Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[OmarKhayyam]

"Excellent case-in-point. Did you come up with that on your own? No. Why do you buy into it? Because it has meaning for you. It also had meaning for someone else, or they wouldn't have bothered to write it down. Your meaning has been informed by the meaning common to us all."

You quite miss (deliberately?) the point.

There is no COERCION here. I picked that out of a vast store of possible works. I PICKED as in MY choice. I did not chose a sermon by Billy Sunday.:cover:

The "community" does indeed contain a wealth of knowledge. But I choose what and how.

Same careful self imposed ignorance with your search for satisfactory explanation. Who said there WAS one? And you said whatever explanation is correct is SUPPOSED to satisfy you - or anybody?:thud:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't answer that. Since love and goodness are the things we innately hope for, how can we imagine hoping for something else?

Nobody said anything about hoping. At this point, we're just hypothesizing (well, I'm trying to hypothesize at least. I get the sense that you're more interested in dodging questions).

And anyone who can't imagine adverse situations is a poor planner. Denying that something is possible just because we don't like its implications is what we call "wishful thinking".

However, this is all putting the cart before the horse a bit, since the question before us is whether the situation we'd have with an apathetic God (or "something other than God", if you prefer) would be any more adverse than the situation we have now, and one of the answers that has not been ruled out yet is that it would not be different at all.

 

[Willamena]

If that is true then WHAT IS the point? I can make up any image I want, imagine whatever afterlife I like, ascribe whatever attributes I like and as long as I say 'That is MY idea' no one can say otherwise.

That is just meaningless gibberish.

'It means THIS cause I say it means this' is childish - to put it nicely.

You also have images that you don't "make up" --reality, for instance. The image of reality that we hold is not the actuality of reality. If there is any point to discussing reality, then there is a point to discussing anything.

 

[sojourner]

If that is true then WHAT IS the point? I can make up any image I want, imagine whatever afterlife I like, ascribe whatever attributes I like and as long as I say 'That is MY idea' no one can say otherwise.

That is just meaningless gibberish.

'It means THIS cause I say it means this' is childish - to put it nicely.

What other way would you want to put it??
But you're essentially right. This isn't about personal interpretation, it's about shared meaning, as we have discussed with regard to literature. It means something powerful for each of us, because it's shared with the community, and the community lends credence to our intuition. Since the Abrahamic belief is, at its base, a communal, not an individual belief (the Tradition typtically speaks about the people -- not individuals), it's not about what I believe -- it's about what we believe. In fact, that's the basis for the Nicene Creed: We believe...

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You also have images that you don't "make up" --reality, for instance. The image of reality that we hold is not the actuality of reality. If there is any point to discussing reality, then there is a point to discussing anything.

You are ignoring the fact that my image of reality can be compared to an external reality that exists independent of me and independent of my perception of it.

Unless you are taking the position that this monitor I see in front of me is not really there but just an image in my head cause I think it OUGHT to be there.

 

[sojourner]

There is no COERCION here. I picked that out of a vast store of possible works. I PICKED as in MY choice. I did not chose a sermon by Billy Sunday.:cover:

No, but you did pick something that has meaning for you -- and that meaning is a shared meaning, defined by the author. That is my point

 

[sojourner]

The "community" does indeed contain a wealth of knowledge. But I choose what and how.

As do we all.

 

[sojourner]

Nobody said anything about hoping. At this point, we're just hypothesizing (well, I'm trying to hypothesize at least. I get the sense that you're more interested in dodging questions).

And anyone who can't imagine adverse situations is a poor planner. Denying that something is possible just because we don't like its implications is what we call "wishful thinking".

However, this is all putting the cart before the horse a bit, since the question before us is whether the situation we'd have with an apathetic God (or "something other than God", if you prefer) would be any more adverse than the situation we have now, and one of the answers that has not been ruled out yet is that it would not be different at all.

No, this doesn't have to do with wishful thinking. It has to do with our innate intuition in returning to a state of love and goodness -- for that is where we innately want (or hope) to be. Because that it the state toward which we naturally want to gravitate as "right" for us, we cannot imagine what the alternative would be. That's like asking a homosexual to imagine what it might be like to be heterosexual.

To the contrary, I think it would be vastly different, because it would change our very nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, this doesn't have to do with wishful thinking. It has to do with our innate intuition in returning to a state of love and goodness -- for that is where we innately want (or hope) to be. Because that it the state toward which we naturally want to gravitate as "right" for us, we cannot imagine what the alternative would be.

