Deep-seated fear "What if you're wrong?"

[Wiltin]

I've discussed atheism with several Christians I know, including two of my brothers. A common question that comes back at me is "what if you're wrong?" My reply has normally been along the lines of, "I'll take responsibility for my life, if I'm wrong then so be it." However, after some further thought, I think it is important to understand what motivates the question. For those who believe in hell, being wrong on the question of god means you're screwed. Pascal's wager comes into play for many people, and one of my brothers actually said words to the effect: 'If I'm wrong then what? I live a happy life and die, no real consequence. If you're wrong, well then you'll face judgement and potentially eternal suffering.' The implication is that you should hedge your bets and believe, just in case. This is, of course, a face-palm situation, but after some thought I'd like to just share what I think is a better answer to the original question.

 

Q: "What if you're wrong?"

A: "What are you afraid of?"

 

Exposing the fear behind the question will likely lead immediately to a defensive stance. Most, if not all, people who believe are motivated by emotion, so engaging those emotions is necessary in order to have any impact. I recall Stefan Molyneux saying people cannot be reasoned out of a position they weren't reasoned into. So where reason fails, my thought then is that engaging the emotions might have some effect.

 

From here, the conversation could basically go anywhere but I think there are two lines:

 

1. Believer denies being afraid, "I'm not afraid, what are you talking about?"

 

In this case remind him, "the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom," and "do not fear those who can kill the body and not the soul, fear the one who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell" (typing this quickly I'll put in scripture reference later if people want them). If that doesn't work, then make the obvious connection for him, "you aren't afraid of being sent to hell?" At this point whether he accepts that he is afraid or not is irrelevant, you've made the important point and connected the dots, so even if he ends the conversation he will come to a challenging conclusion later on if he thinks back over it. Once he accepts that he is afraid, provided he hasn't ended the conversation then:

 

2. Believer accepts he is afraid of god, "Yes I fear God, as should you."

 

Now is the point where you might make a moral argument against the god concept, stating that threats of violence and coercion are immoral. Perhaps tell him that he has been manipulated, and that fear leads to irrationality. The original question "what if you're wrong?" is a sign of stockholm syndrome, or the uncle tom epithet. It reminds me of Theon Grayjoy in Game of Thrones and his relationship to his torturer, his fear of 'master' caused him to resist when he had the opportunity to be rescued by his sister. I think it is important to show empathy, most Christians have buried their fear so deep that they no longer remember it. I recently reconnected to my fear of God and hell from childhood and it wasn't pleasant.

 

I hope someone finds this helpful.

 

Best regards,

Josh

[Kevin Beal]

I think you make a great case! I will try that the next time I hear that face palmer

 

You haven't heard this podcast yet, have you?:

FDR1009 God' is really the fear of others...

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1009_Religious_Scarring.mp3

[Ancient Mariner]

Pascal's wager comes into play for many people, and one of my brothers actually said words to the effect: 'If I'm wrong then what? I live a happy life and die, no real consequence. If you're wrong, well then you'll face judgement and potentially eternal suffering.' The implication is that you should hedge your bets and believe, just in case.

 What if he is wrong and the real good is not the Christian god? He cannot really hedge. He has to choose a god and "if he is wrong and the Muslim god is the one waiting for him after he is dead" then what? I think you are correct when you say that sometimes it is better to engage the emotional side of the religious person. You can also ask your brothers why is the god concept so important to them and the follow that thread. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

"Wouldn't God know the difference between you actually believing in him and you just hedging your bets, then judge you accordingly when you die?"

[Pepin]

Meh, I am tempted to take the more vain approach and respond "I cannot be wrong about this, as God does not exist because God cannot exist". I think it is vital for people to understand that there are no hidden doubts in my mind. I am not at all willing to focus a debate on my potential doubt as it is only a strategy to avoid actual arguments.

[alexakarpov]

As a Christian myself, I can tell you something you're not likely to hear often in your debates with Christians in North America -- if you're wrong, you're, actually, likely to be better off than us.

 

Let me explain.

 

We (I belong a pretty strict and orthodox bunch) consider Christianity to be the highest calling that the world has for human beings. And, because of that, if a person calling himself a Christian falls short of the name (which most of us, regrettably, do), that person will have to answer for a transgression more severe than almost anything an atheist is capable of. You see, as an atheist, you have an excuse, of a sort - you can claim ignorance at the Judgement. You can - truthfully - claim that you just didn't know. You've been surrounded by a lot of people who called themselves Christians, and they appeared to be a nasty bunch (unfortunately, a common thing in both East and West), and they totally ruined Christianity for you.

 

So that will be your excuse. Now, we, who call ourselves Christians, and nevertheless, act like "dogs, who return to their vomit"... we will have to answer for that, with far less room for making excuses and claiming ignorance.

 

This is not my own fantasy, by the way - this thought is a commonplace in writings of the Holy Fathers.

 

So yeah.

[meta]

My answer would be:"I know that I am right."

I have recently came across a french author, theologist Jean Soler, who's work leaves not doubt in me.

His arguments on the development of monotheism are very interesting and sealed my certitude.

I ll summarize those arguments in a thread probably.

[Wiltin]

Thanks for the feedback.

 

 

You haven't heard this podcast yet, have you?:

FDR1009 God' is really the fear of others...

I'm listening to the podcast now Kevin, thanks.

