pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/28/84)
This is a response to Daryel Akerlind's note of July 6. I saved it because it is one of the few sceptical inquiries posted to this group that I have found stimulating, rather than frustrating or offensive. As I mentioned in a letter to Daryel at that time, I (at least) save all such articles as a stimulus to my own thinking. The trouble is that the best articles require the most time in thought to give them a deserving response. That is time--I regret--that I don't always have. Well now I have *some* time, so here is my contribution--for what it's worth. I quote all of Daryel's original article because it has been so long since it was posted. >Many religious believers that I have encountered believe that failure to >believe in their religion is a sin and deserves punishment. Christians seem >most prone to this sort of belief, so I will carry out this discussion in >the context of Christian belief; but please keep in mind that much the same >arguments could be directed at other religions. I can only speak from my own Christian beliefs, I'm not sure that what I say can be considered orthodox, they are just my own thoughts which I feel have scriptural support. The Christian view of Man is that he is fallen. Separation from God is his natural state. So part of the "punishment" is not really punishment, it is the final result of that natural separation. Jesus indicates that there are varying degrees of "punishment" in Hell as well as varying degrees of "reward" in Heaven. The whole of Scripture indicates that God offers Justice in the next life in measure with what is done here. But I honestly don't know all the details, only God can know them. It's hard to talk about punishment for non-belief in the general sense. I think God considers each individual case and he knows all the relevant data. On the other hand, just as ignorance of the law is no protection against it, one cannot stop his ears to the Gospel in the hopes he will be able to tell God "But I didn't know...". What it probably comes down to is that each of us knows how honest with ourselves we are being in handling the question of wether or not Christianity might be true and, if so, will we accept its implications for our lives. Only you and God have that kind of ultimate knowledge. Does this mean that evangelical Christians are off base in their preaching of the Gospel because they don't have ultimate knowledge as to wether their hearers are redeemed? I don't think so. A relationship with anyone needs to be examined periodically to determine its health. Voicing the Gospel helps all of us to at least think about it once in a while and consider its solution when we might not have come to think of it on our own. Also it is disgustingly narrow to treat the Gospel as if its only implications were for the next life. This life is equally important. Those who are only concerned with "getting people saved" because they think heaven is all that matters sell the Gospel short. >How can one justify a non-believer being punished on the basis of not >accepting the truth of God and Jesus Christ and so forth? It seems >indefensible to me. Let us consider why one should believe, and why lack >of belief should merit punishment. Also, to avoid having to talk about an >abstract he/she non-believer, let me use myself as an example of a >non-believer. > >(1) Some would say that the truth of Christianity can be deduced from the >evidence around one. > >First, I would object that the evidence I know of does not warrant the >conclusion that Christianity is true. It is possible that some people have >enough evidence to warrant that conclusion, but I do not. I think I would dissagree with this point anyway. I don't think the evidence in Nature is at all conclusive as to the truth of Christianity. I don't see it as contradictory to it, however. The Bible does seem to indicate that such evidence should, at least, lead one to a monotheistic worship of a benevolent Creator. (see Romans 1:16-32). The Bible teaches that in Eden communication between God and Man was plain. After the Fall that relationship gradually disintegrated. I say this only to point out that monotheism was the precident for Humankind. Polytheism and atheism are deviations from that, a result of the breakdown in the direct communication between God and Man, Man's inherent rebelliousness (we all like to be our own god in some sense) and probably also due to the influence of Satan in the world, who also likes to get people to serve his desires. >But now let the first objection be dropped; let us assume that the truth of >Christianity can be deduced from the evidence around us. Now, I tell you >plainly that I cannot imagine a valid argument from the evidence to the >conclusion of Christianity's truth, nor am I able to perceive the validity of >the arguments to that conclusion that have been presented to me by the >Christians I have known. Clearly, I lack the intellect to understand the >arguments. Am I not to be pitied this lack of intellect rather than be >punished for it? I think we all lack the intellect to understand fully any religion that would be a true context for a relationship with an infinite God. The problem isn't with the lack of anyone's intellect (I think you're being too humble here). Where the intellect is concerned the truth of any religious belief is provisional--and there is nothing wrong with that. It is necessarily so. Many of our beliefs are provisional. Everyone has a different acceptance level for being satisfied intellectually with their religious beliefs and those that accept it at a lower level are not to be belittled for doing so. Any universal religion (such are ones that punish for unbelief) cannot be based on man's ability to grasp divine concepts fully. Otherwise, we must find fault with God for excluding those whose intellectual abilities fall below the line. So the acceptance of a religion as being true, though not without its intellectual qualities, must be rooted in something in Man that is deeper and more basic than his intellect. I think that with Christianity it is rooted in his very nature and (fallen) condition. It comes from the realization that salvation is a basic necessity and just how that salvation is best accomplished. > >(2) What remains is the exhortation to believe, to have faith in Christianity. > >But I tell you simply that I do not believe. This is not a decision I have >made; I haven't chosen not to believe. It is just a fact that when I >look at myself I find that I do not believe. (It is like the fact that I find >jackal cubs cute, but I do not find fully-grown jackals cute. I didn't choose >not to find fully-grown jackals cute. I simply don't find them cute.) >Am I to be punished for something I didn't choose? > Maybe I'm reading you wrong here, but it seems to me that you are overlooking the fact that we do choose (perhaps not always