On non-belief and the existence of God

[ShaMan]

But I also hear this from my friends, the monks.

Ever read Merton?

[Michael]

But I also hear this from my friends, the monks.

Ever read Merton?

Yes. I like a lot of Merton, though as a man he's incredibly complex and, at times, quite an enigma (the international jet-setting superstar hermit).

Do you like Merton?

[ShaMan]

Do you like Merton?

I do.

[FallentoReason]

F2R. I don't know if we'll ever know anything for certain. I'm not the best person to talk to about certainty as I rarely have it about anything. Perhaps the only certainly I have is that, at least somewhere, I'm wrong. For me, faith is commitment in the absence of certainty. There's always been a certain agnosticism to my faith. But I also hear this from my friends, the monks. They make an amazing commitment of their life to the monastic way of life, and yet do that in the presence of uncertainty ('doubt', if you will). But I can understand that. I think Keirkergaard understood this all too well - faith requires, and begins with, a risk.

Then let it be known to God (as he already would know) that my damnation into hell was caused by his inability to successfully establish the knowledge of his existence.

(A) Punishing a child for not having known his father's expectations isn't just at all. So if God wishes to punish, then it seems approriate for him to show himself.

(B) A child being able to lead a life deemed "good" by his father without the child having ever met his father makes it seem like contact with his father wasn't actually necessary. So now Jesus Christ just comes across as arbitrary and unnecessary.

Ultimately, these are the issues I see, both of which put Christianity in the position of not being true, given the claims of Christianity to the best of my knowledge.

[bennyboy]

Christianity, as encapsulated in the Bible and taken with the assumption that it is substantially true, is clearly full of shit. I just don't see how a normally-functioning adult could see it otherwise. As a collection of interesting parables and life lessons, it's quite an interesting collection of documents. Certainly, "Turn the other cheek" and "Judge not lest ye be judged" are right up at the top of the list of all-time best moral ideas.

Now Deity vs. no Deity, or an abstract philosophical construct worthy of the name "God," okay then I'm more likely to get on board.

[Michael]

But I also hear this from my friends, the monks.

Ever read Merton?

ShaMan

I have a book of daily Merton extracts. Today's seems important to me....

Practicing Non-violence

Today I realize with urgency the absolute seriousness of my need to study and practice non-violence. Hitherto, I have “liked” non-violence as an idea. I have “approved” it, looked with benignity on it, have praised it, even earnestly. But I have not practiced it fully. My thoughts and words retaliate. I condemn and resist adversaries when I think I am unjustly treated. I revile them; even treat them with open (but polite) contempt to their face. It is necessary to realize that I am a monk consecrated to God and this restricting non-retaliation merely to physical non-retaliation is not enough—on the contrary, it is in some sense a greater evil. At the same time, the energy wasted in contempt, criticism and resentment is thus diverted from its true function, insistence on truth. Hence, loss of clarity, loss of focus, confusion, and finally frustration. So that half the time “I don’t know what I am doing” (or thinking). I need to set myself to the study of non-violence, with thoroughness. The complete, integral practice of it in community life. Eventually teaching it to others by word and example. Short of this, the monastic life will remain a mockery in my life.

[Thomas Merton, Journals, August 21, 1962]
Merton, Thomas (2009-10-13). A Year with Thomas Merton (Kindle Locations 4280-4290). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Christianity, as encapsulated in the Bible and taken with the assumption that it is substantially true, is clearly full of shit...Now Deity vs. no Deity, or an abstract philosophical construct worthy of the name "God," okay then I'm more likely to get on board.

My position exactly and one I've been advocated since the beginning of my time here on AF. On its surface the canonical Scriptures contain many things that are not scientifically or even mathematically true. I believe the value of these texts and many apocryphal texts lies in their esoteric meaning. I should point out however that the New Church considers this interior meaning to be much more that mere allegory. Swedenborg uses the term correspondence to indicate this more strong relationship between the biblical narrative and spiritual realties.

Now Deity vs. no Deity, or an abstract philosophical construct worthy of the name "God," okay then I'm more likely to get on board.

This is the same position as Aquinas. The 1st and 2nd ways (I think) are not stand alone 'proofs' like many modern readers assume. Instead his arguments show that the Christian concept of God aligns with the pagan 'god of the philosophers' already proven in the ancient Greek philosophical tradition.

[bennyboy]

I think Genesis makes a pretty clear philosophical statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

It's hard to argue that this is meant literally, since it's clearly showing that God and the Word are simultaneously the same entity and separate. Now, I'm not saying early theologians knew about photons, but that kind of paradoxical description: "A photon is a wave, or a particle, but it's kind of both, but not really" seems to be applicable to a lot of real things in our universe. Another one: "The Big Bang is the beginning the universe, but did not exactly create it, because before t0 there was no such thing as time as such. So it doesn't even make sense to say anything created the universe-- but here we are wtf?"

You could make this kind of paradoxical narrative about almost any subject: the brain creates the mind, but nothing is really created because mind is just brain function, so mind and brain function are kind of different but not really (assuming physical monism here).

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think Genesis makes a pretty clear philosophical statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

**nitpick** John 1

[bennyboy]

I think Genesis makes a pretty clear philosophical statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

**nitpick** John 1

lol at least I got the quote right.