It’s in your best interest to believe in God –
I don’t have any grudge against, or contempt for God. I find comfort in associating with Christians and going to church. I find comfort in that divine loving whisper of guidance that seems to be from God.
It’s in my social best interest to be a faithful believer, but faith must always give way to honest empirical evidence and rationality, because faith originates from the mind and is subjective, and empiricism originates from objective reality.
Some faiths claim that if I conclude that God doesn’t exist, then that could mean I spend eternity in a fiery hell. Since the stakes may be so high, I must validate this conclusion thoroughly and not make any mistakes in the method of finding non-contradictory truth.
I always tell people that I am not loyal to conclusions, I am only loyal to the methodology which validates conclusions and the empiricism thereof as it is manifested in reality.
For example, I am not loyal to the conclusion that the gravitational pull of the moon and sun affect the tides on earth, I am loyal to the empirical validation that identifies the gravitational pull as it is evident in reality independent of my opinion or consciousness of it.
I am not loyal to the conclusion that 5+5 will equal 10, I am loyal to the method that validates it as it manifests itself in reality. So I would ask you to not focus on, or be devoted to any of my conclusions. Draw your own conclusions by thinking for yourself.
If you seem to be disagreeing with me throughout this article, please focus on my methodology of reasoning, not my conclusions, and show me how the reasoning is incorrect. You can be open minded but that doesn’t mean you should throw away the structure which can verify the truth value of claims made.
The truth of a mathematician’s theorem does not come from the mathematician’s opinion.
Conclusions in physics do not come from the physicist’s preferences.
Truth value and conclusion validation comes from the methodology that identifies that which exists in concordance with reality. We subject ourselves to the evidence of our senses, and we use empirical validation to reject the sometimes illusory assumptions of our senses.
One thing believers, rationalists, and anyone in between can agree upon, is that, a belief in God requires faith. But, the existence of God is not up to us, or our faith. Having faith in a premise doesn’t add to the truth value of that premise.
The cheap eternal life insurance policy
Some folks tell me they may not be fully convinced of things relating to the Christian God, but they pay the low price of worship and believe anyways, because the payoff of blissful eternity in Heaven is better than the high penalty of burning in hell (or just not making it to Heaven) for not worshiping or believing.
In other words, live as if God exists, so that if he does, you get the reward instead of the punishment. If God doesn’t exist, you have nothing to lose with that bet.
I wonder though, is God cool with you having an incentive based relationship with him?
If God is omniscient, doesn’t that mean he would know if a belief/faith in him is authentic, or if the faith is based upon a possibility of a payoff in an afterlife?
Does he care if the faith is authentic or not?
I would think God would appreciate someone who wants an authentic and sincere relationship with him rather than a trophy payoff based relationship.
If it’s about betting the odds, then would it also be a good idea to put faith in the Gods perceived through other religions too?
I suppose some folks say that all religions are a just a diversity of roads that lead to the same spiritual being.
If we understand that subjective faith must give way to objective reality, then I suppose the wager could be reversed and I could say, I choose to bet that knowing I lived my life loyal to verifiable truth is more rewarding than the elusive possibility (or impossibility) of an eternal supernatural reward.
In other words, I bow to empirical evidence as it is manifested in reality, rather than bowing to an all powerful but distant king in hopes of being compensated for servitude, and I choose to live each finite day to its fullest knowing this is not a rehearsal, but the main event before the lights go out.
Faith vs. objectivity
In order for something to be considered true by rationally using objective reasoning, it must be subjected to non-contradictory laws of identity, elimination of logical fallacies, empirical verification, and universality.
For Christians to consider something as being true, they only require faith.
Faith is the belief in something that can’t be proven or disproved.
Some have defined “faith” as – Evaluating evidence, confidence in things hoped for, an internal conviction that results in an outward action. Or, believing in things that are impossible apart from God doing it.
These attempts at a definition are still epistemologically saying “reality” and truth originate from the mind and not from objective reality.
The definition of “faith’ as it is practiced in Christianity is – Believing in something regardless of any evidence and reason.
Faith as it is practiced, essentially runs on a false metaphysical premise that claims reality is not independent from consciousness and that a knowledge of reality is gained by personal preferences and revelations.
Many who practice this faith will tell you that “A” is true for them, even though “A” may not be true for others.
Of course this is completely irrational since there’s no such thing as a statement that is true for some and not true for others.
Why is it that faith in the Christian God requires faith that it is the only God?
I suppose you could say people that have faith in the one God also have faith in the non-existence of any other imaginary Gods and beings.
If I am going to stay true to this reality, how can I have faith in the existence of God while simultaneously having faith in the non-existence of imaginary beings that are asserted by me or others?
How can faith determine that which exists for sure, and that which does not exist, independent of anyone’s opinion of it? (trick question; it cannot)
The belief in God in biblical history has never been dependent upon science. Any historical claim of knowing of God came before the scientific method (1600’s Francis Bacon era) of requiring empirical proof. Any future proof of God doesn’t validate or explain how people in the past knew of God’s existence.
There is no evidence of a supernatural dimension. If there were a way to measure and verify a supernatural dimension it would not be supernatural, because it would be measured relative to this physical reality. Therefore, by definition, it can’t exist.
Since there’s no way to verify the existence of a supernatural dimension, how would one verify true vs. false in that world. Everything would be subjective in that dimension. In other words, it’s a subjective faith based, imagined dimension.
Having faith in God doesn’t increase the truth value of the proposition that God exists.
Leftist progressive atheists are also faithful believers
Whether you put faith and sovereignty in the hands of the authority of God, or of a government, either way you are endowing your responsibility and freedom to an arbitrary ruler.
The authority of God and government are both artificial concepts of the mind. Each human being has equal self-ownership by nature, and has the right and responsibility to preserve individual sovereignty.
So when there is a problem, whether it’s the need for medical care or helping others, the faithful person either goes the government to solve the problem or to God. Some are faithful in the power of God, others are faithful in the power of government.
The ruling class always wants to have a hierarchy in place so that hierarchy can tell you what is right or wrong based upon their subjective opinion, and the same goes for religion.
The government rulers in history claimed they had a divine right to rule, and that divine right was “validated” by the religious leaders that were well taken care of by the kings. How could anyone back then argue with that?
If truth is inaccessible to reason and evidence then it must be imposed by a ruler, but the fact of reality is, truth isn’t subjective, so if God or government says theft is bad or rape is wrong, that is a subjective conclusion, but if reason and evidence shows that theft or rape is a violation individual sovereignty (a law of nature) then it is objective fact, not opinion from an arbitrary ruler.
It’s interesting that atheists who turn their back on Christianity will go running towards the State to fill the void.
Substituting the State after leaving the church is disastrous for society.
If you’re going to leave the church, make sure you have a rational set of ethics by which to guide you.
Atheists who worship the State have traded a harmless religion for the dangerous ideology of Statism.
If you turn away from the church, their God penalizes you in another dimension; But turn away from the Statists by not paying taxes to the rulers, and the loyal statists have no problem with you being locked in a cage getting raped, and if you don’t comply, they have no problem with the guns being pointed at you threatening to kill you.
The fundamentals of Statism is much more violent than modern Christianity.
You leftist atheists are not advancing the human race, you are destroying it with the incentives for dysgenics, and keeping us in a paradigm where human force is the foundation for human relations.
You leftist atheists are not scientists, you are ideologues to State power.
Modern Christianity spreads peacefully by the word; The State spreads by the point of a gun.
You are exchanging a voluntary God for coercive rulers.
Leftist atheists say God doesn’t exist, yet they claim the State (government) exists. They say God is just a concept conjured up in the mind, but they deny that the State is just a concept of the mind.
They say, “You see, there’s the capitol and these government buildings, and representatives, therefore the government is real.” So does that mean God is real because of the Vatican, and church buildings with worshipers?
The same arguments against God that are given by leftist progressive atheists, are the same arguments which invalidate the State. But they care not about contradictions.
There are many others and myself who are plowing forward with rational ethics and principles, and identifying and promoting virtuous interactions, and practicing the non-aggression principle in our daily lives, in order to have a framework of non-violence based interactions in society.
I try to focus on objective ethics that don’t rely on fear of punishment from God, or a king, or on blind obedience to what the State says is ethical. It’s better to build ethics in society on a foundation of natural law and objective reasoning, rather than on subjective emotions, feelings, and visions from arbitrary rulers.
You may be thinking, how can you have any moral compass without the guidance of God, the Bible, or some anointed ruler? I would suggest you read some of my other writings like “Nature’s Ethics” and “Definitions in Nature’s Ethics”.
Thank you for finishing part 2 in this 8 part series.
We’ve laid down a solid foundation in part 1 and 2, so that we can get strait to the essence in the remaining parts.
Join me next time where we explore what it’s like to experience the presence of God that guides us through the difficult times in our lives.
