-
Preston
9So, for about the last 10 years I have been a Christian, and not much of a religious or philosophical person beforehand. I have been more engaged with philosophy over these last 10 years as well, and have had a lot of my assumptions about my faith questioned, but for good, though it does lead me to question what my fundamental suppositions are. I generally, as a creationist (Theistic Evolution), see God as a designer, in part, of at least the initial conditions of our cosmos. The cosmos may have existed in some form for eternity, that doesn't bother me. But, I see God as a crafter and shaper of possible outcomes.
This presupposes that freedom is ontologically necessary in my worldview, and not just in relation to ethics, though I hold to that, too. Metaphysical freedom, and indeed, even physical freedom, means that the universe is not predetermined to form in any particular way except within its pre-set boundaries. That is, though the universe cannot do anything, it has a set of possible directions it can evolve toward based upon the initial conditions. I see this from quantum theory, but also because of my metaphysical commitment to structural freedom.
So, this notion of freedom means that God cannot be omniscient. I generally see God as wise, but not someone who knows what I will type next, nor necessarily knowledgeable of whether or not I am typing. I'm not really sure as to the extent of God's knowledge, but I am persuaded that since reality is free, then God cannot know what will come next with any certainty. A lot of this thinking comes from reflections on two themes in the philosophy of religion: the problem of evil and damnation.
If God is to be considered a just God, S/he cannot let evil go unpunished. If God knew of an evil event and had the capacity to stop the event, S/he would be morally obliged to stop the event. So, this also means, for me, that God's potency is also limited. So far, I am off to a rousing heretical start.
I am seeing my most glaring presupposition so far: that God can be perceived in some sort of personal or anthropomorphic way, as if God had human-like desires, etc. Maybe this is true, but it is not necessary for a conception of God. Maybe, as some Radical, Death of God theologians are insisting, God is simply the depth-dimensions of reality, not a personal savior sky-god. I tend to like this idea, but it does away with a Biblical conception of God, which is fine because as we are learning more about the archaeology of the ANE, we can see that some of the Bible's claims are problematic.
Okay. First presupposition exorcised. God doesn't have to be a personal agent. This actually does wonders to the rest of my questions around the metaphysical implications of traditional Christian doctrines like the Incarnation, Eucharist, role of the Church in history, etc. I suppose if I had to ask a question, I would ask something about the relevance of Christianity after the death of God. What does Christianity look like when God no longer holds our fate in Her hands? It must be more than ethics, and I have a good idea of where to start, but would like to hear from you first! -
Wayfarer
22.5kWhat does Christianity look like when God no longer holds our fate in Her hands?
There's a saying from a rather controversial and radical Buddhist teacher, 'ruthless compassion'. Ruthless compassion is, well, compassion - it will do no harm, but always act in the best interests of those who are its subjects. But it is 'ruthless' in that it may not be nice, polite, friendly, or comforting, and it won't take any bullshit. It is more like 'get real and grow up'. It knows that life often seems horribly unfair and that not everything works out. So, I think it would look something like that.
Also a point - I think the god you're going beyond is actually 'jehovah', the sky-father of the popular imagination. I have never been an atheist, but neither have I ever believed in that sky-father. I have absolutely zero concept of what 'god' might be, which I'm beginning to think is probably a good thing.
Read up on Paul Tillich. You might find some interest there - he was criticized by other Christians for being too Eastern or semi-atheist, but I think he's pretty interesting. -
Barry Etheridge
349If God is to be considered a just God, S/he cannot let evil go unpunished — Preston
Correct
If God knew of an evil event and had the capacity to stop the event,
S/he would be morally obliged to stop the event. — Preston
Incorrect (and for a Christian as heretical as it is possible to be!) Even if we leave God out of it altogether the one simply does not follow from the other. But for a Christian committed to belief in a God with an entirely novel solution to the problem posed in the first statement it is an absolute non sequitur.
Much the same can be said for most of your post actually. The problems you raise are arguments about a Platonist ideal of God (and are from unresolvable even within that context) but despite the polularity of Neo-Platonism amongst the early Fathers of the Church that is not the God that Christians actually believe in. There is one immeasurably important distinction. The Platonic ideal God is totally impersonal and immutable. To identify the Christian God of three persons in relationship with mankind through the power of the cross with that God is simply impossible. For a Christian to say that they no longer believe in that God is nonsense for they never believed in that God in the first place. -
Mongrel
3kIncorrect (and for a Christian as heretical as it is possible to be!) Even if we leave God out of it altogether the one simply does not follow from the other. — Barry Etheridge
Per Catholics and therefore most Protestants, God is considered to be perfect. The proposition that God is omnibenevolent follows from that. This is pretty standard stuff. Preston is presenting the problem of evil, which has floated about theology since around the 18th Century. -
Barry Etheridge
349Really? I'm not aware of any credal or catechismal statement to that end. Nor am I aware that the only definition of 'perfect' is the Platonic Ideal. And omnibenevolence is not in any way a logical concomitant of perfection.
I am not in any way saying that there are not problems with Christian conceptions of God. I am saying that the so-called 'problem of evil' is not one of them because as it is configured it simply does not apply to the Christian concept of God. This remains true irrespective of the state of theology or belief of any or all Christian churches past or present. The God who sacrificed his Son on the Cross simply cannot be identical with the God of the 'problem of evil'.
Being a cynic of the highest order I'm certain that those who propose the problem even now as an objection to Christianity are well aware of this and laugh like drains when Christians are taken in by it. But that's neither here nor there. It remains indisputable that that God is not the God in which Christianity requires belief whether actual Christians believe it or not!
Whether the 'problem of evil' is actually a problem for that God is another matter altogether (although personally I think the whole argument is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys!) -
Mongrel
3kYea. Really.
Belief in God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of the Lord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." This understanding is evident in the following statement by the First Vatican Council:
The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[8]
The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[9] Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.[10] — Wiki on omnibenevolence
There are Christian outlooks that deny omnibenevolence, but they're fringe.
I am saying that the so-called 'problem of evil' is not one of them because as it is configured it simply does not apply to the Christian concept of God. — Barry Etheridge
It does. Christianity was historically vibrant and dynamic in part due to it's contradictions and open-ended problems such as the nature of God's justice.
I agree that the Platonic vision of divinity is at variance with what we might come across in some semi-pagan yuletide frolicking, but it's been central to Christian thought since pretty close to the beginning. That's supposed to be his likeness there in the Vatican.
-
Ciceronianus
3kI'm not certain what you're asking.
Christianity as a religion, I think, disappears if it's shorn of the Incarnation, the Eucharist, salvation due to the sacrifice of the crucifixion, the Resurrection, Original Sin, its insistence on a personal deity, and all the other doctrines and beliefs it assimilated so remarkably and successfully from the ancient pagan cults and Judaism to become the Great Hodgepodge it is. The fact it is such a hodgepodge is I believe the primary reason why the efforts made on its behalf to assimilate more philosophical (and I think more reasonable) views of a Divinity have been unsuccessful although that effort has been ongoing since at least the second century C.E. If you ignore or deny its core doctrines, I don't think you can legitimately claim to be a Christian. -
Buxtebuddha
1.7k
Maybe, as some Radical, Death of God theologians are insisting, God is simply the depth-dimensions of reality, not a personal savior sky-god. I tend to like this idea, but it does away with a Biblical conception of God
On the contrary, actually. I would say that, with regard to the New Testament, the biblical God is very much a philosophical construct rather than a mythologized deity.
Also, I think you need to set yourself on a single definition and interpretation of God. If you're not sure what God is, then you can't then, quite obviously, figure out how the nature of God plays itself out, through ethics, say. -
Barry Etheridge
349Belief in God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; — Wiki on omnibenevolence
What utter twaddle! This statement is almost completely falsified by the remainder of the text if interpreted properly so I really shouldn't need to say any more. I am however utterly fascinated to learn how the Roman Catholic Church which literally invented Hell and those Protestant Churches who delight in it to the extent that they added double predestination to the mix can possibly be understood to be proponents of an omnibenevolent God, barring an entirely new definition of 'benevolent' that includes condemning people to eternal pain and punishment even before they have done anything to actually deserve it! -
Mongrel
3kYou can't really be one of those sensitive philosophical types, have a Christian background, and not have covered this territory extensively.
You have no Christian background I'm assuming. -
Janus
16.3k
There are theological subtleties, which your apparently black and white thinking will inevitably ignore. For example, does the fact that God eternally knows which souls will be saved and which will not, mean that the temporal unfolding of the destines of souls is preordained? Not necessarily! I think careful thought should be given to the idea of eternity here; the eternal knowledge of God does not mean that God knows what will happen before it happens, because there is no 'before' in eternity. -
Barry Etheridge
349
It's not my black and white view. It is double predestination as taught in extremist Calvinist churches. Though I do concede that 'before' was probably a slightly careless choice of word in the context.
My own view would very much be all white if we're sticking with the metaphor, he says enigmatically! -
Janus
16.3k
OK, but the fact that there are extremist 'black and white' Calvinist doctrines does not entail that all Calvinist doctrines are necessarily extremist (although they might be in any case). And the idea that God's eternal knowledge necessitates belief in doctrines which deny free will as Calvinism is usually understood to, is not self-evident either.
It did seem to me that you were rejecting the idea that double predestination would not necessarily be implied by the belief that God knows from all eternity the whole destinies of souls. If that is not your position, then I have misunderstood you, and I apologize for that. -
Janus
16.3kMy own view would very much be all white if we're sticking with the metaphor, he says enigmatically! — Barry Etheridge
That is enigmatic and being a prosaic fellow, I am not getting you here. Would you care to explain what you mean by "all white"? -
Wayfarer
22.5kI agree that pre-destination seems an extremely perplexing thing to accept, in light of God's supposed benevolence, and a stumbling block for many people. But, firstly, not even all Protestants accept Calvin, and Catholic and Orthodox Christians do not, for the obvious reason that they don't subscribe to reformation theology. An opposing tendency in Christian thinking is 'universalism', which is that ultimately ('ultimately' often connoting enormous periods of time) all are destined for salvation.
There's another point which is made by some Christian philosophers, which is that damnation is some real sense the consequence of a free choice. According to them, salvation is offered freely to all, and those who choose not to accept it, are 'consigned to hell' not by the 'vengeful lord' of Protestantism, but by their own poor choices, like 'the thirsty who refuse water'.
Consider the possibility that those 'in hell' are not really aware of their plight; they rationalise it, or have adapted to it, saying 'this is as good as it gets' or 'that's life'. That maybe why they're stuck!
The doors of Hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of Hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man 'wishes' to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free. — C S Lewis -
Ciceronianus
3kWhat you refer to are representative of efforts made to render Christianity "more reasonable." Those efforts have certainly been made, but they require disregard of scripture, or at least a self-serving interpretation of it, in this case. Both Revelation and Matthew refer to hell, the "lake of fire" and eternal punishment. It can be maintained, of course, that what is written in scripture "really" doesn't mean what it says, or cannot be taken literally, but there are problems with that approach. Some might say that those (few) parts of the Gospels which are taken to confirm Jesus' divine status don't really mean he was divine, for example.
Post hoc justifications, interpretations and rationalizations merely serve to establish the unreasonableness or incoherence of what they purport to address, and that presents a difficulty where religions, particularly revealed religions, are concerned. They constitute more a rejection of the religion than anything else, and the acceptance of something different. -
Wayfarer
22.5kI don't think the interpretation of hell as being a consequence of rejection of the good, is the least unorthodox. That's why I quoted Lewis.
I think it's more the case that we have been conditioned into the belief in a vengeful father figure through generations of preachers who have spoken of it in those terms, or have exploited such imagery for rhetorical effect. But that, again, is because the mechanism of reward and punishment is so engrained in human psychology that we can barely think of it any other way. But I think a liberative spirituality (which mainstream religion often is not) sees through the 'carrot and stick' mentality. That's not trying to rationalise or sanitize Christianity, it is very much in keeping with the intention of the OP.
The challenge is, to merely reject belief in heaven and hell is generally to relapse back into paganism (which Western culture is manifestly doing, albeit now armed with high technology). To be held in thrall to it, is to be enslaved by dogmatism (which is what fundamentalists do). To try and understand the profound symbolic meaning is what is required. And I think it's possible to do that, and still retain a Christian view of life. -
Janus
16.3kThe idea of predestination is already in Augustine's writings, and is apparently based on his understanding of humanity as a spiritually whole entity and the concomitant idea of the inescapably of original sin. The idea goes along with this that the destinies of souls are determined by original sin; that each individual carries the guilt of the race and that individuals cannot work out their own salvation, but must rely entirely on the grace of God.
This idea was opposed in Augustine's own time by Pelagianism, which asserted that humans are born as free of sin as Adam or Christ. This makes room for the idea of free will and the working out of one's own salvation.
The early Church fathers decided on a middle course that allows for original sin and also for the individual to work towards salvation to meet the grace of God 'halfway, so to speak. "A gift is not a gift unless it is not only given, but received" is the key thought here, I believe.
In this context there is also a very important logical distinction to be made between God's purported foreordination and His foreknowledge, and what might be thought to follow necessarily from each. -
Janus
16.3k
Yes, I agree. That's interesting and new to me what you say about 'synergy'.
:)
This 'middle way' would seem to be more compatible with the Buddhist doctrine of Karma. We are not born absolutely pure as the Pelagians would have have it, but neither are we responsible for "the sins of the fathers" (interestingly, it is never 'the sins of the mothers'!). -
Mongrel
3kI disagree. It's a harsh response to the greed and amorality of capitalist types. The fierceness of its admonition to work for the glorification of God rather than riches is meant to match the voraciousness of that greed. An example of a cool Calvinist is Ben Franklin.
-
Ciceronianus
3kMatthew 10:28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 25:41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
Matthew 13:42: "They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."
2 Thessalonians 1:9: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might "
Matthew 25:46: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Revelations 21:8: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
But, apparently, they won't be aware of the fiery lake, everlasting destruction, eternal punishment, the fire which never goes out, the blazing furnace, the eternal fire. Scripture neglects to mention this, but no matter. -
Janus
16.3k
That's a good point; I probably by default read Wayfarer to mean "predominately a destructive influence". The thing I have always found that does my head in about Calvinism is the same thing that does my head in about (hard) determinism; the idea that our destinies are already set in stone. I can't see how that can motivate anyone to actions either good or bad, and I certainly can't see how it could motivate any sense of personal responsibility. And the thing about Calvinism that is a further mind-frack for me is that, despite a total lack of personal responsibility, we are to be judged for our actions. At least good ol' hard determinism is not only free of personal responsibility, but free of judgement, that is free of praise and blame,(or should be, if is to be consistent,anyway), as well. -
Mongrel
3kYea. I don't know how much the finer points of predestination translated out to the general Calvinist public. I think a religion can be a response to a particular psychic/social problem. In the case of Calvinism, it appeared around the same time that huge ambitions and unprecedented power were accompanying the rise of merchant class types. In the US, anyway, Calvinism is associated with working for the public good... in other words. it's saying that people should use their power to help others. Just using money and power to help yourself means nothing in the final analysis.
-
Janus
16.3kYes, you're probably right that the entailments of the idea of predestination are not made explicit to themselves by those who are not philosophically minded, and in that sense, as a purely affective movement, Calvinism may indeed have been a very positive force for social good.
Human life is so full of paradoxes! -
Wayfarer
22.5kBut, apparently, they won't be aware of the fiery lake, everlasting destruction, eternal punishment, the fire which never goes out, the blazing furnace, the eternal fire. Scripture neglects to mention this, but no matter. — Ciceronianus the White
What I observed was that there are Christian philosophers who say that 'hell' or 'damnation' can be understood as the rejection of salvation, so, in some sense, those who suffer it have chosen that fate; it is a consequence of their actions. It parallels the doctrine of 'evil as the privation of the good', which is also associated with Augustine.
That doesn't deny the reality of hell, but what it denies is the suggestion of a kind of 'divine vindictiveness' or the idea that God has created some souls whom he has then consigned to hell as a part of the overall design of Creation. That plays into the hands of atheism - 'this God, you say is good, has created a vast number of people whom he will then send to eternal torment'. The alternative interpretation is, there may indeed be those who will forego the opportunity for salvation, but that is not because God made them that way, rather, that they choose it from their own free will. Recall that a basic Christian doctrine is that one must be free to make this choice, for it to be meaningful at all.
Interestingly, there are vivid depictions of hell in medeival Buddhism also - actually, typical for Buddhism, there are a number of different hells, some hot, some cold, and all quite Heironymous Bosch-like in their evilness - but nobody is sent there by 'a divine judge' (although Yama, who represents both death and time, is often iconographically depicted as a fearsome demon). Rather, the fate of beings in 'the next world' is determined by their actions in this life.
Max Weber, the Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, is an essential read about Calvinism. -
Barry Etheridge
349
Important to remember that the word 'Hell' is an artifact of translation. Hell is actually a pagan concept from the goddess Hel who rules the Norse 'underworld'. The word 'gehenna' does not imply a physical 'hell' and is not interpreted as such for many centuries. Augustine, for example, could never have believed in the existence of Hell since evil has no reality but is the absence or diminishment of good. It is more accurate to see the cursed as being in the same boat as Adam and Eve, simply banished from Eden. They are both literally and figuratively 'the leftovers' exactly what you'd expect to find in 'gehenna' the landfill site of Jerusalem.
Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." — Ciceronianus the White
This is out of place in this discussion, in my opinion. The whole Sermon on Mount is best interpreted as a stand-up routine in my opinion so anything within it must be considered as a very clever joke sending up the Law and the Pharisaic interpretation of it. -
Barry Etheridge
349What I observed was that there are Christian philosophers who say that 'hell' or 'damnation' can be understood as the rejection of salvation, so, in some sense, those who suffer it have chosen that fate; it is a consequence of their actions. It parallels the doctrine of 'evil as the privation of the good', which is also associated with Augustine. — Wayfarer
The only possible interpretation for my money! -
Buxtebuddha
1.7k
The whole Sermon on Mount is best interpreted as a stand-up routine in my opinion
What? >:O
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum