On non-belief and the existence of God

[FallentoReason]

Alright, let me attempt to get back into the swing of things by challenging our resident Theists!

So, the problem of non-belief is something that goes like this:

Within the Christian framework, it is believed that God exists, and that there are propositions p,q,r...z that are *necessary* for us to believe in order to be saved. One of these might be the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that confessing this (amongst other possible things) is our way to eternally being saved.

Now, this is the 'divine plan' according to a loving God, whose will is to be in relationship with us, hopefully for eternity. The problem though, is that this plan doesn't seem to be getting fulfilled very effectively. The state of affairs in this world is such that a huge proportion of souls are being thrown into the pits of hell for simply being mistaken about the existence of God i.e. their failure to confess the necessary propositions to be saved.

And I think it's fair enough to see why: the claims made by Christianity seem just as plausible as any other religion that has made it this far. There doesn't seem to be anything intrinsic about Christianity that would absolutely settle the matter, obviously, judging by the diversity of belief in today's world, and the never-ending disputes between the religious.

So in essence, we have people going through this life, doing the best they can to get by, and potentially ending up suffering for eternity for something they may not have been aware was even going on - *ever* for some.

So here's the conclusion: this is something that can very easily be avoided by God himself if only he would undeniably reveal himself as the God of Christianity. He has the power to do so, and the will to act by. Yet, here we are, in silence, with the only reasonable explanation being that God is actually evil or non-existent.

I think this is one of the strongest arguments out there, because if you noticed, the premises are things which I think are quite acceptable under a Christian worldview. This problem of non-belief is something entirely built upon, essentially, a Christian way of thinking. And it's something that desperately needs accounting for.

**********

Possible counter-argument: free will.

This will not do, as free will is actually not related to this issue at all. For within the Christian framework we actually have very clear examples of people who directly witnessed God in His almighty presence and yet, freely chose to rebel.

Example 1: Adam & Eve.
They had full knowledge of God's existence, yet they went against his wishes in the Garden, despite this knowledge.

Example 2: Lucifer and the fallen angels.
They were literally in the same 'space' as God, and yet they had no problems whatsoever choosing the other side, and rebelling against God, despite this knowledge.

Conclusion: knowledge about something doesn't affect our free will. In this case, knowledge about God wouldn't negate our ability to choose for ourselves what we do.

[Michael]

Hi F2R

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that people could essentially be damned out of ignorance. I'd like to challenge that view a little. If we look at how John the Evangelist describes Jesus's response to the Jews who were rejecting them he says (John 5:22), "If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.". So ignorance, it appears, would have been an excuse. If we look at the context of Jesus's teachings about people not believing in him, we find that we're not talking about abstract people in any place and time, but people who had heard him speak, seen him heal, and still reject him. The context, which is a growing tension between Jesus and the leading Jews, is Jesus showing them what the Kingdom of heaven is like, and them saying 'no, we don't want that'. Likewise in the parable of the sheep and goats the people who inherit the Kingdom did not recognise the King, but had embraced the values of the King (feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc), so accepting the King (Jesus) could mean accepting his values, even when they did not recognise the King. The people who were destined to be excluded were those who had rejected the values of the King.

Paul echoes these thoughts in his letter to the Romans, when he essentially says that the conscience judges those who have not had the revelation of any particular law: "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all."

If you have three minutes to spare, I find this a thoughtful short video from Tom Wright.

[Mister Agenda]

I wish you had more American Christians in your camp, Michael.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Within the Christian framework, it is believed that God exists, and that there are propositions p,q,r...z that are *necessary* for us to believe in order to be saved…

Only among certain mainline Protestants (like Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists) that preach “faith alone” hold this position. The Roman Catholics allow those outside the Church to be saved if they have “perfect contrition.” It is also not a problem for New Church, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers and other heterodox groups. I don’t think Methodists have a very clear teaching on this, and I grew-up in a half-Methodist church community. These same Christological and sorietological debates have gone on since the first century.

...this is something that can very easily be avoided by God himself if only he would undeniably reveal himself as the God of Christianity. He has the power to do so, and the will to act by.

