Can such a person possess spirituality? Is such a person without any ethical or moral guidelines? Specifically, do the doubts that this individual entertains condemn him or her to hell? Do those who believe have the moral obligation to convince this individual that God exists so as to save that person's soul? And what about those individuals who postulate that a Supreme Being may exist, in the sense that there probably is a Creator, but no longer plays an active role in human affairs?
----------
Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)

Many varieties of Christian, though not many varieties of other religions, do feel they have a moral commandment to try hard to convert unbelievers. They feel that, if they didn't already believe, they would certainly want to be converted; remember "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Personally, I prefer Hillel's version: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man"; if you are sure your own religion is right, do you want people who follow "wrong" religions trying to convert you?

do the doubts that this individual entertains condemn him or her to hell?
It's not doubt that sends a person to hell it is unbelief (i.e. rejection of) in the message of the gospel (speaking as a Christian, that is.)

Do those who believe have the moral obligation to convince this individual that God exists so as to save that person's soul?
It's not so much that I have a moral obligation to share the gospel but that I have a Biblical mandate and obligation to do so. Christ instructed me to do so. If I am a Christian I should follow his instructions.

And what about those individuals who postulate that a Supreme Being may exist, in the sense that there probably is a Creator, but no longer plays an active role in human affairs?
What about those individuals? For the sake of argument, if the Supreme Being is the God the Old and New Testaments, he has made it clear he's still actively involved (immanent) in the affairs of this world.

Last Edited on 10-Aug-2008 9:20 AM

Faith, like happiness, is a journey, not a destination. This world is complex and confusing. Life doesn't happen on a solid concrete foundation, but on shifting sand. What's true today may be a lie tomorrow. Today your child is a sunny, happy ten-year-old; tomorrow he might be in police custody for shoplifting. It happened to my family yesterday. My two nieces, 18 and 27, last week flew from New York to New Orleans and spent the week with a church group that is helping with reconstruction. On their way to the airport yesterday to catch their return flight, my nieces were in an auto accident in which their car was broadsided; both girls were injured. Will this change their faith, how they view God? Faith struggles and reframes as it journeys.

As Frederick Buechner put it, "Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith." Doubts keep the search for faith and truth fresh, alive, and vibrant. There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know."

Can such a person possess spirituality? Is such a person without any ethical or moral guidelines?
Each person is born with a conscience. (I'm not speaking about sociopaths or psychopaths who apparently somehow lose their conscience during their early years.) The conscience tells each person what is morally good or bad, encourages him to do what is good and to avoid what is bad. When he does good, he has a feeling of joy and blessedness; when he does wrong, he feels guilt (I did a bad thing") or even shame ("I am bad").

Even before parental influence and moral instruction, children show they have a conscience. The best kind of moral behavior flows out of empathy, the ability to get inside another's skin and imagine how he feels, cf. Jesus' second commandment. (The most basic, but still socially useful kind is when one behaves well so as to avoid punishment, cf. Moses' ten commandments.)

We see the many who flaunt moral and ethical guidelines go unpunished and even enjoy a good life. We know that good people suffer. Our conscience tells us there's a higher justice, and sooner or later each person will receive a reward according to his deeds. For many people, this is the greatest evidence that there is a God and that the human soul is immortal--"God will judge them" and "Someday they will get what's coming to them."

Do those who believe have the moral obligation to convince this individual that God exists so as to save that person's soul?
I grew up in a corner of that world where it was believed dumping brimstone on an unbeliever's head would knock some sense into him, and he would turn to the Lord in fear and trembling. When I was younger, it made me feel very righteous (bad sign!) and very self-satisfied (uh oh!) that I was saving those poor benighted souls we sang about in church on Sunday mornings. My world was "God's people" versus "them." Actually, I figured out later, that's the antithesis of the Gospel message.

Last Edited on 10-Aug-2008 3:18 PM

Faith is not certainty. Without doubt, faith would not be faith - in the sense of believing without proof. Protestant Christianity keys on faith (belief), while Catholic Christianity keys on faith and behavior. As far as agnosticism goes, it seems to be a perfectly honest way to approach this whole business.

Surely an agnostic can have spirituality - and ethics.

In certain Christian views, doubts (non-belief) do condemn a person to Hell. This is generally the position of Fundamentalists. Most mainstream Christians, however, do not hold this view. In fact, the very notion of a place of eternal punishment is dying out as we learn more about Hell's historical development, and its logical inconsistency with an omniscient, all-loving, all-powerful God. To paraphrase BrianG, God cannot be God and not-God at the same time.

To be morally obligated to convince people that God exists so as to save that person's soul seems to me to bring God down to the level of human hubris. Much evil has been done supporting that principle. Better to live a good life and let your example be the light that attracts.

Your last question describes "Deism". It is primarily a reaction against the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, and when the Age of Enlightenment sought a way to keep God but discard all the inter-denominational bloodshed. When examined, it doesn't make a lot of sense, and is generally relegated these days as an intellectual exercise for those who don't want to be bothered with the whole idea of God or a Supreme Being.

I'm not sure I see the connection. Are you suggesting God cannot be loving and just simultaneously? That is precisely what Christ did. God declared that sin (as he defined it) must be punished and that the punishment was eternal separation from him. That's the just part. The love part was the work of Christ imputed to all those who believe in that work.

I'm well aware that the idea of Hell as a place of eternal torment is quite out of fashion. Likewise, the idea of a bloody sacrifice (the Atonement) is repugnant to modern American sensibilities. The two go hand-in-hand. If my sin is not really that bad the remedy for it need not be so extreme.

These topics are difficult to deal with, though of great importance. If I begin to sound too extreme don't anyone hesitate to call me on it. I'll never be offended.

If God is all-knowing, he can foresee that his creation Joe will choose evil and be condemned to everlasting punishment (Hell). God knows this even before he creates Joe. If he goes ahead and creates Joe, knowing where Joe is headed, then this God can't be described as all-loving. This is a monstrous God. Free will has nothing to do with it (in case you were going to suggest that). Hence, God can not be not-God at the same time - both all-loving and a being that created Joe for eternal punishment. It is not a question of justice, either. Justice would be God not creating Joe in the first place.

I would challenge the statement that the Atonement is repugnant to American sensibilities. (Why American?) I presume all or most Christians accept it without repugnance. Most, however, do not make the association you do - that Hell goes hand-in-hand with Atonement. You seem to require extreme eternal torment for sin when Christ himself "atoned" for all sin by his one-time death.

I don't find these topics of GREAT importance, but I do find them very interesting. Dogma (belief, creed), for me, takes a back seat to behavior. The Elephant God devotee, acting according to his lights, has the same chance of achieving "salvation" or heaven as the most devoted Christian.

In actuality far to few Christians can actually explain the atonement (the Great Exchange, as Luther called it.) Additionally, a large proportion actually reject the vicarious, substitutionary nature of the atonement particularly as it relates to the topic of propitiation (the turning away of wrath by a blood sacrifice.) Here now we get into the differences between the Penal Substitutionary Theory and the Governmental Theory of the atonement; about which multitudinous books have been written.

Most, however, do not make the association you do - that Hell goes hand-in-hand with Atonement. You seem to require extreme eternal torment for sin when Christ himself "atoned" for all sin by his one-time death.

Christ atoned for all the sin of those who are "in him." He did not atone for the sin of say, Hitler or Stalin. The category is the extent of the atonement, the "L" in the acrostic "TULIP".

Back up the bus. Christ atoned for all sin, even Hitler's and Stalin's. The "in him" part comes after, not before, Christ's atonement, thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit that surrounds us with and instills in us God's grace. Grace was available to Hitler and Stalin. They had the choice to say "no, thanks."

I like what Rabbi Kushner wrote in When bad things happen to good people. In order to give mankind free will (yes, free will has something to do with it), God, in total love for us, chose to take a step back and "limit" His omniscience. Amazingly, Wikipedia has something on this (under "Omniscience"):

There is a distinction between:

* inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known

and

* total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

Some modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.

Of course, the theological problem that then rears its ugly head, as Wikipedia so succinctly states, is that certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, to rebuke created beings' ability to choose freely, embraced the doctrine of predestination.

So yes, if one accepts that God choose "inherent omniscience," then God can be God and not-God at the same time...or, better, God and not-quite-God or God and self-limiting God.

"Inherent omniscience" is an oxymoron. Religious philosophers have gone to extreme lengths to try to reconcile predestination and free will with an omniscient God. But it can't be done logically. The source of the idea is found in the Bible and people from Augustine to Calvin have gone through hoops trying to prove the idea for the simple reason that it is Biblical. Since the issue has been discussed ad infinitum over the centuries, I suggest that the best approach for those interested is to surf the net and read what has been said.

I note that one of your conclusions is that it is true that God can be God and be not-God at the same time. That should tip you off that something somewhere is very wrong with "inherent omniscience".

BrianG --

The jargon is getting deep. "Penal Substitutionary Theory"? "Governmental Theory"? "The L in the acrostic TULIP"? Often jargon is utilized when the author needs something to hide behind. I hope that is not the case here. Please try to respond in plain language.

No matter how the question is structured or answered, it always fails the test of logic.

You wrote, "Don't forget, He's God and He can do anything He wants".

Can he make a square circle?
Can he hate himself? Destroy himself?

I think that the only way to avoid these logical difficulties is to declare that logic itself (reason) can only take us so far. And that it is impossible to state ANYTHING about the nature of God. The best we can do is go as far as reason takes us, and simply BELIEVE whatever religion or philosophy we have decided to believe based on sacred writings, revelations, avatars/incarnations, etc. That won't get you a lot of points with the human "rationality" crowd but it will make for less confusion.

Scratch away the poetry and the big Latinized phrases, and that's basically what ever major religious genius has ultimately come down to.

Ouch! The jargon was simple shorthand. I'm afraid that if the first two phrases are unknown to readers it will take far too much writing to explain them here. As for TULIP, Wikipedia to the rescue.

I love these kinds of discussions but I'm always concerned that I might offend someone. I'm careful about mentioning specific denominations, for example, and would rather refer to theological categories and positions.

I'd like to contribute my twopennyworth, as a convinced atheist, apparently in a tiny minority on this thread.

First of all, Mudge, I mildly object to the word "arrogantly"; it's no more arrogant to assert that there isn't a God than to assert that there is. For the record, I don't believe that the existence of God can be disproved: in statistical terms, I don't think its probability is exactly zero. (I don't think it can be positively proved either, by the way.) But I think that its probability is so close to zero that there's no practical difference. Without being flippant, I think the probability of the existence of God is roughly the same as the probability of the existence of Father Christmas (I can't disprove that either).

(Some people would question whether I'm an atheist or an agnostic. That's really only a matter of definition, and I don't think it would contribute anything to this discussion.)

TheMudge then asks:

Can such a person possess spirituality? Is such a person without any ethical or moral guidelines?

On spirituality: I'm not sure I can answer because I am not quite sure what it means. BrianG suggested "an interest in things metaphysical", but I think that to most people it means something more than that. For what it's worth, I believe that I have a mind and a body, that's all; and that both will cease to exist on my death. A great advantage of this belief, by the way, is that I have no concerns about hell. But I don't know whether I have "spirituality".

On "ethical or moral guidelines" I will offer an answer. It's an interesting question - slightly offensive, perhaps, but I forgive you.

It seems clear to me that I have to share the planet with a lot of other people, and that life would be intolerable without some principles governing our behaviour to each other: "do unto others..." It may seem too simple, but I think that's the basis of whatever my conscience tells me about whether an action is morally good or morally bad.

Of course, people will never completely agree on what those principles should be; but you must all have observed that even among religious people - even among people who profess the same religion - there is no universal agreement about what is morally good and what is not.

Last Edited on 13-Aug-2008 1:17 PM

Bradd: why do you use that kind of language? Should I refer to religious people as 'the "faith" crowd'?

A little hypersensitive, aren't you? I haven't the slightest objection to you referring to religious people as "the faith crowd".

Are you sure you're in a tiny minority here? Tiny? Only CeeBee and BrianG have indicated personal religious belief so far.

Last Edited on 13-Aug-2008 5:58 PM

Can he make a square circle?
Can he hate himself? Destroy himself?

I'm sure He could, but why would He?

However...

The "why" changes your position. It is a separate question. In the sense of this discussion "why" is irrelevant. But here's my answer. I don't know why God would do it. Maybe he enjoys logical conundrums. Maybe he can't do it. Maybe there are other reasons. Who knows?

Your repeated comment - "I'm sure He could" - is non-responsive. It simply restates your original statement.

As for the "tiny minority" comment: I apologize if I got that wrong too, but I had the impression that most of the contributors in this thread are assuming the existence of a god (although not necessarily any specific version).

Then again, I should have recognized that although there are many contributions, there aren't really very many contributors. So I willingly withdraw the word "tiny".

In any case, I am interested to hear the views of religious people about the moral values of non-religious people, which was one of TheMudge's original questions.