---