 

"Wouldn't God know the difference between you actually believing in him and you just hedging your bets, then judge you accordingly when you die?"

 

Yea, pascal's wager is awful, it is one of these occasional off the top of the head brain farts that a Christian might have if they haven't given it any real thought.

 

As a Christian myself, I can tell you something you're not likely to hear often in your debates with Christians in North America -- if you're wrong, you're, actually, likely to be better off than us.

 

Let me explain.

 

We (I belong a pretty strict and orthodox bunch) consider Christianity to be the highest calling that the world has for human beings. And, because of that, if a person calling himself a Christian falls short of the name (which most of us, regrettably, do), that person will have to answer for a transgression more severe than almost anything an atheist is capable of. You see, as an atheist, you have an excuse, of a sort - you can claim ignorance at the Judgement. You can - truthfully - claim that you just didn't know. You've been surrounded by a lot of people who called themselves Christians, and they appeared to be a nasty bunch (unfortunately, a common thing in both East and West), and they totally ruined Christianity for you.

 

So that will be your excuse. Now, we, who call ourselves Christians, and nevertheless, act like "dogs, who return to their vomit"... we will have to answer for that, with far less room for making excuses and claiming ignorance.

 

This is not my own fantasy, by the way - this thought is a commonplace in writings of the Holy Fathers.

 

So yeah.

 

Thanks for explaining, the variety of approaches and flavors all calling themself Christian never ceases to amaze me. Honestly I'll tell you though, I was raised in a Christian home and rebelled because of my parents' divorce and a crush I had on a girl at school, I became a Jehovah's Witness in my late teens. I didn't meet any Christians or JWs that I would describe as nasty people, so that isn't at all what turned me away.

 

I had the relatively unique perspective of having been deeply involved with two religions with opposing doctrine and separated communities. Nice people here, nice people there, all trying to do the right thing, all thoroughly convinced that they were right while the others were wrong. Religious doctrine divides people like nothing else can, the absurdity of the situation became clearer to me as time went on. I also had my own doubts about the validity of the bible and the 'hidden God' concept, and it all came together in my mind a few months after I was baptized as a JW at 19. I thought perhaps being baptized would give me some divine guidance, I got nothing. I just had to get out, I needed space to figure things out on my own. At first I continued to pray for guidance by the holy spirit, but everywhere I looked all I saw was contradiction and absurdity. Depression followed soon after, and a period of unpacking all my assumptions and the indoctrination of my childhood. It was a very long process to atheism for me. Now I genuinely find all forms of Christianity unthinkably absurd, there really is nothing redeeming about it in my mind.

 

 

 

I'll just ask, and I'd respect your decision not to answer, do you fear God?

[alexakarpov]

 

 

I'll just ask, and I'd respect your decision not to answer, do you fear God?

 

Regrettably, no.

"The fear of God", as we know it, is one of the most sought-after virtues of faith. Of course, we always make sure to distinguish fear of God from various forms of psychological neuroses, or psychoses, or depressions, or what else people are prone to call "fear of God".

 

In essence, the real "fear of God" is a very advanced stage of faith. Likewise, "loving God" - that is the most advanced stage. Most people, however, who claim to fear God or love God, are delusional. I never made such claims - I *want* to fear God and love God, but who am I kidding? I fear [some] people and love people and things of this world far more than God, there's no question about it.

[Wiltin]

Regrettably, no.

"The fear of God", as we know it, is one of the most sought-after virtues of faith. Of course, we always make sure to distinguish fear of God from various forms of psychological neuroses, or psychoses, or depressions, or what else people are prone to call "fear of God".

 

In essence, the real "fear of God" is a very advanced stage of faith. Likewise, "loving God" - that is the most advanced stage. Most people, however, who claim to fear God or love God, are delusional. I never made such claims - I *want* to fear God and love God, but who am I kidding? I fear [some] people and love people and things of this world far more than God, there's no question about it.

 

I'm interested in your opinion on something:

 

When I was about 8 years old, I have a memory of sitting in the back seat of our family car and asking my father a question. This is quite a vivid memory, I remember the layout of the car, I had my brothers next to me on my right, I remember the street and place where we were travelling. I asked my dad "does a person who commits suicide go to heaven or hell?" His reply was, "most likely hell." At this point I had a lump in my throat and I gulped, which is something I can't remember doing any other time in my life. There is no way out, no matter what I do. I didn't choose to be born and I cannot choose to be free from this life, there is no escape, I must obey God, love God, fear God, and there is nothing I can do to avoid his judgement, killing myself would only hasten my trip to hell. That was my fear of God, which I would now say was delusional. Do you think I was delusional?

[alexakarpov]

I'm interested in your opinion on something:

 

When I was about 8 years old, I have a memory of sitting in the back seat of our family car and asking my father a question. This is quite a vivid memory, I remember the layout of the car, I had my brothers next to me on my right, I remember the street and place where we were travelling. I asked my dad "does a person who commits suicide go to heaven or hell?" His reply was, "most likely hell." At this point I had a lump in my throat and I gulped, which is something I can't remember doing any other time in my life. There is no way out, no matter what I do. I didn't choose to be born and I cannot choose to be free from this life, there is no escape, I must obey God, love God, fear God, and there is nothing I can do to avoid his judgement, killing myself would only hasten my trip to hell. That was my fear of God, which I would now say was delusional. Do you think I was delusional?

 

I don't think you were delusional. I'm not a specialist, but psychologically, a child, who is still growing, and developing mature defence mechanism, is harder (for me) to label as delusional.

 

But I salute you, sir, for raising a *very* good point; I totally mean it. This is, philosophically speaking, the root of conflict between anarchism and Christianity: you didn't will to be created; you weren't asked to be born, and yet you're now stuck in this life, which, according to Christian beliefs, may end up in you being an eternal failure. You're playing a game that you never had a chance to choose, and you don't have an option to quit; to "un-create" yourself. And you grasped that at the age of 8? I find it amazing.

 

I can see how you could call it an unfair situation - and many do. But I, personally (this is not the first time I am thinking on the subject), do not consider it to be unfair or violent, and this is why. If you had your own existence; if you were somehow ontologically autonomous, then condemning you to something without your choice or your will would be, trivially, unjust and violent. And this is how I reconciled anarchy with Christianity for myself (I became Christian first, at the age of 28, and anarchist later, at age of 32) -- since only God has His own existence; since He is the only un-created entity, and everything else, that exists, owes it's existence to Him, then we don't have grounds for challenging Him for our existence; it's not, in fact, "ours", but His.

 

This subject, by the way, is entirely covered in the biblical Book of Job. Not very surprisingly, it was that book, and that very idea, that started me on the way to Christianity (it took a while - I was 22 at the time).

[Wiltin]

I don't think you were delusional. I'm not a specialist, but psychologically, a child, who is still growing, and developing mature defence mechanism, is harder (for me) to label as delusional.

 

But I salute you, sir, for raising a *very* good point; I totally mean it. This is, philosophically speaking, the root of conflict between anarchism and Christianity: you didn't will to be created; you weren't asked to be born, and yet you're now stuck in this life, which, according to Christian beliefs, may end up in you being an eternal failure. You're playing a game that you never had a chance to choose, and you don't have an option to quit; to "un-create" yourself. And you grasped that at the age of 8? I find it amazing.

 

I can see how you could call it an unfair situation - and many do. But I, personally (this is not the first time I am thinking on the subject), do not consider it to be unfair or violent, and this is why. If you had your own existence; if you were somehow ontologically autonomous, then condemning you to something without your choice or your will would be, trivially, unjust and violent. And this is how I reconciled anarchy with Christianity for myself (I became Christian first, at the age of 28, and anarchist later, at age of 32) -- since only God has His own existence; since He is the only un-created entity, and everything else, that exists, owes it's existence to Him, then we don't have grounds for challenging Him for our existence; it's not, in fact, "ours", but His.

 

This subject, by the way, is entirely covered in the biblical Book of Job. Not very surprisingly, it was that book, and that very idea, that started me on the way to Christianity (it took a while - I was 22 at the time).

 

Thanks for the honest reply, now I'm really intrigued!

 

This is the statement I'm most interested in: "since only God has His own existence; since He is the only un-created entity, and everything else, that exists, owes it's existence to Him, then we don't have grounds for challenging Him for our existence; it's not, in fact, "ours", but His."

 

I would argue against the premise, but in this case I want to understand it's implications a little better.

 

Do you think that God gave humans the desire for independence, self-determination, and a strong instinct for freedom and fairness? Or, do you think that these characteristics are an aspect of our fallen and imperfect nature stemming from Adam's fall from grace?

[alexakarpov]

 

Do you think that God gave humans the desire for independence, self-determination, and a strong instinct for freedom and fairness? Or, do you think that these characteristics are an aspect of our fallen and imperfect nature stemming from Adam's fall from grace?

 

I think it's both - but more of the latter than the former, so to speak. Please don't take this as a dishonest answer or an attempt to avoid some inconvenient truth! I assure you, I'm not here to preach, but am genuinely interested in a philosophical debate; if my faith *can not* be reconciled with anarchy, I honestly want to know! =)

 

So now let me trail the sequence of important points, last one tying to the first.

 

1) If humans were created "in image and likeness" of God, then I'd think it natural that they possess this mysterious, immanent property - that feeling of, or drive for, sovereignty.

 

2) Christian texts, especially in divine services, often refer to God as King and Lord. "Sovereign Lord of all Creation" is one of such designations.

 

3) Humans were created to be sons of God. This very language is often invoked in the Scriptures. I'm not very familiar with how Wester Christian tradition evolved here (when I espoused Christianity, it was of Eastern Orthodox variety), but in the writings of eastern Fathers we have this very important concept of humans (Christians) "evolving" through 3 stages:

 

- "slave" (motivated mostly by fear of punishment)

- "hireling" (motivated mostly by a promise of reward)

- "son" (motivated by love alone )

 

4) from 2 and 3 it follows, then, that a son of God becomes a "heir to the Kingdom" -- and, indeed, that language is abundantly present in the Scripture (the status of a Christian who never attained to the level of son-ship is presumably less glorious, but that's beyond the point).

 

5) As you've already established (at the age of 8! I still marvel at that...), Christianity doesn't provide a choice to "opt out" of the game, to "undo" one's immortal, eternal soul's existence. We're here, we're "stuck" in the game, where our endgame is to either to become "sons of God", or "sons of perdition".

 

6) OK, now this is a pretty important theological point; bear with me.

 - (a) God is uncreated - everything and everyone else, including rational beings (human, angels, demons), is created.

 - (b) humans can not become [sons of] God through their own powers, because it's impossible to bridge the gap between the Creator and the creature from creature's side.

