Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:58 am
The ethic that ensued might look the same. But in the latter case, he would have an objective grounds for believing he had a responsibility to do the GR, whereas in the latter he would have none.
The belief in God and that he wills you to act in a certain way is a subjective judgement, otherwise we would all believe it.
There's no reason to expect that. There are plenty of facts that are facts, but many or even most people do not believe. A thing can be objectively true regardless of the number of people who know it is.
Thus his commitment to the GR would have to last only as long as he felt like it; and after he stopped wanting to do the GR, he would have no reason at all to continue, because there would be no objective obligation attached to performing the GR.
It's not so unusual for people to follow their conscience rather than their own personal interest. True, we don't have to follow it but many people find it hard to go against it.
I think that's true. But did you ever ask yourself what a "conscience" actually is, and what it implies that we have one? Even more interestingly, while our consciences are not all in agreement, there are broad patterns of similarity about certain basic items (incest, theft, lies and premeditated murder, perhaps). Why would that be, since certainly some of these hesitations are not survival-adaptive in any identifiable way...
Also, it is not unheard of for even the strongly religious to lose their faith, at which point they will no longer feel obligated to do God's will.
I guess that's why religion is such a bad deal. "Religion" is merely a set of traditions of human invention, man's attempt to know the gods, but on man's terms. I know of no one, however, who has genuinely entered into a relationship with God and then has "lost their faith." If you know of one, I'd be interested in hearing about that.
But from the outside, it's possible it's hard to distinguish "religion" from genuine faith. I suspect it is.
But if I do not obey God, then I know I am doing the wrong thing, and am responsible for my choice.
The same applies if I do not obey my conscience.
We do, however, have a remarkable ability to "get over" the annoyances of conscience when we find incentives strong enough. If it were not so, all people would be conscientious and moral. However, the responsibility we have to God is not something that can be "gotten over." It has implications both for this life and the future. And these will not be brushed aside with our compunctions.
Moreover, I always know that I am falling short of, and damaging the relationship I ought to have with the Creator.
And I know I am falling short and damaging my sense of self esteem.
An over-rated quality, I do believe. I've spent some time in work with prisoners, and have always found that the worst offenders have excellent self-esteem. I'm not sure self-esteem indicates anything about morality. We all do think pretty highly of ourselves anyway.
Even if I agreed with you, how could I be sure what God wanted of me? I don't understand most of what's written in the Bible, I would have to rely on "experts" to interpret it for me, people like you, perhaps.
Not at all, and I wouldn't recommend it. It's actually an incredibly easy book to read and understand. There are difficult parts, sure...but the four gospels, say, I would think a reasonably literate child could understand them at the introductory level without any difficulty. For an adult with the relative facility in language you have, I think it would be very easy.
The sermons of Jesus Christ, for example, while morally profound and capable of provoking two thousand years of debate by some of the greatest scholars on the planet (Bacon, Newton, Locke, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, etc....to say nothing of the theologians), are on the surface so straightforward that a rural first-century audience could understand them. So I would say the difficulty isn't as great as all that.
This being the case, I wouldn't actually be doing God's will, I would be doing what somebody thinks is God's will, which could vary quite a lot, depending on who's advice I was dependant on. How do I know they haven't got it wrong or that they are being truthful?
I really agree with this objection. Right on. At the same time, I would say again that a person of reasonable literacy and intelligence would certainly be able to hold his own on fundamental questions, and not have to surrender any judgment to the putative experts. It's really quite a marvel of accessible writing, when you look at it. In most cases, a straightforward read will do it.
But I'm big on the idea of not surrendering our judgment to self-styled "experts." I'm with you there.