A general question to our visitors:
If there was absolute proof of God, and that there was an afterlife - a heaven and a hell, would you do things differently?
If we knew for absolute certainty this life was all about spiritual development for a next life, do you think other people would do things differently?
If there was absolute proof of God, and that there was an afterlife - a heaven and a hell, would you do things differently? If we knew for absolute certainty this life was all about spiritual development for a next life, do you think other people would do things differently?
No takers so far.
ReplyDeleteThinking..it's not as simple a question as it first appears!
ReplyDeleteBut my first reaction is:
ReplyDeleteNot much different at all. We make our choices and pay the price.
Indeed - although I wonder if people really understand the price they pay for many things even in this life time. Reflecting on that can be very productive.
ReplyDeleteEven after we get through wondering about such questions, Thomas Aquinas asked why good people continue to do bad things, even when they don't want to. He answered his question of course, and that's another post if we do the work on this one :-)
I'm too tired from night shift to tackle this properly right now, but really--it's an almost impossible question.
ReplyDeleteEach decision we make, we make in the context of the circumstances of that time and our stage of development and state of mind at that time.And some problems have an urgency and an immediacy which make future consequences--even if those consequences are absolutely certain--almost irrelevant. Most of us do what we can, the best we can at the time and just hope the future will judge it in that light.
At first I thought this question was too broad, the answer seemed obvious and not very useful.
ReplyDeleteShort answer: yes people would do things differently, for a longer answer however, certain things need to be quantified better for instance:
The idea of absolute proof is somewhat unprecidented in respect to the fact that there's never really been an absolute proof of anything metaphysical (aside from perhaps the knowledge that I/you/stuff exists, in some form), absolutes only really exist in conceptual/representitive systems like mathmatics.
In life people see levels of proof everywhere, and make subjective assessments that lead to what level of impact that knowledge has. I guess if you were to relate the level of proof to the impact of that proof, an absolute proof would have a huge impact. An absolute proof by definition would be irrifutable, regardless of people's feelings on the matter.
I think anyone who had seen this proof would act differently, this knowledge would have a huge impact. But the question is, does that proof include directives from god, or is it just a proof of god and nothing else.
If this proof included directives, I think that initially, a great many people would follow them as best they could. The outcome of trying to follow those directives would depend on the exact nature of the directives.
If the directives are fair, in as much as anyone who as seen this proof is capable of following them, we'd all follow them to the letter
If people are simply unable to follow them, as a result of those rules being beyond the capabilities of certain individuals, for whatever reason, emotional or otherwise (baring in mind the fact that humans are emotionally motivated), they may realise that the attempt is useless. The knowledge of their inevitable trip to hell would probably lead to wide spread clinical depression and antisocial behaviour.
If the proof didn't include directives, I think the ensueing fear and uncertainty would most likely lead to some of the bloodiest conflicts our species has ever seen.
Well, it depends which god, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteFor instance, if there was absolute proof that the Muslims' god was the real deal, I'd nevertheless still be struggling with the concept that this supernatural psychotic plans to subject me to eternal torment for such crimes as eating pork, drinking alcohol, failing to bow down before him 5 times a day, failing to observe Ramadan, failing to even think about making a pilgrimage to Mecca, and considering his prophet an unpleasant loony.
I suppose that if it were proven beyond doubt that you either make the declaration of Muslim faith or spend eternity being ministered to by Beelzebub and his inventive minions, I'd have to grudgingly give up acting like a rational human being - but then, Almighty God pretty much by definition knows what you're thinking, and if what you're thinking about him is "what an asshole" then it would seem likely your observance of his diverse regulations would actually count for little post-death.
OK, that was a cheap shot - obviously we're not talking about Allah here. Would I do things differently? Probably not. Leaving aside the issue of whether you get eternal damnation for rejecting Jesus as your personal saviour (not something I can really change, on the "what an asshole" basis described above), I can't think of much I'd change about my behaviour. I may not be a shining example for the rest of humanity to aspire to, but frankly I don't see much about my behaviour that would really justify subjecting me to eternal damnation either.
