Why Does God Stay His Hand

[Vanguard]

Here's a thought provoking take on why God might allow evil and suffering to be inflicted on the world - 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Vanguard
I have more to be said on this but let's see if this gets any legs. : )

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  Of course there are complaints they have made that they did not like on things that I required and expected out of them.  I don't see the point of specific examples really.  They changed over time based on circumstances, age and maturity. I think I see where you are trying to go with this and it does not work IMO. I did not starve my children and I did not allow them to go without shelter and clothes.  I made sure they obtained good medical care. I did not inflict punishment on them randomly like acts of god or nature do.  Trying to equate human suffering that an alleged God being allows, inflicts, creates, etc is not the same.  And keep in mind there are attributes humans have attributed to a God being that are inconsistent with the suffering we are talking about.

 

As noted I think Mormonism does a better job than most theistic religions do in trying to reconcile evil and suffering with a loving God being.

 

All that said, really what I or you as a human would or would not do for our children or other humans is not relevant. We are tailing about a God described in the monotheistic sacred texts.  And we are talking about whether such a being is moral to allow for the untold human suffering that people can and do go through.  And really can such evil and suffering exist a the same time such a being allegedly exists. I think the answer is more likely than not no, such a being cannot exist and at the same time allow such suffering and evil.  THe fact is we just live in a natural world and our bodies are frial.  They can be harmed in all sorts of ways through accidents and acts of nature.  We can get sick, we die. Humans can be evil of their own accord and inflict harm and sufferung on others as well. Suffering really serves no purpose in and of itself. It simply is as part of the natural world in which we live.

 

 

You did point out that your children’s complaints change(d) over time based on a number of factors, indicating that their perception of morality changed, and that what is moral under one set of conditions differs under another set. I’m sure your morality has changed over the course of your adulting, too. Yet you seem unable to extrapolate the child-parent relationship to the person-God relationship on this point, given the religious backdrop. And just because you don't believe in God.

But you are asking about the God I believe in, and why He is moral under x-y-z conditions in this faith, so you need to hear the explanations in that context. To say they don’t work simply because you don’t share the religious paradigm doesn’t render the God in this belief system immoral -- you already held that opinion (and you asked about mine!). I'm wondering why my explanation provoked a litany of facts, allegations, and rhetoric justifying your bias.

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But the problem is where does the line between myth and literalness blur.  It seems to me the Mormonism is a literalistic religion. Is there room for being a member in good standing and yet not accept its literalness? Maybe for some?  For most?  I don't think so.  Does pragmatism in religious belief and practice work?  It can. Is it best?  I don't know?  

 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is fine for you.  But your chosen faith has expectations does it not?  There are expected orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  How does one navigate that if they fall outside of those expected parameters.

That is something I am learning to navigate.  I think it largely depends on local leadership.  That is a burden of judgment on their shoulders that I wouldn't wish on anyone.  I have to follow my own conscience in the end and let the chips fall where they may - aka "do what is right let the consequence follow..." 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  I would call myself an agnostic and I while I am skeptical that there is a God and an afterlife I hope there is.

Perfect.  Then we understand each other. 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But I am not willing to submit to any belief system that requires me to confirm to dogma and behavior in order to be part of their club.

Me neither, unless directed by the Spirit to do so. 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What do you mean when you ask if it is better to disbelieve what is actual?

As an agnostic, you acknowledge the possibility that God may exist and hope in Him - so why do you think it is better to disbelieve because he may be myth?  It doesn't seem you are considering the opposite possibility that he may actually exist and considering the ramifications of lost opportunity to hope or believe.  

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't claim absolute certainty.  

Good.  Then let go of the myth vs literalness debate, because it can't be known anyway.  Our own truth in mortality is what we make of it. 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There are many things and beliefs that cannot be known with certainty that you likely reject. Are there fairies? Are there leprechauns?  Is Zeus a God?  The beliefs of scientology?  Do you take the same position with them?  I could claim any theology I invented out of whole cloth and say the same thing.  How do you know my god invention is a myth or not?  What would you expect to be convinced to at least have faith?

I would need a reason to believe, some kind of fruit of experience. 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

On a personal level as long as you are not harming others likely no harm other than your own growth and development may be hindered.  For humans taken as a whole, it may be very harmful to our progression and maturing as a species.

Sure, we can see how people can be manipulated or deceived to their harm.  In the end though, we can't know anything with certainty, so give up on the idea that there is some ideal that we should subscribe to.  Test the seeds man.  That's all we can do.   

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is just Pascal's Wager.

It is a wager that is currently working for me. 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And at times it seems to me believing in something without good evidence is simply wishful thinking.

Who said that I am believing in anything without good evidence?  I have really good convincing evidence that there is a God.  I am as convinced as I can possibly be.  There are more types of evidence than just scientific.   I think that believing in that dogma alone runs the risk of being deceived and may be harmful to progression in other ways.   It goes both ways. 

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

One actually can live a full life without believing myths.

I call BS on that claim.   Who has lived a life without believing in myth, and how would you know?  How could one know with certainty?

Edited December 5, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I believe we can.

If we believe God is omniscient I am not sure how our prayers can influence the outcome. I know the D&C says to pray over the sick and give them a blessing and if they are not appointed unto death then they will be healed. Well if they are not appointed unto death does it matter if we pray?  And if they are appointed unto death we cannot make any difference.

So how do our prayers influence God?

 

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can't answer all those questions because I'm not God,

Are they reasonable questions to ask. to think and ponder about?

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

but I do like what the Bible Dictionary says about prayer:

 

Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

So this seems to say that we really don't influence God but he already plans to do something to fix some suffering but ONLY if we ask. That seems a bit capricious.  And how does one determine what things we should be putting the effort forth to pray really hard about.  What are the highest blessings of all referred to?  What does that mean?

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You did point out that your children’s complaints change(d) over time based on a number of factors, indicating that their perception of morality changed, and that what is moral under one set of conditions differs under another set.

You totally misunderstood, or misconstrued, my point. I did not talk in the terms of moral at all.

 

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

I’m sure your morality has changed over the course of your adulting, too. Yet you seem unable to extrapolate the child-parent relationship to the person-God relationship on this point, given the religious backdrop.

LIke I said, I knew where you were going with this and I was spot on. And I distinguished between my issues that cause my questions to the attempt to try to equate our parent child relationship as to the relationship an all powerful being puts its creations in.

 

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

And just because you don't believe in God.

You really should read what I say and what I have said about the topic of God.  My position is I DO NOT KNOW.  And neither do you by the way.

 

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you are asking about the God I believe in, and why He is moral under x-y-z conditions in this faith, so you need to hear the explanations in that context.

I did not ask you specifically about the belief in YOUR particular God. My interest in this discussion is are the explanation theists use to justify the problem of evil and suffering rational and reasonable.  I think it is more in your camp and other believers camp to come up with rational and satisfying explanations for the problem of evil and suffering.  Your explanations for the god you believe in seems to work for you.  It doesn't for me.  And it doesn't for a lot of others.

 

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

To say they don’t work simply because you don’t share the religious paradigm doesn’t render the God in this belief system immoral -- you already held that opinion (and you asked about mine!).

Any explanation certainly can be judged to render a god being that is being believed in as immoral. I never said it was just because I don't believe in a certain explanation is satisfactory.

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

I'm wondering why my explanation provoked a litany of facts, allegations, and rhetoric justifying your bias.

The comments I made were not to justify any bias. It was to note the problems I see with some explanations I see here. Yours among them.  I am simply trying to discuss them. If that offends you just pass on interacting with me. And avoid the personal jabs.

[Teancum]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

That is something I am learning to navigate.  I think it largely depends on local leadership.  That is a burden of judgment on their shoulders that I wouldn't wish on anyone.  I have to follow my own conscience in the end and let the chips fall where they may - aka "do what is right let the consequence follow..." 

Perfect.  Then we understand each other. 

Me neither, unless directed by the Spirit to do so. 

As an agnostic, you acknowledge the possibility that God may exist and hope in Him - so why do you think it is better to disbelieve because he may be myth?  It doesn't seem you are considering the opposite possibility that he may actually exist and considering the ramifications of lost opportunity to hope or believe.  

Good.  Then let go of the myth vs literalness debate, because it can't be known anyway.  Our own truth in mortality is what we make of it. 

I would need a reason to believe, some kind of fruit of experience. 

Sure, we can see how people can be manipulated or deceived to their harm.  In the end though, we can't know anything with certainty, so give up on the idea that there is some ideal that we should subscribe to.  Test the seeds man.  That's all we can do.   

It is a wager that is currently working for me. 

Who said that I am believing in anything without good evidence?  I have really good convincing evidence that there is a God.  I am as convinced as I can possibly be.  There are more types of evidence than just scientific.   I think that believing in that dogma alone runs the risk of being deceived and may be harmful to progression in other ways.   It goes both ways. 

Ok. I will ponder the above.

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I call BS on that claim.   Who has lived a life without believing in myth, and how would you know?  How could one know with certainty?

