Meadowchik Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 9 hours ago, bluebell said: Some do, definitely. But not all. Knowing what someone wants you to do, and even believing they sincerely believe it’s best, doesn’t always mean much if you really don’t want to do it or don’t agree with them. That's not enough, though. In the context of God, do you believe that God wants us to do things because God says so, or because they are good? Is God God because he is good are are things good because God says so? In LDS cosmology, I think it is clear that God is God because God is good. Similarly, it becomes my job as a parent to teach my children why something is good. There are exceptions when there isn't time and some things have to be explained later like with urgent, life-threatening situations, but usually "because I said so" is a no-go for me as a parent.
Meadowchik Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: Even with certainties I have seen people ignore what they know they should do. Knowing that eating healthy and exercising regularly will let you lead a happier life has not led to a renaissance in health. Oh gosh, I feel that. I think in that case, knowing what is healthy is not the sole skillset needed to know how to eat healthy and exercise. Our bodies are effectively programmed to eat when food is available and rest when we can rest, and we have a whole array of hormones related to stress and so forth which impact our feelings about eating. There are some cultures which are much more focused on teaching how to manage all of those feelings and also eating, and in my anecdotal experience it makes a difference. (There are so many fit old people who ride bikes in Europe!)
Robert F. Smith Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: I'm not sure what this has to do with "withholding naturally available evidence." Teaching children how so they can learn and do themselves is the opposite of helicopter parenting. Correct. Humans learn by doing. In fact the best classes for children are always those in which they learn by hands-on experience and expression of their own innate feelings. Exploration. The most boring and least productive educational experience is one in which children are told what to think instead of learning how to think -- that's why the city assembly executed Socrates, and why they considered him such a danger to the youth of Athens. Even today that battle for the minds of youth goes on in earnest. God refuses to put His thumb on the scale and tell them what to think, but rather wants them to learn how to think. Biology class is best taught through experimentation. Why? Because the experimental method replicates the way in which all science proceeds. Discoveries are not made through rote memorization by automatons. This applies in all the sciences, as well as in development of the human mind. Whether one is a yogi learning meditation, or a mathematician learning about the relationship of numbers and geometry, it is precisely the encounter with one's own mind which is most productive (Alma 32). God wants his children to learn through experience, and only thus can they express any sort of free agency. Any naturally available evidence must be discovered by the hapless human inquirer, not presented to him on a silver platter. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 15 hours ago, stemelbow said: ..............The "we need faith" explanation really only comes out as an excuse for the mistaken myths of the past to me. I'm reminded of the many errors found within the Mormon Church over it's history. Today the reasoning is simply "they were mistaken, spoke presumptuously" and all of that. But that can only be taken so far, else the religion disappears and is lost. If God, then the God is hidden because we need faith doesn't really square. You prove my point very well. If God had put his thumb on the scale, and the natural evidence was so obvious, you would not say this. Instead, we find the fundamental issues up for grabs and arguments made on both sides of the debate. You can be self-assured, and so can your opponents.
Meadowchik Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Correct. Humans learn by doing. In fact the best classes for children are always those in which they learn by hands-on experience and expression of their own innate feelings. Exploration. The most boring and least productive educational experience is one in which children are told what to think instead of learning how to think -- that's why the city assembly executed Socrates, and why they considered him such a danger to the youth of Athens. Even today that battle for the minds of youth goes on in earnest. God refuses to put His thumb on the scale and tell them what to think, but rather wants them to learn how to think. Biology class is best taught through experimentation. Why? Because the experimental method replicates the way in which all science proceeds. Discoveries are not made through rote memorization by automatons. This applies in all the sciences, as well as in development of the human mind. Whether one is a yogi learning meditation, or a mathematician learning about the relationship of numbers and geometry, it is precisely the encounter with one's own mind which is most productive (Alma 32). God wants his children to learn through experience, and only thus can they express any sort of free agency. Any naturally available evidence must be discovered by the hapless human inquirer, not presented to him on a silver platter. That (bolded) seems like a false dichotomy. There's a difference between teaching and presenting information, and there is a difference between withholding natural evidence and letting us discover evidence naturally. It is possible to offer information and help a person understand it experientially. Furthermore it would be highly immoral to only wait for our children to discover important information haplessly. That would be the opposite of progress and growth.
stemelbow Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 14 hours ago, let’s roll said: I don’t find any ambiguity or mystery in anything you posit above. I know who could clear it up for you, but you don’t believe He exists. If we spend our time seeking answers from mortals, the best we can hope for is mortal answers. Perfect, omniscient answers come from perfect, immortal sources. Btw, I trust that there are many who say they know God, knowing full well that they don’t...in the same sense that there are many who tell us they’re here to help us knowing full well they’re only trying to help themselves. I admit your last line is quite concerning. People who try to believe so much so as pretending, or faking it until they make it, even if that make it never comes, are somehow destined to God's displeasure. What a weird mindset religion puts people in.
bluebell Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: That's not enough, though. In the context of God, do you believe that God wants us to do things because God says so, or because they are good? Is God God because he is good are are things good because God says so? In LDS cosmology, I think it is clear that God is God because God is good. Similarly, it becomes my job as a parent to teach my children why something is good. There are exceptions when there isn't time and some things have to be explained later like with urgent, life-threatening situations, but usually "because I said so" is a no-go for me as a parent. But that supposes that God doesn't tell us why He asks us to do or not do things. And I don't believe that's true. 2
Meadowchik Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: But that supposes that God doesn't tell us why He asks us to do or not do things. And I don't believe that's true. It does not suppose that about God, I was applying my response to your statement: Quote Some do, definitely. But not all. Knowing what someone wants you to do, and even believing they sincerely believe it’s best, doesn’t always mean much if you really don’t want to do it or don’t agree with them. to the God concept. What it does is imply that a good God will tell us why we're to do something commanded by God. I can agree with that.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said: That (bolded) seems like a false dichotomy. There's a difference between teaching and presenting information, and there is a difference between withholding natural evidence and letting us discover evidence naturally. It is possible to offer information and help a person understand it experientially. Furthermore it would be highly immoral to only wait for our children to discover important information haplessly. That would be the opposite of progress and growth. There is a difference between teaching and enabling, which is why we need enablers and facilitators in our classrooms rather than cheerleaders who teach to the test and expect rote regurgitation. We need mentors who provide opportunity instead of social grading. A meritocracy has the greatest value, instead of a pretend system of equal outcomes. The Law of the Harvest is harsh but realistic, and children must be prepared for the real world -- with real disappointments along with real achievements. That is the way of real progress and real growth. God does not put His thumb on the scale and interfere. That is the true economy of God.
Meadowchik Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: There is a difference between teaching and enabling, which is why we need enablers and facilitators in our classrooms rather than cheerleaders who teach to the test and expect rote regurgitation. We need mentors who provide opportunity instead of social grading. A meritocracy has the greatest value, instead of a pretend system of equal outcomes. The Law of the Harvest is harsh but realistic, and children must be prepared for the real world -- with real disappointments along with real achievements. That is the way of real progress and real growth. God does not put His thumb on the scale and interfere. That is the true economy of God. This seems like an unnecessary moseying through details of education. Anyway, to the bolded, then that would then be consistent with what I am saying about faith: God "hiding" things in order to make faith necessary would not be in God's character. Edited September 3, 2020 by Meadowchik
let’s roll Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I admit your last line is quite concerning. People who try to believe so much so as pretending, or faking it until they make it, even if that make it never comes, are somehow destined to God's displeasure. What a weird mindset religion puts people in. It’s a concern we share. The people I was referring to aren’t trying to believe, or as you describe it, faking it until they make it. They’re consciously trying to manipulate others through deception. That mindset is held by some in many contexts: education, business, personal relationships, and religion. 2
Ahab Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 22 hours ago, Meadowchik said: If there is a God, I still don't think it tracks. Imagine the judgment bar and that you're there. How do you know it is God? If it is a supreme being, how do you know it is The Supreme Being? And then, how do you know it is good, a being worthy of worship? For one thing, the veil will be lifted at the judgment bar, if not sooner, and all of your previous memories of your life and knowledge with your Father in heaven will come back to you, so you'll remember he has always been your Father. Another thing that will help you to know and distinguish your Father from anyone else in existence is what you know about what good is, and conversely what evil is too. Your knowledge of good and evil will help you to know him. Just like it helped Adam and Eve. 22 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Faith would still be necessary. Of course. Faith is simply the state of being sure of something, whatever you have faith in. So whatever you feel sure about is what your faith is in. Everyone has faith in something. They must have. Otherwise they wouldn't feel sure about anything. 22 hours ago, Meadowchik said: So I think that the argument that God is hidden because we need to have faith is what does not make sense. It seems like an excuse for the lack of evidence of some special claims. I think the reasoning, for people who think that, is that they think God must be hidden if they don't have any faith in God, otherwise they would be sure about everything about him. As if them not knowing anything or much about God must be God's fault, not their own fault. The poor me syndrome, as I call it. As if they think they are helpless or powerless to find out who and what God is. Pathetic, really. Thus the need for others to try to teach them how they can get to know God for themselves.
Meadowchik Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 (edited) On 9/3/2020 at 7:05 PM, Ahab said: I think the reasoning, for people who think that, is that they think God must be hidden if they don't have any faith in God, otherwise they would be sure about everything about him. As if them not knowing anything or much about God must be God's fault, not their own fault. The poor me syndrome, as I call it. As if they think they are helpless or powerless to find out who and what God is. Pathetic, really. Thus the need for others to try to teach them how they can get to know God for themselves. That's not the context. The context is faithful believers who are trying to explain the lack of evidence for various specific religious claims. So they say that God withholds evidence in order for faith to be possible. I'm saying that faith would always be necessary regardless of the existence of all possible evidence. Edited September 5, 2020 by Meadowchik
pogi Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I'm saying that faith would always be necessary regardless of the existence of all possible evidence. How so? Science doesn't like it if we say their science is based on faith.
Ahab Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: That's not the context. The context us faithful believers who are trying to explain the lack of evidence for various specific religious claims. So they say that God withholds evidence in order for faith to be possible. Okay, then I agree that that doesn't make sense, either. Faith is the evidence God commonly gives us to assure us that something is good or true. It is what helps people who have that faith to be sure about whatever they have faith from God in. But faith can come from other sources, other than God, too. I could feel sure that something is true or good without receiving any faith from God on that issue. And others can too. The point is that faith is the state of being sure of something, and God doesn't necessarily withhold any evidence or his faith that something is good or true. So there is no good reason for someone to feel sure that he does. 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I'm saying that faith would always be necessary regardless of the existence of all possible evidence. I agree with you on that point.
Ahab Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 6 minutes ago, pogi said: How so? Science doesn't like it if we say their science is based on faith. Science is not a person so what I think you mean is that some so-called scientists don't like that. Which is no big deal and it is true whether they like it or not.
bluebell Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said: It does not suppose that about God, I was applying my response to your statement: to the God concept. What it does is imply that a good God will tell us why we're to do something commanded by God. I can agree with that. Sorry if I misunderstood. It seemed like you were saying that a God that requires us to accept some things on faith isn't telling us why we're to do something (and therefore isn't a 'good' god). If that's not what you were saying then we are agreeing with each other. 1
Glenn101 Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: That's not the context. The context us faithful believers who are trying to explain the lack of evidence for various specific religious claims. So they say that God withholds evidence in order for faith to be possible. I'm saying that faith would always be necessary regardless of the existence of all possible evidence. I had to think about that a bit, then decided I must pretty agree with you. The narrative about the dissension in heaven, I think, pretty much illustrates that point.
