Why Would God Hide?

[FatAndFaithless]

Hey, Michael, just something I've been wondering, who is the guy in your avatar? I know almost nothing of devotional art and it's had me curious.

[Michael]

StealthySkeptic. You can try to insist on a neutral position but this has two major difficulties. 1) Who defines 'neutral'? (Bayesian thought side-steps this very significant problem), and 2) This requires you to abandon all previous knowledge and experience no matter how carefully gained. Few people are able to abandon all their previous learning before examining any new proposition, and many scientists would say that it would be foolish to do so. In practice I see people bringing their knowledge and experience to the table, and I think that's a sensible thing to do. One can then reflect on whether new evidence agrees with a high quality and trustworthy data set you already have, for example. Indeed to decide what is an extraordinary claim or not would seem to presuppose a particular starting position. Bayesian thought simply acknowledges that position transparently and works from any given starting point. I think that's neat and very realistic.

---

Hey, Michael, just something I've been wondering, who is the guy in your avatar? I know almost nothing of devotional art and it's had me curious.

Oh, he's just a Benedictine scribe, copying books - somebody who today we would say worked in 'knowledge transfer' or 'information science' :-) The Benedictines were great collectors and preservers of knowledge through the 'dark ages', and they were happy to collect knowledge from all sorts of traditions which seems, to me, a much better way to pass the time than going on crusades against the 'enemy'. Benedictines, for the most part, just quietly built communities and libraries in a world of chaos and war around them.

[StealthySkeptic]

I would define neutral in the case of religion as stepping outside of all religious perspectives.

[Michael]

I would define neutral in the case of religion as stepping outside of all religious perspectives.

Sounds rather like an atheist position to me ;-)

[Vicki Q]

The problem with your reasoning is the concept of Hell. The obedience may not be programmed, but it is certainly compulsory, on the pain of eternal torment if it is not forthcoming in the form of belief and compliance.

In short, the fact that a "no" answer brings on eternal torture is exactly what makes a "yes" meaningless. This is love commanded under duress. There is no free-will when one's soul is held for ransom, just as an armed robbery is not a "donation."

It's a good point; however...

Firstly, I see little to no biblical evidence for Hell. The passages usually brought out tend to be Jewish apocalyptic form descriptions not relating to post mortem situations; others, when read in their C1 Jewish context don't give support to the existence of Hell. (A plea for mercy. I won't be able to examine ten different Bible passages in depth- the best two, if that's where you want to head.)

Secondly, I think you're rather making my point. If God were very obvious, and carried a threat as heavy as Hell, it really would be 'love' under duress. Indeed, even if one rules out Hell, the same point would be made mutatis mutandis with exclusion from the Kingdom of God. Therefore it makes sense for God to not be too obvious.

Religion thinks it has all the answers.

That's how I see my Christianity. It's uncertain, short on knowledge, constantly in need of revision and at least partly wrong.

[StealthySkeptic]

I would define neutral in the case of religion as stepping outside of all religious perspectives.

Sounds rather like an atheist position to me ;-)

It's more like this: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...sider_test

---

The problem with your reasoning is the concept of Hell. The obedience may not be programmed, but it is certainly compulsory, on the pain of eternal torment if it is not forthcoming in the form of belief and compliance.

In short, the fact that a "no" answer brings on eternal torture is exactly what makes a "yes" meaningless. This is love commanded under duress. There is no free-will when one's soul is held for ransom, just as an armed robbery is not a "donation."

It's a good point; however...

Firstly, I see little to no biblical evidence for Hell. The passages usually brought out tend to be Jewish apocalyptic form descriptions not relating to post mortem situations; others, when read in their C1 Jewish context don't give support to the existence of Hell. (A plea for mercy. I won't be able to examine ten different Bible passages in depth- the best two, if that's where you want to head.)

Secondly, I think you're rather making my point. If God were very obvious, and carried a threat as heavy as Hell, it really would be 'love' under duress. Indeed, even if one rules out Hell, the same point would be made mutatis mutandis with exclusion from the Kingdom of God. Therefore it makes sense for God to not be too obvious.

Religion thinks it has all the answers.

That's how I see my Christianity. It's uncertain, short on knowledge, constantly in need of revision and at least partly wrong.

I don't think you're connecting God having a reason for not being obvious with the non-existence (in your opinion- one of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity is because nobody can get their opinion on basic doctrines straight) of Hell. God could easily be obvious, but not have Hell there at all.

[Michael]

It still sounds like an atheist position StealthySkeptic. And I have no problem with someone taking that starting position. I just think that there is some underlying, and covert, bias going on when it is considered the neutral position. The good thing about Bayesian thought is you just say openly 'this is my starting position' with no need to try and assert that it is privileged in some way.

[Minimalist]

The Benedictines were great collectors and preservers of knowledge through the 'dark ages', and they

Did you ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz," Mike?

[StealthySkeptic]

It still sounds like an atheist position StealthySkeptic. And I have no problem with someone taking that starting position. I just think that there is some underlying, and covert, bias going on when it is considered the neutral position. The good thing about Bayesian thought is you just say openly 'this is my starting position' with no need to try and assert that it is privileged in some way.

True, it is a position that sounds like atheism. But that's not the point of the OTF- the point of the OTF is to make sure that you have unbiased evidence for believing in something by approaching that from a non religious and therefore neutral in relation to all religions position.

[Vicki Q]

I don't think you're connecting God having a reason for not being obvious with the non-existence (in your opinion- one of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity is because nobody can get their opinion on basic doctrines straight) of Hell. God could easily be obvious, but not have Hell there at all.

I'm finding your first sentence rather hard to unravel. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to cancel two negatives at a time.

On the second sentence, I'm not sure how that would work. Whether or not Hell exists is beside the point- resurrected eternal life is on offer, and that is functionally equivalent to Hell as regards motivation.

I'm not sure that God putting up big notices saying “I made you, now please be nice to each other” while putting it out there falsely that there ain't nothing after death quite cuts the mustard. He could abolish post-mortem life, but I'd rather he didn't, personally.

And so if the reality of the situation is that there is a way of escaping death, but that decisions made impact on that escape route, then what is God to do? Be obvious (and we're a Stepford species) or approach it in a different, less obvious way?