I think you misunderstand my point.  Perhaps better said, one can live a wonderful fulfilling life without believing in a god like being.  There are wonderful ways to manage that.  Nihilism does not have to be the outcome.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Here's a thought provoking take on why God might allow evil and suffering to be inflicted on the world - 

That seems like a "neener neener neener" kind of title for that video (i.e. "Atheists can't disprove God").  Of course atheists would also say that deists can't prove God.  So we're at an impasse.

But I would agree that the problem of evil can't (and doesn't) disprove God.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You totally misunderstood, or misconstrued, my point. I did not talk in the terms of moral at all.

 

LIke I said, I knew where you were going with this and I was spot on. And I distinguished between my issues that cause my questions to the attempt to try to equate our parent child relationship as to the relationship an all powerful being puts its creations in.

 

You really should read what I say and what I have said about the topic of God.  My position is I DO NOT KNOW.  And neither do you by the way.

 

I did not ask you specifically about the belief in YOUR particular God. My interest in this discussion is are the explanation theists use to justify the problem of evil and suffering rational and reasonable.  I think it is more in your camp and other believers camp to come up with rational and satisfying explanations for the problem of evil and suffering.  Your explanations for the god you believe in seems to work for you.  It doesn't for me.  And it doesn't for a lot of others.

 

Any explanation certainly can be judged to render a god being that is being believed in as immoral. I never said it was just because I don't believe in a certain explanation is satisfactory.

The comments I made were not to justify any bias. It was to note the problems I see with some explanations I see here. Yours among them.  I am simply trying to discuss them. If that offends you just pass on interacting with me. And avoid the personal jabs.

LOl let the down votes roll!

[california boy]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

That is something I am learning to navigate.  I think it largely depends on local leadership.  That is a burden of judgment on their shoulders that I wouldn't wish on anyone.  I have to follow my own conscience in the end and let the chips fall where they may - aka "do what is right let the consequence follow..." 

Perfect.  Then we understand each other. 

Me neither, unless directed by the Spirit to do so. 

As an agnostic, you acknowledge the possibility that God may exist and hope in Him - so why do you think it is better to disbelieve because he may be myth?  It doesn't seem you are considering the opposite possibility that he may actually exist and considering the ramifications of lost opportunity to hope or believe.  

Good.  Then let go of the myth vs literalness debate, because it can't be known anyway.  Our own truth in mortality is what we make of it. 

I would need a reason to believe, some kind of fruit of experience. 

Sure, we can see how people can be manipulated or deceived to their harm.  In the end though, we can't know anything with certainty, so give up on the idea that there is some ideal that we should subscribe to.  Test the seeds man.  That's all we can do.   

It is a wager that is currently working for me. 

Who said that I am believing in anything without good evidence?  I have really good convincing evidence that there is a God.  I am as convinced as I can possibly be.  There are more types of evidence than just scientific.   I think that believing in that dogma alone runs the risk of being deceived and may be harmful to progression in other ways.   It goes both ways. 

I call BS on that claim.   Who has lived a life without believing in myth, and how would you know?  How could one know with certainty?

I have been following your posts for a while now.  I know you are struggling to figure out how to navigate your lost of trust in Church leaders.  I totally get that.  Loss of trust in Church leaders was one of the most difficult things for me to navigate.  Maybe things were easier for me when I was excommunicated.  It made being a part of the Church not possible.  Of course they offered a path back, but, where that path lead really wasn't an option for me.  I firmly believed that I could be loved and that God wanted me to find someone that could love me.  You aren't facing that finality, so for you, you are trying to find a way to navigate a way that will work for you. 

Being cut off from the Church that I had my whole life was scary.  On top of that, I knew that almost all of my friends and even my family would distance themselves from me.  Only 3 people from my ward and stake ever talked to me again.  It took 13 years before my family decided that I could be included as part of the family again.  Yeah those scars are pretty deep.  

But in a way, it was a blessing.  I was forced to evaluate on a very basic level my relationship with God.  I was starting from scratch and had to build block by block may relationship with God.  That part was way easier than I thought.  All the sudden, my relationship was not based on any dogma.  It had to be built entirely on how I felt in a very spiritual way and what was right for me.  I realized I didn't have to give up my relationship with God or the Spirit.  That unfiltered connection seemed stronger than trying to fit that personal connection with God into an institution that I no long trusted.  

I guess what I am saying that pulling away from the Church does not mean pulling away from God.  You might just find that it can actually pull you closer to God.  It forces you to trust your relationship with God rather than men who think only they know the correct answers for your relationship with God and have to be a filter for doctrine.  You will have to figure out how to do that for yourself rather than being told.  It might mean taking a break from the Church, which can be scary for all the reasons it was scary for me.  

Just offering a different perspective.  Hope it is a little helpful.  I wish you only the best on your journey.  

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

LOl let the down votes roll!

The down votes?  Why?

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Here's a thought provoking take on why God might allow evil and suffering to be inflicted on the world - 

 

I don't think he really provided any compelling reason for why, if there is a God, it allows evil and suffering.  His basic argument was that the logical argument by atheists that use the problem of suffering cannot argue EVERY logical argument to its end conclusions so they now take a probability approach.  He also essentially says, well it is God and who are we to question evil and suffering.  I wonder if he takes his own position that there is a God and scrutinizes it with the same approach he is arguing against the atheist position on suffering.  I have listened to a number of debates with various atheists and Craig.  Craig makes a lot of a priori assumptions.  He has not impressed me.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Teancum

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you misunderstand my point.  Perhaps better said, one can live a wonderful fulfilling life without believing in a god like being.  There are wonderful ways to manage that.  Nihilism does not have to be the outcome.

I agree.  But that requires creating meaning out of nothing.  If there is no God, that is what theists are doing after all, and it works for us.  That requires believing in myth though.  Creating stories/meaning/purpose out of nothing requires creating our own myths of existence/purpose/meaning.     The difference is that it is easier to create meaning where one believes in a larger purpose or meaning to creation/existence.   For an atheist, one would have to be careful to pay special attention to the meaning they create and place the "nothing" that it originates from on the shelf in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would ensue by trying to reconcile the two.  If one allows themselves to intellectually and openly explore the larger "nothing" that is so fully encompassing, I think that nihilism would easily consume.  I personally can't see any way around nihilism if one accepts a creation and universe void of purpose or larger meaning.  Atheist philosophers have attempted to get around nihilism by creating their own myths, and it works.  The only conclusion I can come to when considering a Godless universe would be hard determinism, where we have no choice, no agency, no self, being driven by a purposeless and meaningless existence.  That realization, for me, would lead to an unavoidably nihilistic conclusion.  Sam Harris has created his own myths to avoid nihilism, but that is all they are - myths.  Myths work.  I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their utility in happiness/meaning/purpose. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

But I would agree that the problem of evil can't (and doesn't) disprove God.

I don't think anyone says the problem of evil and suffering conclusively disproves God. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't think he really provided any compelling reason for why, if there is a God, it allows evil and suffering.  His basic argument was that the logical argument by atheists that use the problem of suffering cannot argue EVERY logical argument to its end conclusions so they now take a probability approach.  He also essentially says, well it is God and who are we to question evil and suffering.  I wonder if he takes his own position that there is a God and scrutinizes it with the same approach he is arguing against the atheist position on suffering.  I have listened to a number of debates with various atheists and Craig.  Craig makes a lot of a priori assumptions.  He has not impressed me.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only religion that provides a perfectly adequate and satisfying answer to the so-called “problem of evil and suffering.” The answer lies in the fact that the spirit of evil, and its attendant spiritual darkness and suffering, is coeternal with God and had no beginning; for there could be no existence unless reality of all that is is predicated on the eternal principle there being a diametric opposition in all things. Without there being a diametric apposition in all things, nothing, including God, could exist. In fact, the only reason why God needs to exist is because intelligences who personify spiritual darkness and evil stand in violent, everlasting opposition to God’s moral perfection, creativity and holiness.

The Latter-Day Saints don’t have to deal with the age old conundrum of why a perfectly good God, who exists in a solitary state of perfection and felicity, would ever want to disturb his perfect tranquility and create conditions upon he had to know his previously perfect and peaceful existence would be contaminated with the greatest extremes imperfection and misery. But the actual truth is established in the fact that without imperfection and evil there would be no God, and if there be no God nothing could exist. All there would ‘be’ is nothingness, that is, if nothing can actually be classified as something.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.(2 Nephi 2)

Edited December 5, 2023 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

If we believe God is omniscient I am not sure how our prayers can influence the outcome. I know the D&C says to pray over the sick and give them a blessing and if they are not appointed unto death then they will be healed. Well if they are not appointed unto death does it matter if we pray?  And if they are appointed unto death we cannot make any difference.

So how do our prayers influence God?

It is kind of hard to imagine, since we understand so incredibly little about omniscience and God.  I've explained my thoughts on the subject but I think some of these answers have to come through personal experience.  I've had some that have shown me how prayer can influence God but I don't generally share them (they probably wouldn't mean anything to you anyway since I wouldn't necessarily be able to articulate the most important parts).

Quote

Are they reasonable questions to ask. to think and ponder about?

Definitely and I think they are questions that most if not all sincere believers in God ponder at some point (or probably more like lots of points).  But in my experience the answers that come from such thinking and pondering are personal and can't easily be given to someone else.  Because you really do need to experience some things for them to make any sense.

Quote

So this seems to say that we really don't influence God but he already plans to do something to fix some suffering but ONLY if we ask.

It can seem like that I guess, but that's not how I understand it or how I've experienced it.

Quote

That seems a bit capricious. 

I don't think it does.  It does seem educational though, to me anyway.  Like the point is not just the praying and receiving (or not receiving) but the point is very much the learning that can come from doing the other stuff.

Quote

And how does one determine what things we should be putting the effort forth to pray really hard about.

The scripture say that we should be praying over everything.  

Quote

What are the highest blessings of all referred to?  What does that mean?

The highest of all blessings is probably exaltation but I think Elder McConkie probably meant that prayer is a part of seeking every blessing from God, including the highest.

Elder Bednar gave a great talk on this subject in 2008 and if you are sincerely looking for answers to these questions then I would recommend listening to it.  As to what it means to put forth effort through prayer to receive blessings, Elder Bednar said:

I long have been impressed with the truth that meaningful prayer requires both holy communication and consecrated work. Blessings require some effort on our part before we can obtain them, and prayer, as “a form of work, … is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings” (Bible Dictionary, “Prayer,” 753). We press forward and persevere in the consecrated work of prayer, after we say “amen,” by acting upon the things we have expressed to Heavenly Father.

Going from that, the work of prayer is not just the prayer itself. It is also the actions we take and the things we seek to accomplish after we are done praying, using that prayer as a template for the choices we make throughout the day.  I have seen this in my own life where I have prayed for something and then received inspiration on what to do to bring about the blessing that I have sought.  If I hadn't of followed that inspiration then my prayer would have come to naught.  It took both "holy communication" and "consecrated work" (directed by the Spirit) to receive the blessing that God was already willing to grant me but that was not possible for me to achieve without His help.

Thanks for a great discussion!

[MrShorty]

21 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only religion that provides a perfectly adequate and satisfying answer to the so-called “problem of evil and suffering.” The answer lies in the fact that the spirit of evil, and its attendant spiritual darkness and suffering, is coeternal with God and had no beginning;

I think it is rather arrogant to claim with this kind of certainty that "evil is eternally self-existing just like God is" is some kind of "perfectly adequate and satisfying answer" to the problem of evil. I understand how asserting that evil is eternally self-existent can stand in contrast to the creatio ex nihilo group that asserts that God created everything, including evil, out of nothing, but there is so much more to the problem of evil than the question of whether or not evil is co-eternal with God. I might even go so far as to say that, like some other historical issues, part of the problem with the way we LDS have handled the issue of the problem of evil begins with our certainty that we have all the answers so that we blind ourselves to the real problems.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I have been following your posts for a while now.  I know you are struggling to figure out how to navigate your lost of trust in Church leaders.  I totally get that.  Loss of trust in Church leaders was one of the most difficult things for me to navigate.  Maybe things were easier for me when I was excommunicated.  It made being a part of the Church not possible.  Of course they offered a path back, but, where that path lead really wasn't an option for me.  I firmly believed that I could be loved and that God wanted me to find someone that could love me.  You aren't facing that finality, so for you, you are trying to find a way to navigate a way that will work for you. 

Being cut off from the Church that I had my whole life was scary.  On top of that, I knew that almost all of my friends and even my family would distance themselves from me.  Only 3 people from my ward and stake ever talked to me again.  It took 13 years before my family decided that I could be included as part of the family again.  Yeah those scars are pretty deep.  

But in a way, it was a blessing.  I was forced to evaluate on a very basic level my relationship with God.  I was starting from scratch and had to build block by block may relationship with God.  That part was way easier than I thought.  All the sudden, my relationship was not based on any dogma.  It had to be built entirely on how I felt in a very spiritual way and what was right for me.  I realized I didn't have to give up my relationship with God or the Spirit.  That unfiltered connection seemed stronger than trying to fit that personal connection with God into an institution that I no long trusted.  

I guess what I am saying that pulling away from the Church does not mean pulling away from God.  You might just find that it can actually pull you closer to God.  It forces you to trust your relationship with God rather than men who think only they know the correct answers for your relationship with God and have to be a filter for doctrine.  You will have to figure out how to do that for yourself rather than being told.  It might mean taking a break from the Church, which can be scary for all the reasons it was scary for me.  

Just offering a different perspective.  Hope it is a little helpful.  I wish you only the best on your journey.  

 

Thanks for your kind well wishes.   I can see why it might be easier to have that finality and be severed from the church all together.  It is so much easier to be in all in or all out, for sure.   Heaven knows that I often feel more drained and discouraged than uplifted by attending church.  It doesn't seem that the church wants nuanced believers.  The institution seems to be built for all in or all out individuals - the 100% one true church or the 100% fraud type believers.  It doesn't feel friendly to the idea of "cafeteria Mormons" despite the reality that we are all cafeteria Mormons to some degree or another.  I am trying to find my place and it is a struggle. 

Currently, I find it a struggle worth forging forward in.  I think that struggle can be good and helpful in many ways.  I view it a lot like a marriage where the overall relationship provides real value but where differences and struggle are unavoidable realities that we can either grow from or be hurt by.  I am trying to find ways to grow from these unavoidable differences in avoiding an unnecessary divorce from a relationship that has given me so much. 

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree.  But that requires creating meaning out of nothing. 

I guess I am not clear on what you mean be creating meaning out of nothing. I can have meaning by living a good and decent life and doing moral and good things within my circle of influence. I can live in gratitude that I have this wonderful opportunity to live and understand that it is a rare thing it is. ONe does not need a religion with dogma and rules and assertions about truth.  I do not see that on par with what religion does and what religion requires.

 

 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

If there is no God, that is what theists are doing after all, and it works for us.

Well yes.  But theistic religions do a lot more than a simple myth created to give hope. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

That requires believing in myth though.  Creating stories/meaning/purpose out of nothing requires creating our own myths of existence/purpose/meaning.     The difference is that it is easier to create meaning where one believes in a larger purpose or meaning to creation/existence.

Ok.  But does your religion of choice promote adherence to it in this way? I understand you may approach it like this.  But Mormonism in general does not.

 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

 For an atheist, one would have to be careful to pay special attention to the meaning they create and place the "nothing" that it originates from on the shelf in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would ensue by trying to reconcile the two. 

I am not sure I follow your comment above.  Can you expand?

 

 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

If one allows themselves to intellectually and openly explore the larger "nothing" that is so fully encompassing with any serious rigor, I think that nihilism would easily consume.

I think nihilism CAN consume but it certainly does not have to. And I don't oppose an atheist creating myths and rituals that work for them.  Recently I came across a women named Britt Hartley.  Her search led her out of Mormonism and into a study of theology which eventually led to atheism. She did start down the path of nihilism but found healthy ways around it.  You can read more about this here if you have an interest:

https://nononsensespirituality.com/

 

 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

 personally can't see any intellectual way around nihilism if one accepts a creation and universe void of purpose or larger meaning. 

I think most atheist philosophers would rigorously disagree with you.

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

I think the only conclusion would be hard determinism, where we have no choice, no agency, no self, being driven by a purposeless and meaningless existence.  That realization, for me, would lead to an unavoidably nihilistic conclusion.  Sam Harris has created his own myths to avoid nihilism, but that is all they are - myths.  Myths work.  I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their utility in happiness/meaning/purpose. 

How are Sam Harris's approach myths?  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think anyone says the problem of evil and suffering conclusively disproves God. 

Not anyone who is seriously educated in logic and philosophy, I would guess, but I have heard a few strong atheists who appear to believe that and see it as the only reasonable conclusion anyone being honest with themselves can come to.  If I understood them correctly, they believed absence of proof was proof of absence, but did not understand that was what they were arguing.

[MrShorty]

On 11/27/2023 at 4:35 PM, Calm said:

Do you remove all the suffering of your children you possibly can though?

I've been thinking through this question. My thoughts are not fully formed, nor can I even claim that they are fully coherent, but I will throw them into the discussion and see what happens.

I think my answer to the question is, "Yes." If I could, I would remove/prevent all of the suffering of my children. If I had the ability to eradicate disease, I would. If I could eradicate poverty, I would. If I could eradicate war, I would. If I could eradicate the pain of failed relationships, I would. In short, if I had infinite ability to shape and mold the universe, I would shape and mold the universe to eliminate evil, pain, and suffering. Lest anyone claim I am stunting my children's growth, I would say that, if I had the ability to infinitely shape and mold my children's "education," I absolutely would develop a curriculum that was free of suffering and evil, that would teach them the things that they need/want to learn without pain and suffering.

At the end of the day, the only reason I can come up with for my "choice" not to prevent/remove all of the suffering my children can possibly go through is that some outside force/authority imposes evil and suffering on my children and prevents me from preventing/removing that evil and suffering.

I'm not sure what all that means. If I extrapolate my thoughts onto God, then I assume that something above God is what imposes evil and suffering upon us. Sometimes as parents and children we will talk about that point in a child's development when they realize that their parents are just regular humans and not superhuman. It can be easy to become disillusioned with an allegedly omnipotent God as He has been portrayed by religious teachers. I also find myself drifting into universalist paths, where, if God's only real power over evil is to redeem it, then God must have the ability to redeem all of His children (just as I would redeem all of my children if I were so empowered).

I don't know if that adds anything to the conversation. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that, if I had the power, I would choose to prevent and/or remove all suffering and evil from my children's worlds. The only reason I don't is because I lack the ability.

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I've been thinking through this question. My thoughts are not fully formed, nor can I even claim that they are fully coherent, but I will throw them into the discussion and see what happens.

I think my answer to the question is, "Yes." If I could, I would remove/prevent all of the suffering of my children. If I had the ability to eradicate disease, I would. If I could eradicate poverty, I would. If I could eradicate war, I would. If I could eradicate the pain of failed relationships, I would. In short, if I had infinite ability to shape and mold the universe, I would shape and mold the universe to eliminate evil, pain, and suffering. Lest anyone claim I am stunting my children's growth, I would say that, if I had the ability to infinitely shape and mold my children's "education," I absolutely would develop a curriculum that was free of suffering and evil, that would teach them the things that they need/want to learn without pain and suffering.

At the end of the day, the only reason I can come up with for my "choice" not to prevent/remove all of the suffering my children can possibly go through is that some outside force/authority imposes evil and suffering on my children and prevents me from preventing/removing that evil and suffering.

I'm not sure what all that means. If I extrapolate my thoughts onto God, then I assume that something above God is what imposes evil and suffering upon us. Sometimes as parents and children we will talk about that point in a child's development when they realize that their parents are just regular humans and not superhuman. It can be easy to become disillusioned with an allegedly omnipotent God as He has been portrayed by religious teachers. I also find myself drifting into universalist paths, where, if God's only real power over evil is to redeem it, then God must have the ability to redeem all of His children (just as I would redeem all of my children if I were so empowered).

I don't know if that adds anything to the conversation. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that, if I had the power, I would choose to prevent and/or remove all suffering and evil from my children's worlds. The only reason I don't is because I lack the ability.

What about the suffering of physical exercise?  Having to stand up in front of a class and give a presentation when you are shy?  Eating a vegetable you don't like?  Chores? Getting a bad grade when you didn't study for the test?  Going to court and dealing with the consequences when you break the law?  All of that is suffering too.

Some of that stuff is within your power as a parent to eliminate for your kids.  Have you eliminated it?

 

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What about the suffering of physical exercise?  Having to stand up in front of a class and give a presentation when you are shy?  Eating a vegetable you don't like?  Chores? Getting a bad grade when you didn't study for the test?  Going to court and dealing with the consequences when you break the law?  All of that is suffering too.

Some of that stuff is within your power as a parent to eliminate for your kids.  Have you eliminated it?

 

 

This is where my brain went to…so I will wait to comment until after this is responded to (not saying it has to be, just feel the need to clarify Mr. S’s position before attempting to dissect it).   

Edited December 5, 2023 by Calm

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think he really provided any compelling reason for why, if there is a God, it allows evil and suffering.  His basic argument was that the logical argument by atheists that use the problem of suffering cannot argue EVERY logical argument to its end conclusions so they now take a probability approach.  He also essentially says, well it is God and who are we to question evil and suffering.  I wonder if he takes his own position that there is a God and scrutinizes it with the same approach he is arguing against the atheist position on suffering.  I have listened to a number of debates with various atheists and Craig.  Craig makes a lot of a priori assumptions.  He has not impressed me.

It's certainly not compelling evidence if one wrestles with the notion of a supreme being. It's probably even a struggle for many who do (I fluctuate with the struggle). The whole thing seems paradoxical to me. If one already believes a supreme being has given him his ability to think and reason then it would be folly to use that God-given capacity to reason oneself out of that belief. ; ) Craig's point is that how can we evidence that God does not have sufficient reason to allow this kind of suffering? It's impossible unless we're already exiting said belief. And in that case, the non-belief is predicated almost entirely on an emotional reaction to the suffering. In other words, - "I am highly exercised by the reality of suffering in this world and therefore do not accept the notion of an omnipotent, supreme being." I think it also pulls the non-believer into what I touched on earlier. That being, s/he is pulled into parsing what is acceptable suffering and what is not. In my mind, it has to be either all or nothing. Either we have to accept the seemingly random, destructive nature of Mother Nature and the 'sky's the limit' horrors of what mankind is capable of doing or we must dispense with the whole notion of a supreme being. I don't believe there can be middle ground. And so to come full circle, either we believe 'God's way are not ours' or we do not.    

Edited December 5, 2023 by Vanguard

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I guess I am not clear on what you mean be creating meaning out of nothing.

The atheist creation story would read..."in the beginning there was no word, no human, no purpose to the universe or anything in it."   That is genesis.   "Nothing".  That is the nothing I am talking about.  Any meaning created from that void of meaning is creation ex-nihlo.  Making up meaning from no meaning.  That void and nothingness (in terms of meaning/purpose/intention) is the origin and creator of all that exists - created without purpose or meaning or intention.  Just random chance.   That is our creator that we are one with.  It controls us.  It determines us, not the other way around.  Anything else is a myth.  It IS us.  We are it.  We are that nothingness. The self is an illusion.  Agency is an illusion.  Intention is an illusion.  All that exists is the universe.   Anything that is imagined (like meaning/purpose) by "the self (an illusion)" would itself be nothing more than a random artifact of that meaningless and random illusion.   We are the empty void of an amoral universe.  It is us.   Enjoy!

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I can have meaning by living a good and decent life and doing moral and good things within my circle of influence.

It's just an illusion.  A myth of morality we create.  There is no good or evil or moral or immoral outside the illusion of the self.  It is all just an artifact of an illusion.  That you think you have "Influence" is an illusion.  Where there is no agency, there is no "influence" - just hard determinism - the universe just doing its random meaningless thing it does with no intentional direction or purpose.  If there is no God, that is you and you are it.  There is nothing else here or there or anywhere. 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I can live in gratitude that I have this wonderful opportunity to live and understand that it is a rare thing it is. ONe does not need a religion with dogma and rules and assertions about truth.  I do not see that on par with what religion does and what religion requires.

What is "I" if the self is an illusion?  What is life if the self is an illusion?  What is gratitude if it is just an artifact of an illusion created by a meaningless universe void of any self as we perceive the self to be?    You don't have a choice if there is no God.  Enjoy your illusion of self, and life, and as an extension of the self, meaning while that myth/illusion that we choose to believe lasts!  Then what?  You might want to stick that question on a shelf or risk being swallowed up by the all-encompassing void and abyss of meaninglessness of the universe that you (or the illusion of you, anyway) are.   You came from that nothingness.  You are that nothingness.  And you will return to that nothingness.  Everything else is an illusion randomly created by that nothingness.  If something else other than you was created, it wouldn't matter.  You don't matter to the universe.  Nothing matters to the universe.  You are the universe.  Don't think about that too hard, or it will drive you to nihilism.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure I follow your comment above.  Can you expand?

Hopefully the above explanation helps.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think nihilism CAN consume but it certainly does not have to. And I don't oppose an atheist creating myths and rituals that work for them. 

Then we are agreed.  That is all I am saying. 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think most atheist philosophers would rigorously disagree with you.

I wouldn't blame them.  They don't have a choice, after all!   The meaningless universe made them do it.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

How are Sam Harris's approach myths?  

Does the universe hold a morality?  Don't forget, we are the universe.  It is us.  There is no difference.  Everything else is an illusion.  A myth.  

He creates his own version and idea of morality out of nothing.  That is his myth, his story that gives him purpose and meaning.   He can't explain how that is anything other than an artifact of a meaningless illusion created by a meaningless universe though.   Realizing the fact that it is all just an illusion can lead one to nihilism.  Realizing that it doesn't matter to the universe what we believe can lead one to despair when they realize that we are the universe, and it is us.  There is nothing else.  The only way to avoid such a nihilistic existence is to embrace myth. 

Or, there really is a God.  Suddenly, the self is not an illusion, agency is not an illusion, intention is not an illusion, morality is not an illusion, meaning and purpose is not an artifact of the illusion of self.

Edited December 5, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Thanks for your kind well wishes.   I can see why it might be easier to have that finality and be severed from the church all together.  It is so much easier to be in all in or all out, for sure.   Heaven knows that I often feel more drained and discouraged than uplifted by attending church.  It doesn't seem that the church wants nuanced believers.  The institution seems to be built for all in or all out individuals - the 100% one true church or the 100% fraud type believers.  It doesn't feel friendly to the idea of "cafeteria Mormons" despite the reality that we are all cafeteria Mormons to some degree or another.  I am trying to find my place and it is a struggle. 

I tried the nuanced route for many years. I tired to make it work but I got to the point where I was simply miserable.  Attending and participating no longer gave me joy or satisfaction.  I found my anxiety level at church very high and I took it home with me most Sundays.  Best wishes in your efforts. Whatever works best for you is what I hope for you.