Do I think other people would do things differently? For the most part, no. In some cases, yes - for instance, it's hard to imagine Josef Fritzl telling himself God won't have any serious issues to raise come Judgement Day...
David said - "The idea of absolute proof is somewhat unprecidented in respect to the fact that there's never really been an absolute proof of anything metaphysical (aside from perhaps the knowledge that I/you/stuff exists, in some form), absolutes only really exist in conceptual/representitive systems like mathmatics."Yes, well...
ReplyDeleteWe weren't there when God came down to Earth as Jesus, performed miracles, was crucified, died, rose again, and appeared to his disciples.
I suppose it would help if he were to appear every few years on earth just to let us all the people who haven't seen him yet, see him for themselves? Maybe a yearly show..
Yes I am being sarcastic. But there are people who DID see his death and resurrection, and DID write it down, as in the book of John - "This disciple is the one who told all of this. He wrote it, and we know he is telling the truth." They only had writing in those days.
Still, even if people did see Jesus, they probably wouldn't believe it anyway. As Jesus says in his parable of Lazarus and the rich man 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
The question is remarkably simple.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty in making the answer
sums up nicely the human condition.
Its not a difficult question; no different from being told definitively that you have cancer.
The question is what would you do?
To say "nothing", when you have been behaving like there was no proof, seems rather illogical, but also rather prevalent these days.
To illustrate the point more clearly, if there was definitive proof that God, Heaven and hell did NOT exist, I for one would change my behaviour; I would take what I want and do whatever was legal, and stretch that as well. I might even vote Green.
Its is not like one hasn't searched for that evidence of God's non-existence. Its that one hasn't found it; rather one has found the complete opposite.
And a philosophy based on humanism is not a philosophy of life at all; it is merely another form of hedonism.
...if there was definitive proof that God, Heaven and hell did NOT exist, I for one would change my behaviour; I would take what I want...
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you do the right thing now only because you fear retribution in the after-life? That would be pretty sad if it were true, but frankly I don't believe it is.
No Milt, you missed the point entirely.
ReplyDeleteIf there was no God et al., then any action is justfied because I AM the highest power.
If there IS a God, then I am not the highest power and my existence is dependent, contingent, moved and directed towards God.
And behaviour changes accordingly, not out of fear, but out of love and respect. THAT is the point.
I don't think I missed the point. If your behaviour would genuinely worsen should it be proven there were no God or heaven and hell, it would reflect pretty poorly on you. I don't rate the likelihood of there being a God as high enough to be worth taking into account, and yet haven't proven stupid enough to consider myself the highest power, for the fairly obvious reason that I'm just one of billions very much like me. It's respect for the other people that keeps me in line, not fear of God. I refuse to accept that you would act differently from me if you were to come to the same conclusion about God.
ReplyDeleteOops, I started a thread I'm too distracted to answer. I'll get there.
ReplyDeleteA minor comment in the meantime: PM I don't think we need to worry about the creator being the Muslim God as you describe.
Some-one doesn't go to that much trouble to invent bacon, ham and pork from the same animal and then ban consumption of said animal (sorry Piggy Sue).
If God had wanted us not to eat animals, he would not have made them from meat...
PM, I think Mr Tips point has merit when we view this as an effect on society. Values such as "respect for other people" have to come from somewhere, and remain pertinent even if God is not the source of such ideas. Some cultures seem to struggle with the concept of respecting individual life.
BTW: It's heartening to see you've taken on half of the directive we've been given :-).
Those two directives weren't really the point of my post, but I see David has raised the interesting issue of directives as a condition of avoiding the bloodiest conflicts ever (intriguing thought given the conflicts we've seen to date) I'll have to say something about them soon.
David also said: If the directives are fair, in as much as anyone who as seen this proof is capable of following them, we'd all follow them to the letterAnd there I disagree. We are but fallen humans. Even good people do bad. Striving for sainthood (so to speak) can be our aim however, and one we could take far more seriously than we do.