Of course we can, and this is what I talked about when I refered to wishful thinking: what we hope for doesn't affect what actually exists. To say otherwise is wishful thinking.

That's like asking a homosexual to imagine what it might be like to be heterosexual.

It's easy to imagine: he just thinks about the attraction he or she has for the same sex, and then imagines what it would be like if he or she felt that attraction to the opposite sex.

To the contrary, I think it would be vastly different, because it would change our very nature.

How so?

Look - here's an example to show how I see it:

Say you fall off a cliff. What happens?

- if a loving God exists who wants to protect His "children" but doesn't care too much about their free will, you're plucked from the air and set down gently without injury.

- if a loving God exists who, out of a loving desire to give his children free will, grants them the ability to make decisions and to experience the consequences of their actions, you're smashed on the rocks below and you die.

- if an apathetic God exists who doesn't care about humanity or its free will and just doesn't feel like going out of His way to save you, you're smashed on the rocks below and you die.

- if God does not exist, you're smashed on the rocks below and you die.

That's what I mean when I say that the God you describe is indistinguishable from an apathetic God: in every measurable way, the outcome if He were to exist would be the same if an apathetic God existed instead... or if no God existed at all.

 

[sojourner]

Of course we can, and this is what I talked about when I refered to wishful thinking: what we hope for doesn't affect what actually exists. To say otherwise is wishful thinking.

You don't understand what I'm saying. We are innately wired to be returned to a state of love and goodness. Whenever we experience something bad, we don't say, "Ah! Now I'm home!" We want the badness to be over with. When we experience something good, we know it's the right state for us to be in. Wishful thinking doesn't have anything to do with it. Of course we hope that things will be better, but that isn't the impetus. The impetus is knowing our right state when we experience it. That intuition is fleshed out in our understanding of God. We have determined that love and goodness are our right state, and we have determined that God is Beginning and End. Therefore, love and goodness, also being our beginning and end, are the attributes that must define God.

It's easy to imagine: he just thinks about the attraction he or she has for the same sex, and then imagines what it would be like if he or she felt that attraction to the opposite sex.

Can you imagine every fiber of your being longing for a state of suffering? I can't.

 

[sojourner]

How so?

Look - here's an example to show how I see it:

Say you fall off a cliff. What happens?

- if a loving God exists who wants to protect His "children" but doesn't care too much about their free will, you're plucked from the air and set down gently without injury.

- if a loving God exists who, out of a loving desire to give his children free will, grants them the ability to make decisions and to experience the consequences of their actions, you're smashed on the rocks below and you die.

- if an apathetic God exists who doesn't care about humanity or its free will and just doesn't feel like going out of His way to save you, you're smashed on the rocks below and you die.

- if God does not exist, you're smashed on the rocks below and you die.

That's what I mean when I say that the God you describe is indistinguishable from an apathetic God: in every measurable way, the outcome if He were to exist would be the same if an apathetic God existed instead... or if no God existed at all.

You're predicating God on the empirical evidence of physics. But we predicate God on the basis of our intuition about our "right" state of being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't understand what I'm saying. We are innately wired to be returned to a state of love and goodness. Whenever we experience something bad, we don't say, "Ah! Now I'm home!" We want the badness to be over with. When we experience something good, we know it's the right state for us to be in. Wishful thinking doesn't have anything to do with it. Of course we hope that things will be better, but that isn't the impetus. The impetus is knowing our right state when we experience it.

That last sentence is a huge assumption on your part. I really don't see how you make the leap from what seems to me to be a tautology (i.e. we like things we consider good and dislike things we consider bad) to the idea that this indicates that we're "meant" to be one way or another.

That intuition is fleshed out in our understanding of God. We have determined that love and goodness are our right state, and we have determined that God is Beginning and End. Therefore, love and goodness, also being our beginning and end, are the attributes that must define God.

So... you're presupposing some major things.

All right... let's try again. Set aside your assumption that the fact that we prefer experiences we like to experiences we dislike is somehow proof of God. If our likes and dislikes are evidence of nothing of cosmic importance or divine will, how could you tell a loving God who grants freedom to all His creation from an apathetic God who can't be bothered to interfere?

Can you imagine every fiber of your being longing for a state of suffering? I can't.

I'm not asking you to do that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're predicating God on the empirical evidence of physics.

Not exclusively. If you've got other sorts of empirical evidence, logic or observation, I'd be happy to hear about it.

But we predicate God on the basis of our intuition about our "right" state of being.

Why on Earth would you do that?

If we're predicating the existence of things based on our intuition, then there exists a huge army of monsters that hide in dark basements and under beds.

 

[Willamena]

You are ignoring the fact that my image of reality can be compared to an external reality that exists independent of me and independent of my perception of it.

Unless you are taking the position that this monitor I see in front of me is not really there but just an image in my head cause I think it OUGHT to be there.

What image of reality do you have that is not of external reality? I was talking about the latter.

I am taking the position that the monitor that is really there is known to you by its image.

 

[Willamena]

Not exclusively. If you've got other sorts of empirical evidence, logic or observation, I'd be happy to hear about it.

I think the "other sort" is what's being explained.

Why on Earth would you do that?

If we're predicating the existence of things based on our intuition, then there exists a huge army of monsters that hide in dark basements and under beds.

Is "God" in this case, the case of what's being explained, "the existence of things"? Edit: Meh.. nevermind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the "other sort" is what's being explained.

I don't think it is. "I like it when I experience good things" could be considered an observation, but extending it to "I like it when I experience good things, therefore I'm meant to experience good things, therefore God" isn't based on empirical evidence, logic or observation AFAICT.

Is "God" in this case, the case of what's being explained, "the existence of things"? Edit: Meh.. nevermind.

No, I just meant that God is a thing whose existence was being asserted.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think it is. "I like it when I experience good things" could be considered an observation, but extending it to "I like it when I experience good things, therefore I'm meant to experience good things, therefore God" isn't based on empirical evidence, logic or observation AFAICT.


No, I just meant that God is a thing whose existence was being asserted.

It seems to me to be a stronger psychological argument than you've redressed it as. Being "innately wired" to return to a state of good is no more proposterous than many other suggestions put forward by psychology/philosophy. And it seems to be based on sound observation, even to the extent of having an example provided.

 

[themadhair]

When we experience something good, we know it's the right state for us to be in.
…
That intuition is fleshed out in our understanding of God.

You are so far off the mark here sojourner it almost hurts. Creatures, whether human or otherwise, try to avoid pain, suffering and unhappiness. This is a developed trait that played a major role in survival. A feedback loop that has been continuously reinforced through generations as it were.

You are simply labelling what is almost a tautological longing for happiness as an intuitive understanding of god without any justification for doing so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me to be a stronger psychological argument than you've redressed it as. Being "innately wired" to return to a state of good is no more proposterous than many other suggestions put forward by psychology/philosophy. And it seems to be based on sound observation, even to the extent of having an example provided.

I think my issue is with the certainty of the argument. I think a range of plausible explanations would work for why we're "innately wired" this way, and IMO several seem much more likely than saying that God did it.

Getting back to the original discussion, all this came about because I asked sojourner to tell us what things would be like with an apathetic God. His response was basically that an apathetic God could not exist, because then this key aspect of our existence (i.e. this "innate wiring") could not exist because it would lack its cause.

However, since it has a range of plausible causes that do not require God, and since it may just be a matter of interpretation or personal point-of-view in the first place, I don't think that sojourner's argument so far works. Frankly, I'm having trouble not believing that this IMO specious argument just isn't his way of avoiding a difficult question.

 

[Willamena]

I think my issue is with the certainty of the argument. I think a range of plausible explanations would work for why we're "innately wired" this way, and IMO several seem much more likely than saying that God did it.

Getting back to the original discussion, all this came about because I asked sojourner to tell us what things would be like with an apathetic God. His response was basically that an apathetic God could not exist, because then this key aspect of our existence (i.e. this "innate wiring") could not exist because it would lack its cause.

However, since it has a range of plausible causes that do not require God, and since it may just be a matter of interpretation or personal point-of-view in the first place, I don't think that sojourner's argument so far works. Frankly, I'm having trouble not believing that this IMO specious argument just isn't his way of avoiding a difficult question.

I don't think causation is an issue, although it's vocally framed in that manner often. Speaking for myself, what I see in what's said about the God who informs reality with "innate good" --the God that if he were to be apathetic would inform a reality so different that it's hard to imagine --what I see is a relationship of dependency, rather than causation. God's good is the world's good. God and reality, in their existence, interdepend.

From the perspective of causation, everything has multiple causes --not really relevant here, because all we're being asked to look at is "this particular relationship that exists." We're being asked to look at the image of God that this community that produced the image held, not to justify God's existence.