 - © but, "what is impossible with men is possible with God" (Luke 18:27), thus God can "adopt" a human being into His Godhood.

 - (d) a necessary condition here, however, is complete submission of that human's will to God's will - else there would be a contradiction, of God "creating", or "forcing", Godhood on a human - God, being uncreated, cannot be forced or "created" - Godhood can only be accepted freely.

 

So that last point, 6.d, is what ties into the first point, which is where I admit that humans were created with this paramount property of freedom, this drive for sovereignty. It has only one "good" use - to unite it with God's will. Leaving it dangling, or expending it in the pursuit of vain things, is considered very dangerous. The parable of the Prodigal Son covers that topic.

 

Of course, someone might ask - "what kind of freedom is that, if there's only one right choice?". But that, in my opinion, would be the same fallacy as what our "liberals" and "progressives" make, when they claim libertarianism is "anti-freedom", because, apparently, not giving food to a hungry person violates their freedom not to die... I kid you not, I've been told that by a "progressive".

 

Thus, this is the conclusion - we believe in a world, where there are consequences of people's choice regarding God's existence; and that choice is theirs to make, but their existence is not their own. Only God's existence is His own.

[Wiltin]

I appreciate the detail you went into and I'd like to revisit some of at some point. In an attempt to keep this discussion concise I'll just focus on one aspect, hopefully you don't mind.

 

I am mortified by the idea that someone, no matter what qualities they possess, has absolute ownership and authority over my personality, my future, and my existence itself. It runs very deep within me my desire for self-determination and ultimate freedom. Given that this is something I think is innate, I can't reconcile why God would create me with that characteristic.

 

This isn't an argument against your position, I'm just looking for clarification. Do you think I am being too prideful/sinful if I'm not able, in the depth of myself, to accept a subservient fate?

[alexakarpov]

I appreciate the detail you went into and I'd like to revisit some of at some point. In an attempt to keep this discussion concise I'll just focus on one aspect, hopefully you don't mind.I am mortified by the idea that someone, no matter what qualities they possess, has absolute ownership and authority over my personality, my future, and my existence itself. It runs very deep within me my desire for self-determination and ultimate freedom. Given that this is something I think is innate, I can't reconcile why God would create me with that characteristic.This isn't an argument against your position, I'm just looking for clarification. Do you think I am being too prideful/sinful if I'm not able, in the depth of myself, to accept a subservient fate?

 

My apologies if my wording mislead you. God has no authority or ownership over our personalities or our choices; over our freedom (that would be a contradiction - "authority over freedom" is like "rape is love").

But God has authority over "existence". He created the board, and the game, and the players. The players He created "in His image and likeness", which is to say - eternal and free. He doesn't own us - but He owns the game; he set the rules, which are such that there's a victory condition, and a failure condition, and there's no choice for not playing. That's what we believe in.

 

Your concerns remind me - please forgive me if I don't read you right, I mean no offence - of some of my statist friends' concerns about libertarianism; they say things like "but if you chose to not feed a hungry person, you're violating their freedom to live". I find it very difficult to explain to such a person that their idea of "freedom to live" is deeply flawed. Similar is the reaction that your words invoke in me (again, forgive me if I have misread you) - if you think such God violates your desire for ultimate freedom and self-determination, then I feel this is like saying that human biology violates my right for... infinite life span, indestructible health, flying like a bird - you name it. He created this world, and put you in it, and He set the rules, and you either win or lose; and either ending is ultimate, "perfect" and complete.

I guess, my response, ultimately, would be this - "yeah, sure, you can have all the self-determination and freedom we want - the question is, what good will it do you in the end?"

 

Fundamentally, freedom, in Christianity, is the most precious resource - not the end goal. And this resource can be used either for winning the game, or squandered.

 

But I do reject the notion of "subservience" - to me, it's like calling a human being subservient to biology, or physics. Or, maybe, I didn't get your point =)

[Wiltin]

My apologies if my wording mislead you. God has no authority or ownership over our personalities or our choices; over our freedom (that would be a contradiction - "authority over freedom" is like "rape is love").

But God has authority over "existence". He created the board, and the game, and the players. The players He created "in His image and likeness", which is to say - eternal and free. He doesn't own us - but He owns the game; he set the rules, which are such that there's a victory condition, and a failure condition, and there's no choice for not playing. That's what we believe in.

 

Your concerns remind me - please forgive me if I don't read you right, I mean no offence - of some of my statist friends' concerns about libertarianism; they say things like "but if you chose to not feed a hungry person, you're violating their freedom to live". I find it very difficult to explain to such a person that their idea of "freedom to live" is deeply flawed. Similar is the reaction that your words invoke in me (again, forgive me if I have misread you) - if you think such God violates your desire for ultimate freedom and self-determination, then I feel this is like saying that human biology violates my right for... infinite life span, indestructible health, flying like a bird - you name it. He created this world, and put you in it, and He set the rules, and you either win or lose; and either ending is ultimate, "perfect" and complete.

I guess, my response, ultimately, would be this - "yeah, sure, you can have all the self-determination and freedom we want - the question is, what good will it do you in the end?"

 

Fundamentally, freedom, in Christianity, is the most precious resource - not the end goal. And this resource can be used either for winning the game, or squandered.

 

But I do reject the notion of "subservience" - to me, it's like calling a human being subservient to biology, or physics. Or, maybe, I didn't get your point =)

Alright, I think I understand your position well enough now.