I.M Fletcher -
ReplyDelete"But there are people who DID see his death and resurrection, and DID write it down"
Actually, even if this were true (and I don't believe it is), even that would not constitute absolute metaphysical proof, just as none of us can prove we're awake and not living a dream. That's the point I was making with regard that statement, that kind of proof, absolute proof, is unprecedented.
Oh, and BTW, no-one who wrote about [the supposed] Jesus Christ ever actually met about him. That happened later, even Catholicism admits this.
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
Yep, the bible is full to the brim with quotes about how to deal with us unbelievers. Pity the one thing we'd like, actual proof (of a level sufficient to justify the magnitude of its claims) is absent, and as such you'll probably never get to test that particular sentiment in the quote above. But then, so much about religion is based around the untestable, so I don't find that surprising.
"Values such as "respect for other people" have to come from somewhere, and remain pertinent even if God is not the source of such ideas. Some cultures seem to struggle with the concept of respecting individual life."
With absolute seriousness and no pretension, I agree. Of course they're the result of something, I don't think the fact that "the golden rule", IE "do unto others.." etc has been a part of most major religions is a coincendence.
'Not one of you truely believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself'
-The prophet Muhammad
If you remove supernatural explanations for the formation of morality, natural explanations still remain, just because I'm an athiest doesn't make me an amoralist, it just means that I think that your morals are just as "worldly" as mine. Which explains why atrocities have been committed so indiscriminately by just about every society that's had the capability to since we started walking upright.
"And there I disagree. We are but fallen humans. Even good people do bad. Striving for sainthood (so to speak) can be our aim however, and one we could take far more seriously than we do."
...and now you've gone and misinterpretted my words, as I suspected you would. I don't believe in "free will" in the traditional sense. By saying, "If the directives are fair, in as much as anyone who as seen this proof is capable of following them" I'm referring to a scenario in which the directives are specifically tailored to be followed to the letter, tailored in such a way as to resolve any complications that our human "weaknesses" would cause, as only an omnipotent being is capable of.
You reply is more in keeping with my second scenario.
David: Just to clarify, is it possible for you to state unambigiously (i.e. in plain, simple english or kiwiglish) what proof would you wish/like/desire?
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that the phrase "Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe" (faith)does not wash with you. David, I am pretty sure that you do have faith in something/s or even somebody/s. If you do, what is the basis for this faith? Sure, you may have met the person, listened to their lectures, read their books, spoke to those who have been in this person's company etc. and then formulated your opinion which maybe led to your faith.Maybe it was/is somebody you were initially unsure about but over time you could have experienced an 'inner conversion'.
Then again, maybe it is faith in something. Could be the coffee machine (kidding). How did this faith come about. By reading the instructions, trying it out or simply test-driving it. Of course, this object would be indestructible for were it not, I guess the faith would be temporary. Which, probably wouldn't be faith then considering that it may let you down (esp. when you need it most).
Of course, the above is asked in the hope that you do believe in something or someone.....
I am also sure that you believe many things that you quote even though you were not there physically? The difference with someone who seeks, is that they remain open.In an earlier post, it was quoted (thereabouts anyway) "the belief in a theistic God- no way". This directly implies that even if Someone appeared to me with holes in his hands and feet and in his side, I WILL NOT BELIEVE. In other words, according to some people even though something is true and can be proven to be true, they will refuse to accept that truth. There is a name for this psychological condition. The spiritual condition would be far worse though.
Firstly, I don't think faith is a binary equation. I don't think anyone believes anything with absolute certainty, or can dismiss anything outright. With regards to faith, two philosophies seem reasonable to me. The first being that in order for my faith in a claim to be of sufficient level to justify altering my actions, the level of supporting evidence must be of a level sufficient to support the magnitude of the claim. If you say to me, "my favourtite colour is blue" I'll probably believe you. It's just not that important, if you're lying it won't make any difference. However, I don't think there is a bigger claim than the one religions, or indeed any supernatural belief makes.