consciously) what we will and won't believe. The very fact that we do or don't believe something presumes that that something has been presented to us and we have chosen to accept it or reject it. Your response to the jackals is not analogous to belief. It is simply a response you have to an observation. If something is to be believed as true then it is not a matter of personal taste. Maybe some think neither the cubs or the adults to be cute. Does that change the look of the cubs? The acceptance of religious belief has to do with wether or not we believe something is true, not wether or not we think it's cute. You do beleive that jackals are real, though you may only have seen pictures of them (that's all you would need to see to tell wether or not you thought they were cute). In looking at your situation, you have been presented with Christianity. The presentation may have been flawed, you may not have been able to understand it, or the presenters may have been lacking in their ability to communicate it. The point is that you have rejected what you have been presented with to the point where you do not think the argument compels you to accept Christianity as true. More along these lines below. >Possibly, at this point, some Christians are saying that I should TRY >Christianity, that by not trying Christianity I am turning my back on god >and thereby deserving punishment. But Christianity is only one of many >religions. I am surrounded by paths, each with claims that it is the true >way and that I should follow it until I discover it's truth. There is not time in your life for you to really try all the religions. If there is one that is true among the many that are ultimately false, do we hold it against God for letting Man develop a plethora of other religious beliefs as an alternative? To vanquish all the wrong choices would be to remove the possibility of disbelief. You have to narrow your own choices. I don't think that the great number of existing religions is good justification for not trying any one in particular. > >Imagine me in the desert, dying of thirst. Before me is a sign saying >"This is the way to water"; but all around me there are other signs saying >the same thing. Each sign points in a different direction. Is it any wonder >that I climb one sand dune; then, when I see no water, I take a new direction >and climb another; then another; until, finally, I am just confused? Maybe, >if I had just followed the first sign for another mile, I would have found >water. But then maybe it was the second sign I should have followed. Or >maybe I should ignore the signs, and follow my own hunches. Maybe there just >isn't any water in that desert. > >Who would condemn me for turning my back on the third sign, which was, let us >say, the one that did lead to water? Who would say: "You had your choice. >You turned your back on the true way. You brought your agony on yourself. >You are to blame, and you deserve what you suffered."? > >The situation is analogous to that with regard to religion. There are signs >pointing in all sorts of directions. How can I be (justifiably) condemned >for failing to cling to Christianity for that extra mile, when all I had seen >so far was desert? I have already qualified the "condemning" part above, so I am not taking your idea of it as being accurate here. I just want to respond now to the problem of selecting the "right" religion among many. Suppose you could examine the character and qualifications of those who posted each of the signs. In a comparison you might find that, if there is any water at all, there is a certain one who ought to know better than the rest. So to follow his path would make your faith in doing so based on a rational decision. You may still follow the path not being positively sure that there is water, but you at least start out with better reason for making that provisional choice. So compare Jesus with Mohammad or Budda, etc. and decide which of them is the most likely to know what they are talking about. Some of the sign posters you may have no data on. I believe you must reject their signs. If there is a God who is really concerned about us finding water, he would have sent a qualified person to post the sign. If the true God is one who doesn't care even that much then we might as well give up and die anyway. Besides that, I find your analogy far too simple to apply very well. Some religions seem to branch off of others. You might need to follow one path for a while then decide between two others. Also, some of the religions are different in their idea of Man's need and the solution. Some would have you deny that you are thirsty, others would have you embrace that fact that you are as being wonderful, still others may say you need something besides water to quench your thirst (a drug to make you forget it, perhaps). You must again narrow your choices by rejecting those that ignore the real problems or offer false solutions. For example, I have to accept a belief in the supernatural because, in following C.S. Lewis' arguments against Naturalism in his book "Miracles", I find no way to trust my rationality within a purely naturalistic framwork. So, having heard that argument I am already on theistic ground. (Of couse I never had any real adversion to theism in the first place.) I cannot accept the idea that Nature is all there is. We cannot get past Descartes' principle "dubito ergo sum" without a provisional acceptance of the supernatural. Indeed, Descartes himself couldn't. (Yet even this is not the logical deduction he thought it to be. The premise already contains the conclusion.) Those who want to understand the details of this postion should read "Miracles", although Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" has more bearing on this particular discussion. Another problem that stems from the provisional nature of religious belief is that those who insist on always standing outside a belief and looking in will not have the motivation to search thouroughly enough in order to satisfy the problems they encounter with it. You have to travel along the path at least a little way in order to even begin to get the impression that it goes nowhere. Of course, you may also get the opposite impresion as you go (which is that only thing I claim to have as a Christian--I didn't become one because I answered all challenges to it beforehand). > >So, it seems indefensible to me that I (and other non-believers) should be >punished on the basis of not believing. Saying that I have brought my >suffering upon myself by straying from the true path seems equally unjust, >for I never chose to follow a false path, I was always trying to find the >truth. So, if there are any of you out there who do feel that a >non-believer deserves to be punished for their lack of belief, how do you >justify that? If by non-belief you meant that you had no knowledge of what the belief or "path" entails then