Is knowledge of God natural knowledge?

[1213]

Not sure about that. I think there are also those who would dearly love to believe, but for whatever reason simply cannot.....

I can't imagine any good reason for not to believe. But, luckily i don't think the point is to believe in the existence of God. The point is to become righteous, because eternal life is promised for them.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[KWED]

Why would one do that? I suggest that would be the wrong way to do it.

WTF? You recommended that yourself!

Me: So you want me to try believing in a god I know doesn't exist to see if that helps me believe.
You: That is actually the best way.

If you know and are happy nothing else is needed, then stick with what you know.

You misunderstand. There is always more to be learned, and we must keep learning it. It is the finite certainty or belief that I object to.

I will offer that I have found in life, that life does and will give us the opportunities to think outside of our own safety bubbles.

Religion / spiritualism is a safety bubble that people are reluctant to think outside of.
There is a whole, amazing, real universe out there. Why invent stuff when there's more than enough actually there??

This is the enduring irony. Religionists keep accusing sceptics and scientists of being "close-minded" when it is actually the other way round.
This video might help you understand...

 

[KWED]

Yeah. There is no evidence of that, but there is evidence they can believe anyway. So in fact, religion is a fact for how the world works in part. I get that they are normatively wrong for your norms for evidence, but they are at least no factual wrong in some cases.

Sorry, that makes no sense.

 

[KWED]

There is a book that condenses the essence of all those books into around 150 short meditations, so maybe that will be best to offer.

Those meditations tell us the purpose of faith in God.

https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/hidden-words/

This is the introduction;

"THIS is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of divine virtue."
(The Hidden Words)
www.bahai.org/r/642922139

regards Tony

With all due respect, those are just the same old meaningless platitudes.
You just give them import because they are from the brand of religionism that you personally favour, in the same way that a Catholic might quote scripture at you in a heartfelt attempt to enlighten you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, that makes no sense.

And that is a part of how the world works. The world is not made so it only makes positive sense. There are limits to evidence, reason, logic and so on.

 

[KWED]

I can't imagine any good reason for not to believe.

How about - because it is just Bronze Age myth and superstition?

But, luckily i don't think the point is to believe in the existence of God. The point is to become righteous, because eternal life is promised for them.

1. How does one become "righteous"?
2. Why would anyone want eternal life?

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

"Eternal punishment" is inherently an unjust concept.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So basically, belief in god is based on threats of violence and promises of reward?
How very rational and civilised.

 

[KWED]

And that is a part of how the world works. The world is not made so it only makes positive sense. There are limits to evidence, reason, logic and so on.

No. I meant that the words you used, in that particular order, make literally no sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I meant that the words you used, in that particular order, make literally no sense.

Is religion natural as a human behavior?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Religion / spiritualism is a safety bubble that people are reluctant to think outside of.
There is a whole, amazing, real universe out there. Why invent stuff when there's more than enough actually there??

Let's go with that.

I will have my safety bubble and the amazing universe.

The arguments are useless.

Regards Tony

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

There is something in human biology that intuits the divine. But it seems to be a very primitive, unevolved sense, like an eye that only sees light and dark. Thus, it only perceives very badly, and fills in what is hard to understand with imagination. Thus you end up with some people who believe that Nature is God, others that bleive the divine is fractured (polythiesm) and others who believe that the divine is unified (monotheism.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is religion natural as a human behavior?

All cultures across time and location have religion. It is as part of the human experience as art, music, etc.

 

[KWED]

Is religion natural as a human behavior?

Anything that humans do is "natural".
If you mean "is it a necessary and innate part of human behaviour", then obviously not.

 

[KWED]

I will have my safety bubble and the amazing universe.
The arguments are useless.

But you (and many like you) accept the rational, scientific, evidence-based universe every day - so why invent an extra and unnecessary element that distracts from reality?

Actually, I do understand why people do it. It is sometimes easier or more comforting than reality. I guess it's kinda the same reason some people use drink or drugs to escape a difficult reality.

 

[KWED]

All cultures across time and location have religion. It is as part of the human experience as art, music, etc.

Not sure if I'd put it in the same category as those things. Rather than a creative means of expression and escape, organised religion is a regimented means of control and assimilation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anything that humans do is "natural".
If you mean "is it a necessary and innate part of human behaviour", then obviously not.

Neither is science.
Both science and religion are non-necessary and non-innate parts of human behaviour and both behaviours have limits:

We both know the limits of religion, so here are the limits of science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you (and many like you) accept the rational, scientific, evidence-based universe every day - so why invent an extra and unnecessary element that distracts from reality?

Actually, I do understand why people do it. It is sometimes easier or more comforting than reality. I guess it's kinda the same reason some people use drink or drugs to escape a difficult reality.

Reality is not this world. I see the world more like this.

"....The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion. It may, moreover, be likened unto the lifeless image of the beloved whom the lover hath sought and found, in the end, after long search and to his utmost regret, to be such as cannot “fatten nor appease his hunger....”

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

Neither is science.
Both science and religion are non-necessary and non-innate parts of human behaviour and both behaviours have limits:

Science is a process, not a belief.
If every science book, and our memories of them, were erased from history, we would eventually reproduce those same books.
If the same thing happened to religious books, they would never be rewritten.

We both know the limits of religion, so here are the limits of science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Indeed. And I would not go skiing on my laptop.
Was there a point there?

 

[KWED]

Reality is not this world.
I see the world more like this.
"....The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion. It may, moreover, be likened unto the lifeless image of the beloved whom the lover hath sought and found, in the end, after long search and to his utmost regret, to be such as cannot “fatten nor appease his hunger....”

IOW
"I do not believe what can be detected, tested, reproduced or predicted is real. Instead, I believe that the imaginary is real - but only my version of the imaginary, not anyone else's".
Pretty convincing!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is a process, not a belief.
If every science book, and our memories of them, were erased from history, we would eventually reproduce those same books.
If the same thing happened to religious books, they would never be rewritten.

Indeed. And I would not go skiing on my laptop.
Was there a point there?

Yes, science is objective as a human behavior, but not all human behavior can be do objectively. Nor can all human behavior be done subjectively.
So yes, science is important, but that it is important is subjective. And that people can believe differently about how science works on the subjective, is subjective.

So we end here in practice. Science has limits and how different humans deal with that is subjective. Just as religion has limits and how different humans deal with that is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IOW
"I do not believe what can be detected, tested, reproduced or predicted is real. Instead, I believe that the imaginary is real - but only my version of the imaginary, not anyone else's".
Pretty convincing!

No, I never said that.
Physical is real and the mental is real. The objective is real and the subjective is real.
I am a skeptic and I don't believe that the world is just physical nor just mental.

You are dealing with 3 variants:
The world is material.
The world is immaterial.
I don't believe in either of those.

See, we are both atheists and that is for this exchange all. We lack positive beliefs in gods.