I don’t think so. Even if YHVH was printed on the blood cells of every human being, it still would not be undeniable enough for a staunch naturalist. That stamp could be the maker’s mark of ancient aliens, right?

… we actually have very clear examples of people who directly witnessed God in His almighty presence and yet, freely chose to rebel…Adam & Eve… Lucifer and the fallen angels…

Very true. Anyone can see that simply knowing the truth is not sufficient without the will to act on it. Most people know that a high fat simple sugar diet is bad for you, yet many still continue to eat unhealthily.
Those who know the truth but lack the will to act on it, no matter how well informed, cannot even follow the dictates of their own convictions. Those who truly desire to do the right thing will do so when they know the truth. These people can be instructed by the Lord. Your examples (the original parents and the devil) also make good proof-texts for why the ‘faith alone’ doctrine is not the best one. Orthopraxy trumps orthodoxy every time.

[bennyboy]

If we look at how John the Evangelist describes Jesus's response to the Jews who were rejecting them he says (John 5:22), "If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.".

Omg. Remind me to steer clear of that Jesus guy. Coming into contact with him puts me in dire jeopardy of going to hell?

[Clueless Morgan]

If we look at how John the Evangelist describes Jesus's response to the Jews who were rejecting them he says (John 5:22), "If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.".

Omg. Remind me to steer clear of that Jesus guy. Coming into contact with him puts me in dire jeopardy of going to hell?

[Jenny A]

Omg. Remind me to steer clear of that Jesus guy. Coming into contact with him puts me in dire jeopardy of going to hell?

In her Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, Mary McCarthy introduced me to a more specific problem. She was assured that unless they were properly introduced to Catholic doctrine, protestants would go to heaven or at least purgatory. But if they heard and rejected Catholicism, they would go to hell. This worried her greatly because her staunchly protestant grandfather was brought into contact with the nuns who ran her boarding school every time he visited her there. And she loved her grandfather and didn't want him in risk of hell. --- I don't know if that's current Catholic doctrine, or even if it was good doctrine in the late 1950s when she wrote. But it troubled her a great deal.

[Michael]

If we look at how John the Evangelist describes Jesus's response to the Jews who were rejecting them he says (John 5:22), "If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.".

Omg. Remind me to steer clear of that Jesus guy. Coming into contact with him puts me in dire jeopardy of going to hell?

The Christian view is that you will come into contact with him whether you want to or not. The question then is what would be your response? So the idea that hell could be avoided if the Gospel was never preached is not one that actually makes sense from a Christian perspective. At some point a decision must be made, the 'Great Divide' must happen, as C.S.Lewis described it in the book of that name. Some say that this life is spent in preparation for meeting Jesus, so what we do still matters, just as the early pattern an addict sets for themselves can often, sadly, have ramifications further down the line. If we spend our lives rejecting the values of Jesus, the are we likely to accept Jesus as King when meeting him? Likewise if we accept the values of Jesus, even without knowing much or anything about Jesus, are we likely to reject him when we meet him? That is the essence of the parable of the sheep and goats. But also I'd want to say that Christianity isn't just about the future - I think it's very much about the present, it's about the world we create now as much as thinking about the world we're building for the future.

[Welsh cake]

The Christian view is that you will come into contact with him whether you want to or not. The question then is what would be your response?

Indifference?

Why would I care if I met a god?
Likewise, why would the god care if it met a mortal creature?

Why would I tell it what's on my mind?
Likewise, why would it tell me what's on its mind?

This all seems rather arbitrary.

[Michael]

Welsh. Well, to put it in more concrete terms, it is the choice of healing hurts or causing hurts, feeding the poor or exploiting them, getting us much for ourselves as we can or giving as much of ourselves as we can. This is what is at stake in the Christian view. This is what the parable of the sheep and goats is all about.

And we can see this in little ways. Do we get up in the morning with the intent to be as kind to people as we can? Or do we get up in the morning looking to look after ourselves as much as we can, even at the expense of others? I have known people of both kinds, and you can see heaven and hell starting to build around them each, even now.