I would agree with your first statement. But that does not seem to be what you are claiming for yourself. You have heard something about Christianity and you do reject that something as being insufficient proof to merit your acceptance. You may even have concluded that there is no point in persuing the matter further. So although you claim not to have chosen a path you knew to be false (seems silly that anyone would) you have chosen not to follow certain paths. And the fact that you say you were always trying to find the truth implies that you *are* on some path. Some of the problem with searching for God is that it doesn't stop when you find him. Going back to your analogy, when the man finds the well he finds and perceives the total of what he was looking for. By sticking with this analogy too far you could find yourself trying to find and comprhend the whole of an infinite God before you believe in him at all. > >As a final note, let me point out that a non-believer does suffer for their >lack of belief. For a Christian, everything in life has its place; God is in >control; every hardship, every tragedy, is in His plan, is but a step towards >eventual total happiness. But for the non-believer there is the fear that >all is meaningless, empty, and the spectre of death hangs over themself and >all they love. Think back to the signs in the desert. The non-believer is >dying in the sand. Sure, if they had followed that third sign far enough, >they would have found the sweet water. But should they be left dying in the >sand because of their mistake? Is that just? Should they suffer like that >while someone else, of no greater virtue, but who just happened to follow the >right sign, drinks and bathes in the oasis? Is it just? I think the following quote from Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" is appropriate here: The problem is not simply that of a God that consigns some of his creatures to final ruin. That would be the problem if we were Mahometans. Christianity, true, as always, to the complexity of the real, presents us with something knottier and more ambiguous--a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures, and who yet, where that heroic remedy fails, seems unwilling, or even unable, to arrest the ruin by an act of mere power. I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay "any price" to remove this *doctrine*. I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the *fact*. And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell. In trying to fit Christianity into your analogy you have forgotten all that the Christian God has supposedly done to "bring your horse to water". The well you seek may not be so far off after all. As always, I don't pretend to have solved the problem non-believers face here, but I hope I have at least clarified it somewhat. Sometimes that needs to be done first. Regards, -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
slag@charm.UUCP (Peter Rosenthal) (08/10/84)
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 For some of us, belief in anything is a feeling, a sense, a conviction and an emotion. We do not choose to believe, we merely believe. That is why we can not consciously look at the evidence of christianities truth around us and choose to believe it. We believe what we believe just because that is what we are. You can say that you chose to believe, but you didn't. You either believe because thats how you feel, or you are lying to yourself about how you really feel. Belief in mystical matters can't be supported the way mathematical proofs can.
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (08/10/84)
You mean that belief is something you don't choose (As in, "I just realized at some point that I was a Sacramentalist. Since my family was Baptist, it was a real problem....") This is beginning to sound like the nature/nurture stuff in net.motss. Could you unpack that idea a little bit maybe?? I keep thinking that I'm misreading this a bit. ________________________________________________________________________________ If you ask me, I may tell you gtaylor@cornell it's been this way for years Gregory Taylor I play my red guitar.... Theorynet (Theoryknot) ________________________________________________________________________________
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (08/10/84)
> For some of us, belief in anything is a feeling, a sense, > a conviction and an emotion. We do not choose to believe, we > merely believe. That is why we can not consciously look > at the evidence of christianities truth around us and > choose to believe it. This sounds like a sample of mystical con artistry. For every emotion, conviction, feeling, etc. there is a reason. It is clearly within the domain of psychology. The above is equivalent to saying "you feel this way because you feel this". > We believe what we believe just > because that is what we are. You can say that you chose > to believe, but you didn't. You are what you are because that's what you were brought up as, not "because that's what you are". > You either believe because > thats how you feel, or you are lying to yourself about > how you really feel. "because thats how you feel"? Why do you feel this way? The above implies that no further self-analysis is possible. To summarize: you believe because you feel, and you feel because you believe, and you believe because of what you are, and you are this because you believe what you feel, and that all is pure truth and God's word. Ufff, I think I got carried away.
ab3@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) (08/21/84)
Methinks perhaps Paul should put down his bible long enough to pick up a dictionary. :-) -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk Sometimes I feel like I'm fading away, Looking at me, I got nothin' to say. Don't make me angry with the things games that you play, Either light up or leave me alone.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/23/84)
Methinks perhaps Paul should put down his bible long enough to pick up a dictionary. :-) ---Rsk I would like to request that references to "Paul" be qualified a bit more, so that it is clear whether you mean Paul Dubuc or myself (we're not the same person). We do have very similar names, and we seem to read an almost identical set of newsgroups. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/25/84)
> Methinks perhaps Paul should put down his bible long enough > to pick up a dictionary. :-) > ---Rsk > > I would like to request that references to "Paul" be qualified > a bit more, so that it is clear whether you mean Paul Dubuc or > myself (we're not the same person). > Paul DuBois The confusion gets worse than that. With all this recent talk about "if Paul's sex life had been ...", I hope Messrs. Dubuc and Dubois aren't thinking that we're slanderizing them (or peeking in their windows :-) -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr