Thanks so much for this clip. One issue that led to my deconversion was the issue of eternal punishment for incorrect beliefs. Glad to have a fresh perspective.
Same for me. Not every Christian believes that we'll be punished for incorrect beliefs, and I often wonder if my deconversion would have been so sudden and absolute if I had known about less mainstream versions of Christianity. Relatedly, Alex Malpass has been defending an argument against Christianity lately from the moral irrelevance of doxastic (belief) states: useofreason.wordpress.com/2023/08/21/an-argument-against-christianity/
I just can't see how "believing the right things" could be a requirement for avoiding eternal torture, period. Even if those things were obvious and perfectly explained, that's just a bizarre punishment for thought crime.
Salvation, if it exists, surely has nothing to do with beliefs. God, if He exists, surely is a searcher of hearts for love, not of minds for concepts. Atheists like Emerson, along with unorthodox theists like me, know this instinctively.
“If we assume god to be […] then it’s not a bug it’s a feature” that just strikes me as mental gymnastics to try to fit what you any to conclude with the data rather than just accepting what is most likely given the data we have
Malachi 1:11 seems relevant. "For from where the sun rises to where it sets, My name is honored among the nations, and everywhere incense and pure oblation are offered to My name" Rabbi David Kimhi (1160-1235) explains that all peoples worshipped a supreme creator god, "the first cause", which is recognised by the one god as sincere worship.
It's not that I'm not willing to say nothing beyond nature exists. It's that it seems incoherent to say it. Maybe it's not, but to know that, I have to know what "beyond nature" actually means concretely, and nobody can offer that.
Why is "beyond nature" incoherent? Abstract objects are usually taken to be "non-natural", and I don't see anything incoherent about non-natural reality in that sense. I also don't really see anything incoherent about an angel, for example. Those are understood as supernatural. Maybe certain conceptions of God are incoherent, but the issue in those cases isn't that God is supernatural; it's usually that his attributes are contradictory.
@@EmersonGreen One property of a god that I don't think can be excluded is that it interacts or has interacted with reality in some way. I think that makes supernatural in the "abstract object" sense difficult to accept. If something can interact with reality, it must be natural. I don't see what something "beyond natural" interacting with reality would mean.
@@EmersonGreen If I think of a tree in my head, is the thought beyond nature? I think its possible to think that everything, including what we consider supernatural (angels, love, God, soul) are a part of nature and can be described in terms of energy, or matter. I dont think its necessary to think in terms of dualism.
The other commenters have followed my train of reasoning It _seems_ incoherent because in essence when talking about the existence of supernatural entities, rather than conceptual abstractions that a4 mind-dependent, and thus exist because something natural is causing them to, you are saying that something exists beyond that which exists. If it exists, it is included in the set of that which exists, so how can it also be beyond it? You said an angel doesn't _seem_ incoherent, but what is happening here is you are considering the coherence of a mental concept of what you believe an angel might be, not the coherence of what is the case, because you have no idea what is the case. This is roughly analogous to saying Sauron or Voldemort don't seem incoherent. You are going off mytho-history and and bad translations of iron age stories, lus some lucid dreaming and suchlike reported experiences, none of which are valid objectively to say what is the case.
@@RustyWalker I think this youre right, but if we acknowledge that people have mystical or supernatural experiences in which they meet "divine entities", the challenge then is to put an ineffable experience into words. And so people usually do that by calling it whatever their culture categorizes the experiences as. So people call it a jinn, or an angel, or a demon, or spirit guide. None of which are sufficient to fully describe the experience, but we have a need to create language for it. The problem is when theology constrains experience rather than the other way around. For instance, if a hindu has a positive religious experience with divine entity, and a christian says, "It may have been positive for you, but it was actually a demon because your approaching God via a false/evil religion."
We must never forget that men can say anything about God. Just because it is profound, positive, logically consistent and God's reputation is preserved, that doesn't mean it's true
This is obvious because belief in a set of dogma is determined by geography; the culture you were born into, which God determines. I think Jesus highlights that salvation can happen without any right beliefs, and only by good works. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus highlights their ignorance; the sheep didnt even know they were serving the Lord. Salvation came to Zacchaeus before Jesus' atoning death, and after he repented. Paul says love is greater than faith, which is interesting because he says we are saved by faith (not by adhering to the law). Justin Martyr believed that there were unknowing Christians; Socrates and Plato and others were saved because they believed in Logos. CS Lewis believed people of other faiths were saved if they were compassionate. This is all so obvious, its a shame Christendom believes that salvation is determined by a ridiculous game of chance.
It’s quite clear that you don’t have to have the “perfect theology” to be saved. There are certain beliefs that MUST be present, namely those involving salvation itself, but some are not as black and white. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”, which means to rely on God with reverence and pursue sanctification.
I dont think so. No beliefs in any doctrine are necessary for salvation. Because most people arent born Christian. Faith is determined by where you are born. What God seems to care about is that we choose love as best we can.
I believe in modalism which makes me a heretic to most Christians. But we are all Christians that lack absolute certainty with no perfect theology. I am ok with that.
1:08 - Christianity is a pile of bugs gussied up as a planned feature. Jesus totally meant to get his ass kicked by the Romans, it was all part of the plan, #trustmebro. And that time I got my finger stuck in a bottle? Yeah, I meant to do that, it was 4D chess.
Randal Rauser never talks about his twin brother, Rabble.
Thanks so much for this clip. One issue that led to my deconversion was the issue of eternal punishment for incorrect beliefs. Glad to have a fresh perspective.
Same for me. Not every Christian believes that we'll be punished for incorrect beliefs, and I often wonder if my deconversion would have been so sudden and absolute if I had known about less mainstream versions of Christianity.
Relatedly, Alex Malpass has been defending an argument against Christianity lately from the moral irrelevance of doxastic (belief) states: useofreason.wordpress.com/2023/08/21/an-argument-against-christianity/
When you work backwards from a conclusion, there's almost nothing you can't justify. And for everything else, there's "God works in mysterious ways."
This was probably my favorite section from one of my favorite interviews. Banger of a clip.
I just can't see how "believing the right things" could be a requirement for avoiding eternal torture, period. Even if those things were obvious and perfectly explained, that's just a bizarre punishment for thought crime.
Salvation, if it exists, surely has nothing to do with beliefs. God, if He exists, surely is a searcher of hearts for love, not of minds for concepts. Atheists like Emerson, along with unorthodox theists like me, know this instinctively.
“If we assume god to be […] then it’s not a bug it’s a feature” that just strikes me as mental gymnastics to try to fit what you any to conclude with the data rather than just accepting what is most likely given the data we have
What a great conversation. Thank you so much
Saved for living by the right beliefs!
Malachi 1:11 seems relevant.
"For from where the sun rises to where it sets, My name is honored among the nations, and everywhere incense and pure oblation are offered to My name"
Rabbi David Kimhi (1160-1235) explains that all peoples worshipped a supreme creator god, "the first cause", which is recognised by the one god as sincere worship.
It's not that I'm not willing to say nothing beyond nature exists. It's that it seems incoherent to say it. Maybe it's not, but to know that, I have to know what "beyond nature" actually means concretely, and nobody can offer that.
Why is "beyond nature" incoherent? Abstract objects are usually taken to be "non-natural", and I don't see anything incoherent about non-natural reality in that sense. I also don't really see anything incoherent about an angel, for example. Those are understood as supernatural. Maybe certain conceptions of God are incoherent, but the issue in those cases isn't that God is supernatural; it's usually that his attributes are contradictory.
@@EmersonGreen One property of a god that I don't think can be excluded is that it interacts or has interacted with reality in some way. I think that makes supernatural in the "abstract object" sense difficult to accept.
If something can interact with reality, it must be natural. I don't see what something "beyond natural" interacting with reality would mean.
@@EmersonGreen If I think of a tree in my head, is the thought beyond nature? I think its possible to think that everything, including what we consider supernatural (angels, love, God, soul) are a part of nature and can be described in terms of energy, or matter. I dont think its necessary to think in terms of dualism.
The other commenters have followed my train of reasoning
It _seems_ incoherent because in essence when talking about the existence of supernatural entities, rather than conceptual abstractions that a4 mind-dependent, and thus exist because something natural is causing them to, you are saying that something exists beyond that which exists.
If it exists, it is included in the set of that which exists, so how can it also be beyond it?
You said an angel doesn't _seem_ incoherent, but what is happening here is you are considering the coherence of a mental concept of what you believe an angel might be, not the coherence of what is the case, because you have no idea what is the case. This is roughly analogous to saying Sauron or Voldemort don't seem incoherent.
You are going off mytho-history and and bad translations of iron age stories, lus some lucid dreaming and suchlike reported experiences, none of which are valid objectively to say what is the case.
@@RustyWalker I think this youre right, but if we acknowledge that people have mystical or supernatural experiences in which they meet "divine entities", the challenge then is to put an ineffable experience into words. And so people usually do that by calling it whatever their culture categorizes the experiences as. So people call it a jinn, or an angel, or a demon, or spirit guide. None of which are sufficient to fully describe the experience, but we have a need to create language for it. The problem is when theology constrains experience rather than the other way around. For instance, if a hindu has a positive religious experience with divine entity, and a christian says, "It may have been positive for you, but it was actually a demon because your approaching God via a false/evil religion."
And what about atheist and agnostics ? What about my political views ?
We must never forget that men can say anything about God. Just because it is profound, positive, logically consistent and God's reputation is preserved, that doesn't mean it's true
I wonder how Rouser came to think his subjective interpretation was the correct one?
Super interesting!
Mikes hard lemonade being the devil’s urine. Now that seems the closest thing to reality that Randal has mentioned. ;)
This is obvious because belief in a set of dogma is determined by geography; the culture you were born into, which God determines. I think Jesus highlights that salvation can happen without any right beliefs, and only by good works. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus highlights their ignorance; the sheep didnt even know they were serving the Lord. Salvation came to Zacchaeus before Jesus' atoning death, and after he repented. Paul says love is greater than faith, which is interesting because he says we are saved by faith (not by adhering to the law). Justin Martyr believed that there were unknowing Christians; Socrates and Plato and others were saved because they believed in Logos. CS Lewis believed people of other faiths were saved if they were compassionate. This is all so obvious, its a shame Christendom believes that salvation is determined by a ridiculous game of chance.
It’s quite clear that you don’t have to have the “perfect theology” to be saved. There are certain beliefs that MUST be present, namely those involving salvation itself, but some are not as black and white. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”, which means to rely on God with reverence and pursue sanctification.
I dont think so. No beliefs in any doctrine are necessary for salvation. Because most people arent born Christian. Faith is determined by where you are born. What God seems to care about is that we choose love as best we can.
It's quite clear?
@@ChadToney Do you have perfect theology?
@@zachr0I was replying to jigglypuff. I have very little-to-no theology, perfect or not.
@@ChadToney good on ya
I believe in modalism which makes me a heretic to most Christians. But we are all Christians that lack absolute certainty with no perfect theology. I am ok with that.
1:08 - Christianity is a pile of bugs gussied up as a planned feature. Jesus totally meant to get his ass kicked by the Romans, it was all part of the plan, #trustmebro. And that time I got my finger stuck in a bottle? Yeah, I meant to do that, it was 4D chess.