 

I'm working within the paradigm here for the sake of exposing what I see as a contradiction that tries to avoid the obvious conclusion.

 

The contradiction:

 

God created the game and put me in it, I have two options, 1. "submit to my will and be united with me" or 2. "I'll send you to eternal torment." I can choose my fate, but it cannot be said that I am free, and neither option results in freedom. Any choice I make in this situation is under duress. Submitting to the will of God is to give up my own will, and my freedom.

 

Analogy: A police officer holds a gun to your face and gives you two options, 1. "submit to my will and accompany me to the police station" or 2. "I'll shoot you." You can choose your fate, but it cannot be said that you are free. Any choice you make in that situation is under duress.

if you think such God violates your desire for ultimate freedom and self-determination, then I feel this is like saying that human biology violates my right for... infinite life span, indestructible health, flying like a bird - you name it.

God is not a part of myself or an aspect of my condition, he is a separate thinking being with a will that is imposing his will on me. It can't be said that biology is a separate being that is imposing it's will on me, biology is an aspect of my self.

God has authority over "existence".

 

If God owns my existence then I am not free. It makes no sense to say I have freedom if my existence is owned by someone else.

Fundamentally, freedom, in Christianity, is the most precious resource - not the end goal.

 

If freedom is not the end goal, then the end goal requires that you give up freedom.

this paramount property of freedom, this drive for sovereignty. It has only one "good" use - to unite it with God's will.

 

Freedom's only "good" use is to give up freedom.

 

 

The conclusion:

 

You've given lots of well thought out justification and provided lots of caveats but you haven't been direct about what your conclusion actually is. I don't blame you since this is a very difficult pill to swallow. I think on some level you know that it is an unpleasant picture. Philosophy is about working with basic principles and cutting through the fluff.

 

You are not free.

[JohnH.]

Meh, I am tempted to take the more vain approach and respond "I cannot be wrong about this, as God does not exist because God cannot exist". I think it is vital for people to understand that there are no hidden doubts in my mind. I am not at all willing to focus a debate on my potential doubt as it is only a strategy to avoid actual arguments.

 

This is the same approach I've started to use.

[meta]

This is the same approach I've started to use.

 

Meh, I am tempted to take the more vain approach and respond "I cannot be wrong about this, as God does not exist because God cannot exist". I think it is vital for people to understand that there are no hidden doubts in my mind. I am not at all willing to focus a debate on my potential doubt as it is only a strategy to avoid actual arguments.

 

 

I don't understand how you can proove God cannot exist.

I think prooving that monotheism (therefore God) is a creation is far more easier than prooving it doesn't exists. 

[JohnH.]

I don't understand how you can proove God cannot exist.

I think prooving that monotheism (therefore God) is a creation is far more easier than prooving it doesn't exists. 

 

If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist.  For example, what would you say to me if I told you that a square that is also a circle exists?

[meta]

If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist.  For example, what would you say to me if I told you that a square that is also a circle exists?

 

I can find a lot of example of contradictory things that exist.I ll just take one:Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity. Yet we exist.

[JohnH.]

I can find a lot of example of contradictory things that exist.I ll just take one:Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity. Yet we exist.

 

Let me clarify what a contradiction is: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

 

I can punch you in the face or not punch you in the face, but I cannot simultaneously both punch and not punch you in the face.

[meta]

@JohnH.

You said:

"If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist."

I propose to you an entity with contradictory properties that exists:

"Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity"

(The entity Humanity is doing both at the same time)

 

You then skip off to define the word contradiction and take a new example, no offence but I see sophism there.

Can you explain how my example is wrong?

 

I would still reply to your new example, but I think it is important you reply to mine also.

You say:

"I can punch you in the face or not punch you in the face, but I cannot simultaneously both punch and not punch you in the face."

You can't, but let's take the following scenario:

A bully grabs a smaller child's hand and start hitting the child's face with his own hand, like bully love doing:

"I am not hitting you! why are you hitting yourself?"

So he is hitting , claiming not to be. I believe that would be contradictory properties (doing something , pretending not to do it). Yet the bully is very real.

Aristotle's Law of non-contradiction you mentionned is a law of formal logic.

Not a standard dictionary definition of the adjective contradictory.
Basically if something doesn't fit the Law, It is illogical, and I agree with the idea that God is illogical.
But you then imply that the fact that it is illogical means that it doesn't exists.

I don't agree with that, because illogical things exist. So to me it is not a really good argument.

[JohnH.]

@JohnH.

You said:

"If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist."

I propose to you an entity with contradictory properties that exists:

"Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity"

(The entity Humanity is doing both at the same time)

 

You then skip off to define the word contradiction and take a new example, no offence but I see sophism there.

Can you explain how my example is wrong?

 

I would still reply to your new example, but I think it is important you reply to mine also.

You say:

"I can punch you in the face or not punch you in the face, but I cannot simultaneously both punch and not punch you in the face."

You can't, but let's take the following scenario:

A bully grabs a smaller child's hand and start hitting the child's face with his own hand, like bully love doing:

"I am not hitting you! why are you hitting yourself?"

So he is hitting , claiming not to be. I believe that would be contradictory properties (doing something , pretending not to do it). Yet the bully is very real.

 

Aristotle's Law of non-contradiction you mentionned is a law of formal logic.

Not a standard dictionary definition of the adjective contradictory.

Basically if something doesn't fit the Law, It is illogical, and I agree with the idea that God is illogical.

But you then imply that the fact that it is illogical means that it doesn't exists.

I don't agree with that, because illogical things exist. So to me it is not a really good argument.

 

Clarity is important.  If you think having clear definitions is sophistry, then banana-rama niner pop whiskey.

 

Let me say it once more, "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

 

The bully is either hitting the kid or not hitting the kid.  He CANNOT, under any circumstances, simultaneously both hit and not hit the kid.  In your example, he IS hitting the kid.  The action of hitting and not hitting cannot exist.

 

Humanity is incapable of doing anything–it's an abstraction.

[meta]

Ok, the action of hitting and non hitting simultaneously is impossible and cannot exists. I was wrong with this example.

 

I ll get back to my first example on Humanity.

 

"Humanity is incapable of doing anything–it's an abstraction."

 

Humanity:

noun, plural hu·man·i·ties.

1.

all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.

2.

the quality or condition of being human; human nature.

3.

the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence.

4.

the humanities.

 

Are you saying that humankind is an abstraction that is incapable of doing anything?

I really don't get it, can you develop?

 

------

Also your "contradiction" definition was blurry, you used Aristotle's Law of Logic of noncontradiction while you never used this word and simply mentioned "contradictory properties" in your post. Sorry but Aristotle's law is not the classical use of the adjective contradictory to me.

[JohnH.]

Ok, the action of hitting and non hitting simultaneously is impossible and cannot exists. I was wrong with this example.

 

I ll get back to my first argument on Humanity.

 

"Humanity is incapable of doing anything–it's an abstraction."

 

Humanity:

noun, plural hu·man·i·ties.

1.

all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.

2.

the quality or condition of being human; human nature.

3.

the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence.

4.

the humanities.

 

Are you saying that humankind is an abstraction that is incapable of doing anything?

 

I really don't get it, can you develop?

 

------

Also your "contradiction" definition was blurry, you used Aristotle's Law of Logic of noncontradiction while you never used this word and simply mentioned "contradictory properties" in your post. Sorry but Aristotle's law is not the classical use of the adjective contradictory to me.

 

Humanity is a word we use to describe all human beings collectively.  When we say humanity is capable of great evils, we are actually describing the actions of individual actors in aggregate.  An individual can perform evil acts and not evil acts, but an act cannot be both evil and not evil in the same respect and at the same time.

[meta]

All human beings collectively form a whole.

That whole  exists and its behaviours and actions can be described, observed. 

A specie is an entity. The fact that it is composed of smaller parts doesn't mean it s just an abstraction incapable of anything. It exists.

 

I really do not understand.This might not be the best place to have such a debate anyway.Though we should make a topic about this, I had a nice talk on this matter with other members on the chat

[JohnH.]

All human beings collectively form a whole.

That whole  exists and its behaviours and actions can be described, observed. 

A specie is an entity. The fact that it is composed of smaller parts doesn't mean it s just an abstraction incapable of anything. It exists.

 

I really do not understand.This might not be the best place to have such a debate anyway.Though we should make a topic about this, I had a nice talk on this matter with other members on the chat

 

Maybe Stef can explain it better.

 

[alexakarpov]

God created the game and put me in it, I have two options, 1. "submit to my will and be united with me" or 2. "I'll send you to eternal torment." I can choose my fate, but it cannot be said that I am free, and neither option results in freedom. Any choice I make in this situation is under duress.

I see a contradiction in your reasoning.God created the world where all actions, and inaction, have consequences (including negative ones, up to and including eternal perdition). You consider that to be a form of duress, but I disagree. It seems to me - and correct me if I am wrong - that, following your logic, the mere act of creating humans free is an act of duress. I see a contradiction here.Remember, we believe that humans were created immortal into a world free of any form of suffering. But they were created free, because that was a necessary condition for them to join God - that can only be achieved by a free choice.So humans freedom was a necessary condition for joining God - but not a sufficient condition, because being free, they could have chosen, and did choose, separation from God. So now, humans have two possible outcomes; one, which they were created for, and another, which they opened through their disobedience - which was the effect of their freedom. The only way to avoid this unfortunate development would be to create them not free - but that would contradict the very purpose of creating them.Do you see the contradiction I am talking about? There are two ways to go, left or right. Going right leads to victory, going left - to failure. You are instructed to go right, but you go left - freely. You fail. You're making a conclusion that there's no freedom, that I personally am not free, and that this is a hard pill to swallow... I find this strange, sorry =)

[Wiltin]

I see a contradiction in your reasoning.God created the world where all actions, and inaction, have consequences (including negative ones, up to and including eternal perdition). You consider that to be a form of duress, but I disagree. It seems to me - and correct me if I am wrong - that, following your logic, the mere act of creating humans free is an act of duress. I see a contradiction here.Remember, we believe that humans were created immortal into a world free of any form of suffering. But they were created free, because that was a necessary condition for them to join God - that can only be achieved by a free choice.So humans freedom was a necessary condition for joining God - but not a sufficient condition, because being free, they could have chosen, and did choose, separation from God. So now, humans have two possible outcomes; one, which they were created for, and another, which they opened through their disobedience - which was the effect of their freedom. The only way to avoid this unfortunate development would be to create them not free - but that would contradict the very purpose of creating them.Do you see the contradiction I am talking about? There are two ways to go, left or right. Going right leads to victory, going left - to failure. You are instructed to go right, but you go left - freely. You fail. You're making a conclusion that there's no freedom, that I personally am not free, and that this is a hard pill to swallow... I find this strange, sorry =)

I think it is very clear that in the scenario that you present, humans are not free. It seems like you're ignoring the gun in the room. Do you think that freedom is defined by the existence of more than one choice?The fact that god is imposing his will on you at all, regardless of the number of cages he offers you, means that you are not free.Anyway, I think we've both made ourselves clear on this, and again, it isn't an argument against your position directly. I think the Christian god is evil in principle, and it has taken some serious mental gymnastics for you to reconcile Christianity and anarchism.You said earlier that the book of job was instrumental in your conversion, which I find perplexing. The book of job paints a picture of humans as nothing but play things in gods grand fantasy. Job's life is ruined because god makes a petty bet with the devil. His family, including many children are killed along with all his livestock, as if they are just another possession. It is a dehumanizing and immoral story. When god finally intervenes on job's behalf, he squashes job under the thumb, scolding him for even wanting an explanation. As a human being, how are you not outraged?

[meta]

@JohnH.
You were being clear in what you believe, like Stefan is in the video, concepts don't exist in "the real world" to both of you.

A similar point was made by several people in the chat yesterday.
To me this reasoning process is wrong because you limit the definition of existence to a physical state.

I understood that, I simply think that the reference to “the real world” is fallacious.

 I am taking this conversation to a new topic entitled "do concepts exist?", because I just typed a whole page continuing my arguments.

This text doesn't have its place in here because it deviates too much from the original topic.

Yet the subject being very interesting I would like to keep on going.

So if you don't mind JohnH. I ll create a new topic summarizing our debate.

>moved https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40166-do-concepts-exist/

[Wesley]

I see a contradiction in your reasoning.

 

God created the world where all actions, and inaction, have consequences (including negative ones, up to and including eternal perdition). You consider that to be a form of duress, but I disagree. It seems to me - and correct me if I am wrong - that, following your logic, the mere act of creating humans free is an act of duress. I see a contradiction here.

 

Remember, we believe that humans were created immortal into a world free of any form of suffering. But they were created free, because that was a necessary condition for them to join God - that can only be achieved by a free choice.

 

So humans freedom was a necessary condition for joining God - but not a sufficient condition, because being free, they could have chosen, and did choose, separation from God. So now, humans have two possible outcomes; one, which they were created for, and another, which they opened through their disobedience - which was the effect of their freedom. The only way to avoid this unfortunate development would be to create them not free - but that would contradict the very purpose of creating them.

 

Do you see the contradiction I am talking about? There are two ways to go, left or right. Going right leads to victory, going left - to failure. You are instructed to go right, but you go left - freely. You fail. You're making a conclusion that there's no freedom, that I personally am not free, and that this is a hard pill to swallow... I find this strange, sorry =)

You are perfectly free as long as you do exactly as I say, and if you don't you will spent eternity in burning torture of the worst imaginable.

 

Not exactly my definition of freedom.

 

In fact, I think it fits the definition of duress rather precisely:

 

du·ress

d(y)o͝oˈres/

noun

noun: duress

threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.

[alexakarpov]

 

You are perfectly free as long as you do exactly as I say, and if you don't you will spent eternity in burning torture of the worst imaginable.

 

Not exactly my definition of freedom.

 

In fact, I think it fits the definition of duress rather precisely:

 

du·ress

d(y)o͝oˈres/

noun

noun: duress

threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.

 

 

 

Hm, it looks like we're going in circles. Let's try a different angle.

 

We are sitting at the table. You want to drink some sweet-smelling liquid from an unlabelled bottled. I claim that the bottle contains a vile poison which will kill you. You drink anyway, because it smells good, and you're free to do as you please, and I, having absolute respect for your freedom, do not force the bottle out of your hands.

 

Soon afterwards, you start experiencing nausea, vomiting and pain, which is the effects of the poison.

 

Is there duress in the situation? I don't think there is, and our definitions of duress are likely identical (you've posted a dictinoary definition, it helps). But, the way we apply the same definition to the same situation is obviously different. That's why I'm asking whether you see duress here =)

 

Assuming you don't see duress (which I am positive you do not), let's change one parameter of the experiment: I have previously demonstrated you my very thorough knowledge of the room and it's contents. Still, you did not believe my warning about the consequences of drinking from the bottle - because you, freely, had chosen to trust you sense of smell and a feeling that you've called "self-determination", more than my knowledge.

 

Is duress present now? I still don't think there's any duress, but I want your answer.

 

Let's make a second amendment to the experiment - now there's a third person in the room. He's supporting your choice to drink from the bottle, and is asserting that my warnings are false.

 

Duress yet?

 

Finally, one last amendment - I have created the room, the bottle with it's contents, and you, and endowed you with freedom. In case you're wondering - the bottle's content is not poison, but is in fact an exquisitely good liquor, which I meant as a treat for you to consume, but only after some necessary preparations. Without those preparations, it is poison for you.

 

Any duress yet?

I think it is very clear that in the scenario that you present, humans are not free. It seems like you're ignoring the gun in the room. Do you think that freedom is defined by the existence of more than one choice?

 

I think I see the problem now. Note the response above, where I've proposed a simple, "godless" kind of an example. What you call "duress" and "anti-freedom", I call "consequences". I am very much perplexed at this difference in terminology.

