God is a question, not an answer

But the link is not just about Christianity.
If it's about any god, what if Isis are right?

I do not believe that bags does not care one way or the other.
If that was so, she would not have started the thread, and she would not have contributed to it any more. She cares enough to debate it, therefore she cares.

My husband dies four years ago. I do not believe in god, and therefore know that I will not see him again in some afterlife. It does not mean that occasionally I would like to be proved wrong.

But if they have faith, they believe the parts they do not know or understand? The parts which they are told are true, but cannot be proved?

I think that all the Christians that I know readily acknowledge that they only know part.

Knowing in part is not knowing all, but those with faith believe the all when they know only a part. That is what faith is for.

dj Those who have that faith accept that "God . . . . . a question and an answer" Again, that is what faith is for. Others see the question. Not every question has an answer! Those who try to answer may not all find the same answer. Not every question needs an answer.

As rosesarered says ^"nothing should be simply accepted without much thought.That's what brains are for."

And sunseeker "any religion should be able to accept criticism or debate."

A good answer Elegran, but "knowing in part" is knowing if you see what I mean.

The link actually says the opposite, that Christians both do not know, and should be happy with doubt.

IPad! that is what our brains are for.

We would all like to know the answer to 'life, the universe and everything'( Hitch-hikers Guide To The Galaxy) but sadly ( or perhaps happily?) are never going to know the answer.Yes, all religions should be open to critique , and it seems to me that thinking about and debating them is very important, nothing should be simply accepted without much thought.That's what are brains are for.

When I said most people are led by their conscience, I meant that there are those with a strong conscience and those with little or no conscience and it is this which leads them to do good or bad deeds. Those of us with a faith do not have a monopoly on good (or bad) deeds. I choose to believe there is a God but as I said before that doesn't make me a better person than someone who doesn't believe. A local priest once told me that any religion should be able to accept criticism or debate.

Why can God not be a question and an answer?

obieone you write "I think you think, and I might be wrong, that they, and particularly this link starts from a totally neutral position on the matter. It does not."

No-one starts from a totally neutral position on the subject of religion. It is bound up with too many subjective feelings and childhood experiences. No-one can contemplate a higher being without looking through the veils of this state of being. Until we leave behind us our mortal, living and breathing life, we cannot clearly experience what there is to come.

If there is indeed nothing, then we will not be aware of the nothingness. If there is more, we will find out what it is when we get there. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12

Or maybe not.

Meanwhile, we can discuss what we think we shall see, and whether those who believe there will be something are right, or those who there will be nothing. We can do that as a theoretical exchange, without damaging either believers or non-believers (or even damaging god, if he is a reality and separate from the concept held in the minds of believers, and therefore available to be separately damaged)

As the writer of the article says^ "There is no easy answer. Indeed, the question may be fundamentally unanswerable. " "The question is permanent; answers are temporary. "^

As you wish thatbags

elegran is right, ab. Your understanding of criticise is apparently not the same as mine. I think aggression can only be imputed to what I've said on this thread if my trying to express what I think is aggressive. Perhaps, despite the implication by one poster that my posts are unfathomable, they are in fact too straightforward for some people's taste. It is certainly true that I try to be clear even if I don't always achieve that. And, of course, when talking about what are really quite unfathomable philosophical subjects, like the one in the OP, it's quite difficult to be straightforward.

Perhaps we could agree to not get personal (nor take personally things that aren't personal) about discussions and not accuse each other of things that have no evidential support whatsoever? That sort of thing is quite aggressive, don't you agree, and is to be avoided?

AB I think you and thatbags are putting different meanings on the word "criticise".

Literary critics criticise books - they read them carefully, and say what they think of both their bad points and their good ones They have read a lot of books and have plenty of examples to compare them with.

Any teacher in training has had "crits" where a supervisor sits in on a lesson given by a trainee, taking notes, and afterwards reviews it, pointing out where they think it went well and where it was a bit shaky and the preparation or technique needs to be altered.

Why would god give us a brain that can examine things closely including religion if he did not want us to use it?

What thatbags wrote was:-
"I agree, GMattie, that it's completely wrong to 'rubbish' people whatever their beliefs are.

I don't think it's wrong to 'rubbish' (I prefer criticise) beliefs though. Beliefs are ideas and ideas are, or should be, always open to criticism, whatever those beliefs happen to be. That means, of course, that atheists' ideas are just as criticisable as religious ones."

So she prefers the word "criticise" over the word "rubbish" - because rubbishing a belief is not what it is about. It is about examining just what is involved, using the most intricate thing in the universe - the human brain.

To sunseeker: unfortunately we are not "all guided by our conscience" as some people don't seem to have one. I have been badly hurt my such people, my marriage wrecked. Did you see a recent TV programme about the sons of two Nazi war criminals? One was racked by conscience, the other tried to justify his father's actions. Christian ethics have made this country what it is: but our society's wholesale rejection of moral values is becoming more and more evident. I know there are plenty of good people out there, lots of Gransnetters amongst them, judging by the posts, who are unbelievers, but on the battlefield, and in extremis, most of us will call upon God or our mothers. It must be empowering to be an existentialist, but I find comfort in my wavering belief, so don't mock me, or tie me up in philosophical knots you clever ones.

A discussion on faith or no faith has often been held on this forum,. If one joins in one should expect to be asked questions , my objection through out this thread has been the aggression in the statement I will criticise .

Some folk find not believing frightening I think. I recall a situation at a party when a man was saying "I am not sure I do believe in God" when his wife interjected bossily "Don't be silly Peter of course you do" Others moved away to avoid involvement in a 'domestic'! However I think she found it threatening to her whole lifestyle to even contemplate that her God may not exist. My brother who has a very strong belief in a Christian God is also up for a debate and like me enjoys the challenge.

I am not qquite sure you understand what I am trying to say thatbags.
My point is not about whether something is allowed to be discussed on gransnet, or elsewhere.

It is about being careful about philisophy.
I think you think, and I might be wrong, that they, and particularly this link starts from a totally neutral position on the matter. It does not.

I reckon that anything that bears any relation to existentialism is philosophical. I think the article is just that. I don't think we have a philosophy forum. Not that it's make any difference, I feel. People who take umbrage at philosophical ideas about gods would find a way to do so wherever it was. Hey ho.

I enjoyed the article, thanks bags

This struck a chord with me:

"We can all exist along a continuum of doubt. Some of us will approach religious certainty at one extreme and others will approach atheistic certainty at the other extreme. Many of us will slide back and forth over time."

This too:

"This is not to say that we should cease attempts to convince others of our views. Far from it. We should try to unsettle others as we remain open to being unsettled ourselves. In a spirit of tolerance and intellectual humility, we should see ourselves as partners in a continuing conversation, addressing an enduring question."

I thought hat thise with a faith in a deity would enjoy a debate about God. As there are many different sects within different faith groups there is obviously room for difference /discussion. Why are some Christians RC /Baptist etc. Is their view of God identical or are there differences, if so what are they and why?
I love debating religious philosophies, not to denigrate those with faith but to try to understand. Sometimes that does mean asking a question a believer finds uncomfortable..but it is not asked for that reason... just for clarity.

It's a question of interpretation, obi. The writer gives their interpretation of something.

My own view is that there is no answer, like the article. Other people no doubt have a different view. All of which is fine and dandy and only to be expected. It's the taking of offence and the accusations that are unjustified, not what anyone else believes or doesn't believe.

jings, I agree with you that a person's personal faith should not be questioned by anyone except the person whose faith it is, unless they initiate a conversation about it themselves, which isn't very likely on Gransnet.

The idea of faith and what 'belief in god' means is not a personal thing and this thread was not to question anyone's personal faith. It was to look at ideas of how people think about God. This is perfectly clear in the OP link and in what I said in the OP. I expressed only what I think, not what other people think or believe (mainly because I don't know what anyone else believes!). And I still maintain that this is allowable. If someone doesn't want to read what other people think about god, because it might feel like an attack on their own beliefs, then don't read it!

The link has already made up its mind before it started on certain things.

So if you start from the wrong place you end up with the wrong answer.

Although it purports to be philisophical it is anything but.

In general I think the tactic of saying there are certain things a person can't discuss in a philosophical manner, which is all I intended with this thread (most posters have, in fact, done that), is just a kind of censoring to shut down uncomfortable discussion.

Here are two facts:

1 The essay linked to in the OP is a discussion of philosophical ideas.

2 Discussion of philosophical ideas is allowed.

I think you are mistakenly ascribing to me something I didn't say, ab. As my memory serves me I haven't thought about or mentioned tooth fairies in any context for many years, not since Minibags stopped losing her milk teeth. I will accept the guilt if you can prove that I have said that of which I'm accused. Otherwise I think you should withdraw the accusation and please stop ascribing to me the most sinister and ignoble motives you can think of. With thanks in anticipation because I'm sure you will be reasonable about this.