pogi Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Ahab said: Science is not a person so what I think you mean... Seriously Ahab, you don't need to correct every figure of speech. Are you really concerned that I thought science was a person, or are you just being the usual semantic troll that you are? 36 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think you mean is that some so-called scientists don't like that. Ding, ding, ding!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. 36 minutes ago, Ahab said: it is true whether they like it or not. Classic Ahab. Edited September 3, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 50 minutes ago, pogi said: Seriously Ahab, you don't need to correct every figure of speech. Are you really concerned that I thought science was a person, or are you just being the usual semantic troll that you are? if by troll you mean person who says something with hopes of initiating a response from those who hear me then yes i plead guilty to being a happy and lovable troll. A happy and lovable troll who also has an affinity for semantics. 50 minutes ago, pogi said: Ding, ding, ding!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. YaY! How do you plan to get it to me? 50 minutes ago, pogi said: Classic Ahab. Always.
The Nehor Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 19 hours ago, stemelbow said: How would they be proven true? I don't know but I am interested to find out.
stemelbow Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 6 hours ago, let’s roll said: It’s a concern we share. The people I was referring to aren’t trying to believe, or as you describe it, faking it until they make it. They’re consciously trying to manipulate others through deception. That mindset is held by some in many contexts: education, business, personal relationships, and religion. I find that as concerning. God refuses to get to know people and so they turn out to be manipulators and then he condemns them for that? If God just spent the time to get to know everyone, recall he refuses to get to know many "believers" and that also might mean he refuses to get to know many on believers, then we wouldn't have to imagine many approaching God in the end and him coldly informing them He never knew them and wished them to end up in hell.
let’s roll Posted September 3, 2020 Posted September 3, 2020 14 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I find that as concerning. God refuses to get to know people and so they turn out to be manipulators and then he condemns them for that? If God just spent the time to get to know everyone, recall he refuses to get to know many "believers" and that also might mean he refuses to get to know many on believers, then we wouldn't have to imagine many approaching God in the end and him coldly informing them He never knew them and wished them to end up in hell. Apparently I was mistaken in my assumption that your comments were sincere. I will disengage. Godspeed to you. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 11 hours ago, Meadowchik said: This seems like an unnecessary moseying through details of education. My arguments on the proper mode of education are actually quite controversial and held in derision by most people. Socratic dialogue is still hated with a passion in most circles. 11 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Anyway, to the bolded, then that would then be consistent with what I am saying about faith: God "hiding" things in order to make faith necessary would not be in God's character. God doesn't hide anything. A naturalistic God in a natural universe cannot hide anything. It is not part of His nature. 1
stemelbow Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 13 hours ago, let’s roll said: Apparently I was mistaken in my assumption that your comments were sincere. I will disengage. Godspeed to you. I suppose my question would be...how do you know what God is thinking when it comes to those believers whom He tells He never knew them? It seems to me the NT and BoM describes believing people who truly thought they were doing what God wanted them to do and many of such believers, are those whom God coldly declares he never knew them. It seems to me you are stretching the words to suggest that it's really just manipulative bad people who never really believed anyway. Do you do that because it makes you feel better or is there reason to think that? Additionally, as I said, I find even the notion that God coldly tells anyone, even someone who committed a murder or something, that He never knew them, problematic. It's as if He's lying by saying as much, or He simply decided not to try and get to know some people, or many people, and those are ones who end up being condemned in eternity. So on such reasoning each person's fate wholly depends on whether God wishes to try and get to know someone or not. To me this type of issue is what epitomizes the problem with Christianity generally (encompassing all forms of it). And yes, I'm genuine in my disagreements with the religion here.
Recommended Posts