ReplyDeleteFor me to believe it, proof of an unlimited omnipotent being would have to be of a level equal to the magnitude of that claim. Given that god is an unlimited being, capable of doing anything, absolute proof would not be beyond it's capabilities, something you or I would never be able to acheive.
The second philosophy I have towards faith, is that while we cannot live without it, it's important to remember that it is the result of our limitations. Belief is simply knowledge with a degree of certainty that justifies taking action. It is what you think is most likely to be true at any given point in time. To extend our knowledge however, it is necessary to suspend taking action, which requires faith, and deconstruct belief in order to reassess the evidence on which that belief is based on.
Mzala: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows what proof would convince me and has the ability to provide it.
ReplyDeleteInstead, he's apparently restricted himself to providing evidence which looks to me exactly like what I'd expect from any other bunch of guys starting yet another new religion.
I know people quack on about free will when this subject comes up, but frankly I expect more of an Almighty God than to front up with a true religion that looks exactly like all the others and expect me to pick the correct one out of the line-up.
PM, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then maybe you are putting HIM (no less) to the test? If he were (o & o), then you are possibly reducing HIM to your level. The thing is that he has come down to our level. The record speaks for itself. Anybody is most welcome to examine the data (viz. the Bible). The claims that he made, the deeds that he performed. In fact, HE conformed totally to what had been predicted and written about HIM.
ReplyDeletePM: Assuming you know yourself (would make you an unusual human), surely that question with all due respect is a bit (pardon me) immature?
David:"I don't think anyone believes anything with absolute certainty, or can dismiss anything outright". Sounds like this relativism that is screwing up western thought processes today. No wonder we in the muck we're in.Pardon the faecetiousness (?) but this example is relevant to what I have seen.Somebody sticks a gun to your head, pulls the hammer back and......(the rest may be history). Somebody pushes you off the top of a high building (or you 'slip').Simple question David:" What does commonsense tell you, with absolute certainty"?
PM and David: It does appear that "I" am the centre of my universe. Therefore, what 'I think, I expect, I know' etc. Is there, with all due respect something greater than I, out there?
And here's the claim that Christians make (amongst others): "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be open unto you". Does this not sound reasonable for one who is 'seeking' as we all are? The difference (which lies in our heart, not our head), is that too many are not really seeking.
I'll start by answering your questions.
ReplyDeleteI believe I would die. No I'm not ABSOLUTELY certain, but I would classify this view as "common sense". It's more than likely, I'd probably even be pretty scared on the way down (to the ground that is).
..moving on
You cannot change the basis of reality, regardless of your feelings on the matter. How does the acceptance (note the word acceptance, not imposition) of "this relativism" "screw up" "western" thought processes. Of course I suspect that I already know the answer to that question, that answer being that if everything is relative and there are no absolutes, then how do we make decisions? How do we judge what is right and what is wrong? The answer is, the same way we always have, just with the added benefit of understanding the process better.
There's no fundamental difference between your thought processes and mine, at least I've never seen evidence (there's that word again) of a person who can make absolute assertions and back them up sufficiently.
We've never had these "absolutes" you speak of, they're illusions. Religion is a great example of how folly it is to believe in absolutes. On one hand Christianity has the character of Jesus Christ (who I think is most likely fictional), who is peaceful, selfless and strong. On the other hand we have the crusades, and the inquisition. Many people are willing to kill for their beliefs even when their beliefs state that killing is wrong. How much has Catholicism changed in the past thousand years? You may not like it, but despite the efforts of conservatives such as yourselves, the fact is, is that it has changed quite a bit, and it will continue to regardless of your feelings on the matter.
I know David. Sounds like a dog chasing it's tail.
ReplyDeleteI take it that you also would not be absolutely certain of hitting the ground?
I am not at all sure of any teachings of the Catholic faith that has changed in the last 2000 years. In fact NOT ONE has changed, can change nor will be changed.
If you think Jesus Christ fictional, I take it that you have tried to find out/discover what HE has said and done. Surely that is the obvious approach to take.Or is it again, "I think". Based on what, David? Make the study i.e. put the claims to the 'test'.
p.s. I thought that conservative was a term more on the political side. I think orthodox would be far more accurate. You may also be surprised(?) to know that the are many self-described Catholics who wish the teachings have changed or could be changed. Fortunately, not. For our own sake, for the sake of eternity.
Alright, if you really want to play this silly game, let's play.
ReplyDeleteWhat if a helicoptor flew underneath me while I was falling and I was torn apart by its rotors? Parts of me would probably hit the ground, parts of me might get splattered on the surrounding buildings, and of course, the helicoptor. Have *I* hit the ground? considering what I constitute is now dismembered across the street is it even *me* anymore?
Explaining the obvious gets very old, very quickly. The point I'm making here is actually very easy to understand, and very obvious.
As for "putting the claims to the test", I actually went to church for the first 13 years of my life (I'm 28 now). Takapuna AOG, yes it's an evangelical church so maybe it doesn't count considering the views I've heard some people express here about "dissident" churches. I actually know a fair bit about the bible, and christianity in general, and the supposed "facts" surrounding it, not just from the time in church but what I've learned on my own. My criticisms of christianity are not "casual" in nature.
Sorry to join the conversation quite so late but I thought this was amusing:
ReplyDeleteI am not at all sure of any teachings of the Catholic faith that has changed in the last 2000 years. In fact NOT ONE has changed, can change nor will be changed.
Ummm, the first and second Vatican councils? Papal Infallibility? The Immaculate Conception?
I'm just an atheist but aren't these teachings (or contain teachings)? And pretty new?
(btw the is the David that called himself David before the most recent David showed up...)
My apologies for steal'n your name dude :)
ReplyDeletetheAtavism,
ReplyDeleteThose were all clarifications, not changes. Think of the Faith as a diamond. It's still the same diamond, but it has been polished and cut throughout the centuries to show more of it's real brilliance.
Over time, clarifications have become necessary, generally in response to something or other that occurred during that period in time.
David,
ReplyDeleteNot a problem, you've done a very fine job of filling the vacaency of David at NZC - that is disagreeing with everything MrTips, Andrei... have to say
Lucia,
Ok, I can see how you'd need to reinterpret teachings in the light of a changing the world. But I thought some of 'new' ideas replaced older ones. The Assumption being an obvious case (I haven't made much of a study of these things, the "NOT ONE has changed, can change nor will be changed." just sounded a little too much like "we've always been at war with Eurasia"
David,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your 3pm comment. It puts your opinions into a far sharper focus.
I'm going to give a really bad analogy to you, that will put the Catholic perspective into sharper focus for you as well. Just so we understand each other.
Think of al of Christianity like a castle. There are people that don't want to go anywhere near teh castle (atheists), those that know the castle exists but aren't sure they should go into that one (agnostics), people who refuse to enter the castle, but are happy learning about (and speculating on) what is in the castle by just entering the courtyard. But they refuse to enter it, for various reasons (these are the Protestants). Then we have the people that go in and out of the castle but are oblivious as to what it is (lukewarm Catholics).
So, anyone in the above group are going to have a limited understanding of Christianity, if Christianity is the castle. Even if writings from the castle make it to the outside (ie the Holy Bible).
I don't mean to put it into those terms to be offensive to anyone. As I told a pagan friend of mine the other day, I consider her to be out in the wilderness, so to speak. God still helps her, as He does everyone, but she's still in the wilderness.
Our job, as Catholics, is really to encourage people to come into the castle. However, we cannot force anyone to do so.
So, when you say you have a good knowledge of Christianity, I can only say, yes, from the outside, unfortunately. Maybe that's why you don't believe anymore.
theAtavism,
ReplyDeleteThe Assumption has changed?
Could you fill me in on how.
Here's a History of the Assumption. Might save you time, if you read it.
ReplyDeletetheAtavism: "we've always been at war with Eurasia". I wonder if you're aware of how close you are to a certain truth which possibly escapes you and many today. It's simple really. If you remove the last word of the above quote and replace it with the word "sin", you might just see life in a whole new light.
ReplyDelete