Personal revelation vs. free will

[Cyberman]

The title's rather self-explanatory, really, but I can expand since I don't remember seeing it addresed before. As far as I've been able to piece it together, the only source of information regarding God and all related aspects of the character is that well-known Big Book of Multiple Choice, the 'Holy' Bible. The mythology contained therein is what defines the God character, and we 'know' the mythology to be true because God is the equivalent of Thunderf00t's creation, The Ghost That Cannot Lie. In other words, the bible is true because God says it's true and we know God is real because the bible says it is and so on and so on. The lie is safe because it guards itself (Blake's 7 reference, for my fellow geeks out there.)

However, that's not the bit that interests me, in terms of this thread anyway. No, the thing I find hard to wrap my brain around is this idea of personal revelation. It's the card that is usually played once the believer gets close to the edge of realisation that it might all just be a story, because that's the only source they have. We've seen it time and again: "I know God is real because He has revealed Himself to me in such a way that it cannot be denied".

So my question to all that would be: what price free will in all this? If God (or Allah, or Quetzecoatl) appeared in front of you in a manner that took away all doubt of its reality and authenticity, hasn't your free will been taken away?

Anyway, a simple question, I'm sure, but I'm hoping to see what our resident believers think about it. Anyone and everyone's opinion is more than welcome, of course.

[Cato]

What I find amusing and sad at the same time is that the personal revelation stories never invoke 'God talked to me'. They are always an emotional retelling of an unlikely coincidence (most are so mundane that the word serendipity couldn't be invoked); or invoke supernatural significance to a rare, but purely natural, event.

What I have always found effective is immediately challenging the person with this, "you have had what you consider a divine experience, but exactly why does that require my fealty to the dictums of barbarians codified in an ancient text enforced by an asshole that reads to me from a raised platform once a week while asking for 10% of my labor?".

[genkaus]

This would be another one of those points where the theistic doublethink becomes apparent.

When asked of a theist "Why god doesn't reveal himself to each and every person in the world?", the answer usually is "because it would violate their free-will". If god presents himself, the person would have no choice but to believe.

However, when turned around and asked if multitude of apparent personal revelations, both in real world and in scripture, don't amount to the same thing, apparently free-will is preserved in that scenario because either a) That person was already a believer, i.e. the choice was already made, or b) That person could still have practiced self-deception (as many do in the real world) and chosen not to believe. A) fails because belief does not preclude doubt, possibility of future doubt or future disbelief - therefore, free-will is still being violated. Further, if the person was a believer before the said revelation, it undermines the role of the big reveal in the belief system and leads to the question of whether the belief itself was the cause of revelation. B) fails because the same standard can be applied to the previous argument and removed any excuse for god to not have shown himself.

Either way, there is no rational way to hold both propositions as true at the same time. But then, theists are rarely known for their rationality.

[Cyberman]

Indeed. There always seems to be a causal chain from "mundane or even unusual yet plausible thing that happened" straight to "GodDidIt" with no obvious connection between the two. To borrow Prof Dawkins' Mount Improbable for a moment and for a use it was never intended, they've leaped straight from the base of the sheer cliff to the cliff edge in a single bound. Only comicbook superheroes are allowed to do that, and then only because they're fictional.

Either that, or as you say it's something that happened to a friend of a friend. One of my friends, who at least used to be a hobby xtian (in it for the group thing) told me in all earnestness about a supposed incident that his pastor told him had happened to her. Already we're at least two steps removed from the story as it is. Anyway, apparently this pastor was walking down a dark, forbidding street when she was about to set upon by a group of thugs. However, just as they were about to mug her or whatever embellishments were involved, one of said thugs looked up with a look of fear on his face and ran off, followed by his mates. Of course, the story needs a punchline, it can't just end there with no resolution. In this case, some passerby, who may have been a policeman (I forget which and it doesn't matter) collared one of the thugs who reported seeing some angelic-type creature protecting the pastor and that's what frightened them away.

Anyone convinced yet?

Plus, again, even if if this tallest of tales was even remotely true, wasn't the free will of the thugs to do whatever they had planned to do been taken away by direct divine intervention? How does all this, plus my original question, square with the idea of a god and related detritus that values human free will above everything else and, allegedly, refuses to intervene and thus violate that free will? Anyone else getting a headache?

[genkaus]

Plus, again, even if if this tallest of tales was even remotely true, wasn't the free will of the thugs do do whatever they had planned to do been taken away by direct divine intervention? How does all this, plus my original question, square with the idea of a god and related detritus that values human free will above everything else and, allegedly, refuses to intervene and thus take such free will away? Anyone else getting a headache?

As I said, the excuse can be given that the thugs could still choose not to believe by chalking up the experience to a hallucination, or attributing it to a trick of light, or convincing themselves that their memories were not accurate, or by telling themselves that they were victims of an elaborate prank. The rationalization is that the mere possibility of these choices negate any violation of free-will. The problem comes when the same rationalization is denied where no intervention takes place.

[Cyberman]

It's such a tangled mess, this free will business. No wonder God went insane.

[Cato]

It's such a tangled mess, this free will business. No wonder God went insane.

Free will is only entagled when the concept of God is invoked. Without God, we would all get about our constant business of making choices. We all do this; however, some choose to place accountabilty for choices on God or Satan.

When a person makes a choice that enhances their situation, God is given credit. When the decision results in undesirable ends, Satan is to blame. Notice that the human decision maker isn't accountable for anything. Many have posited that the believer has an inordinate fear of mortality; I posit that the believer has a fear of the consequence of his/her everyday choices.

[FallentoReason]

So my question to all that would be: what price free will in all this? If God (or Allah, or Quetzecoatl) appeared in front of you in a manner that took away all doubt of its reality and authenticity, hasn't your free will been taken away?

One of the many contradictions in the Bible. You're right, free will has been voided. But hang on.. Why does God do that?! Wasn't the whole 'beauty' of his love that he gave us free will to begin with (which we then used wrongly apparently).

Theists can't have their cake and eat it. Either there is no free will OR their 'encounters' are not genuine and God never 'spoke' to them.

[Cyberman]

There's a discussion somewhere on here (I can't be arsed to find it) during which I spoke of a personal revelation - I even gave a clue and called it a "genuine anecdote" - basically, God appeared to me in a dream and told me He doesn't exist. Now the theist to whom I was speaking, I forget which, was forced into a trilemma: either I was lying, which would set a precedent for other such testimonies to be lies; or God really did appear to me, an atheist, and lied to me (unthinkable!); or it was the Devil. Guess which one he picked.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Free will" is only invoked as a weapon against those disagree with the wielder.

"Free will" is why you are a dirty non-believer, bound for hellfire or whatever brand of passive aggressive destruction the wielder feels comfortable invoking. The faithful cannot imagine not believing, as you have said, they feel that god has revealed himself and is undeniable.

"Free will" accounts for all of the nasty shit they do not wish to allow their god to accept any measure of culpability for- whatsoever. God has left the mark of goodness in our hearts, left his standards of righteousness, emanates goodness, blah blah blah blah blah.....but free will, well..that was the wrench in the plan....

"Free will" related to the above, allows the wielder to avoid the nasty notion that their unbelievably powerful and wise spirit might just be a cruel tormentor of human ants.

In short, it's an excuse, in each and every case. Not a very well thought out excuse, especially when juxtaposed against the entirety of their narrative, but, as we all know;

-In the absence of an actual explanation.....any answer will do.-