[Wesley]

If you were the one who poisoned the bottle, then I would be forced to obey you under the threat of dreadful death. Then, that would be something akin to duress.

 

The Christian God also hardly demands us "not to drink from a bottle" but has many positive obligations for how we must behave to not face eternal torture and punishment which any positive obligation is infinitely more limiting in nature than not doing a handful of things.

 

Your "changes" don't change anything.

 

Poisoning my drink or threatening to poison my drink in order to force me to obey you is not free choice, but duress.

 

Saying that you agree on the definition and then apply it in totally different ways makes no sense. If I am going to define a word and then you are going to use it in opposite or irrelevant examples anyway, then the point of defining words seems to have been lost on you.

 

EDIT:

 

Just in case you were wondering, God did create hell and thus, in your example, God was the one who poisoned my drink in order to demand my obedience.

 

Feel free to look it up, there are plenty of resources confirming this.

[Wiltin]

Hm, it looks like we're going in circles. Let's try a different angle.We are sitting at the table. You want to drink some sweet-smelling liquid from an unlabelled bottled. I claim that the bottle contains a vile poison which will kill you. You drink anyway, because it smells good, and you're free to do as you please, and I, having absolute respect for your freedom, do not force the bottle out of your hands.Soon afterwards, you start experiencing nausea, vomiting and pain, which is the effects of the poison.Is there duress in the situation? I don't think there is, and our definitions of duress are likely identical (you've posted a dictinoary definition, it helps). But, the way we apply the same definition to the same situation is obviously different. That's why I'm asking whether you see duress here =)Assuming you don't see duress (which I am positive you do not), let's change one parameter of the experiment: I have previously demonstrated you my very thorough knowledge of the room and it's contents. Still, you did not believe my warning about the consequences of drinking from the bottle - because you, freely, had chosen to trust you sense of smell and a feeling that you've called "self-determination", more than my knowledge.Is duress present now? I still don't think there's any duress, but I want your answer.Let's make a second amendment to the experiment - now there's a third person in the room. He's supporting your choice to drink from the bottle, and is asserting that my warnings are false.Duress yet?Finally, one last amendment - I have created the room, the bottle with it's contents, and you, and endowed you with freedom. In case you're wondering - the bottle's content is not poison, but is in fact an exquisitely good liquor, which I meant as a treat for you to consume, but only after some necessary preparations. Without those preparations, it is poison for you.Any duress yet?I think I see the problem now. Note the response above, where I've proposed a simple, "godless" kind of an example. What you call "duress" and "anti-freedom", I call "consequences". I am very much perplexed at this difference in terminology.

None of your examples are properly analogous to the Christian world view, and I wonder if that is on purpose.I can't leave the room, the bottle is labelled 'eternal damnation' and I was forced to drink it before I was even born, you're not in the room, you're outside of it pretending like you don't exist. You have another bottle of ancient Jew blood that is the cure but you're holding it to ransom for my eternal servitude.Duress is putting it mildly.I'll leave the conversation to Wesley, I've done the dogma dance enough times to know when progress can't be made.

[alexakarpov]

If you were the one who poisoned the bottle, then I would be forced to obey you under the threat of dreadful death. Then, that would be something akin to duress.

Sorry if the experiment proposed above isn't clear. No one "poisoned the water". I did warn you the drink will poison you, if you drink it, and I did not lie. I also created that drink, and it was created for you to drink, but only after you are prepared to do so. I did not tell you that bit, exactly because you believing my warning as is (which was honest) and obeying it was a part of the "preparation" process.I don't see any force in the picture - I see a fair warning about the consequences of consuming the drink. There is no duress - just the drink, my warning, and your free choice to listen to it, or consume the drink regardless.

The Christian God also hardly demands us "not to drink from a bottle" but has many positive obligations for how we must behave to not face eternal torture and punishment which any positive obligation is infinitely more limiting in nature than not doing a handful of things.

Excuse me, but how "not drinking from the bottle" is different from "not eating a fruit from the Tree"? What followed after, human mortality, illnesses, suffering and all, is exactly the consequences of eating the forbidden Fruit - or, in my example, drinking from the bottle. You have poisoned yourself freely, without any duress. 

Just in case you were wondering, God did create hell and thus, in your example, God was the one who poisoned my drink in order to demand my obedience.

You're on uneven ground here, sire =) God didn't create hell - He only created your eternal soul, which has no other place to go after death, but eternity. And you can either arrive there poisoned - and remain poisoned for all eternity - or you can accept the doctor and the antidote, and accomplish what your first ancestor failed to.

None of your examples are properly analogous to the Christian world view, and I wonder if that is on purpose.

I am very surprised you don't see how this is literally a copy of a story of the Forbidden Fruit, the warning about consequences of eating it, absence of any duress, and free human choice of eating it.

I can't leave the room, the bottle is labelled 'eternal damnation' and I was forced to drink it before I was even born, you're not in the room, you're outside of it pretending like you don't exist. You have another bottle of ancient Jew blood that is the cure but you're holding it to ransom for my eternal servitude.

The experiment proposed is about how it all started. After poisoning yourself, you didn't die right away, but you corrupted your genetic material. Then your kids got corrupted because of it.I am sorry you lost the appetite for debate at this most interesting point, when I finally distilled the core of the issue. I thank you for your participation, though. You did help me to clarify the picture in my mind, somewhat.