God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

My suspicion and unease would be trying to turn God into some sort of vending machine.

For me there is a fundamental question about the purpose of Christianity or a biblical reading from the text alone about what it claims to be.

Is the goal external intervention to shape acceptable outcomes, or internal transformation of persons to bring about mercy and love in the world?

If the latter is the case, then intervention may look different than the former’s expectation.

I think we are saying similar things. If God's intervention starts and ends with having an internal influence on an individual's mentality and approach to others then that is fine. It is obviously subject to the filter of that individual and their desire to a. listen, and b. act, upon the suggested change of approach. And God doesn't need to be real for such a process of change to work. It only needs the believer to think that God is real.

I absolutely think we are very close. Psychological change can occur whether or not the object of belief is real. I agree the difference boils down to whether participation beyond the self is real. If it’s not, the placebo analogy works.

[Limnor]

What makes your thought even more interesting IHQ is that AA seems to follow a very similar model.

[MG 2.0]

In recent posts I am pointing out some things that are being somewhat circumvented:

1. Faith is not an irrational move unique to believers but is a universal feature of human reasoning.
2. Growth through risk is the way the 'world works'. If God intervenes too openly or too often, it would undercut ambiguity, trust...the very conditions in which faith and moral growth are possible.
3. Agency and real risk are features, not bugs, in the system of progression and growth. God's role is to 'straighten' outcomes over time without canceling out that risk. This involves the obvious fact that all suffering is not preventable 'up front'.

These points have been fleshed out in earlier posts in greater detail but without significant pushback in a direct fashion. Rather, posters are largely shifting focus back to what some see as empirical problems. Of course, those are going to always be there. Not much push back on that.

My argument has been that there is a threshold beyond which faith becomes impossible. Simply saying that 'God could intervene more transparently without damaging freedom' just doesn't cut it.

One poster, if I remember correctly, has said something to the effect of "Why is faith even necessary?".

At that point I suppose we diverge and say, "To each, his or her own", I suppose. Of course, if you're taking a 'no god' view, it's fairly apparent how one might hold that view.

God can write straight with crooked lines.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

The last number of posts seem, at least to me, to demonstrate that a compromise might be in order. One in which we might allow for at least the possibility that God's aim is to steer things in such a way that the end result...or ongoing result...is forming/molding people whose trust is freely given and deepened within a world that by design never stops being messy. God can meet people in different ways, some with dramatic clarity, and some with quieter (and yes, ambiguous) experiences.

Im not sure what “compromise” would mean here, since I’m not arguing that ambiguity must disappear or objecting to the idea that God forms trust in a messy world. I’m trying to understand the claim that ambiguity is necessary for growth. A compromise would adjust the disputed premise, but you didn’t adjust your premise, you just restated it differently.

My question was “Why is ambiguity necessary for growth?” And you’ve responded with varieties of “God wants freely given trust in a messy world and meets people differently.”

That does not explain necessity, it assumes it. It’s hard to understand how you’d think clarity would eliminate freedom.

[Limnor]

Simply saying that 'God could intervene more transparently without damaging freedom' just doesn't cut it.

Essentially your claim is that clarity beyond a certain point makes faith impossible, but you haven’t justified that claim. Why would greater revelation eliminate trust?

You also say that “simply saying God could intervene more transparently without damaging freedom doesn’t cut it.” But that’s not an argument, it’s a dismissal.

If the disciples had full clarity but still faced risk, and had agency, and could deny or obey, how did that clarity eliminate moral risk?

Make sense of your claim.

[I Have Questions]

What makes your thought even more interesting IHQ is that AA seems to follow a very similar model.

It works for sports people too. Triple jumper Jonathan Edwards (an Olympic gold medalist) was a devout Christian during his years competing. Citing his belief in God as one of the key reasons for his success. He was able to relinquish feelings of failure or inadequacy etc to "God" which enabled him to move on from adversity (crooked lines) to perform at a higher level (writing straight). "God" didn't need to exist, he just needed to believe that "God" existed in order for the psychology to work. Interestingly, after he finished competing his belief waned, to the point he now considers himself agnostic, but an atheist in all practical measures.

Belief in God is the ultimate in mind coaching. God doesn't need to write straight from crooked lines, you just have to believe He does.

[I Have Questions]

I think that what you are saying here is that "God can write straight with crooked lines" (MG's phraseology of Teresa's idea) in MG's world, could mean anything and everything so long as all roads lead to Rome - that Mormonism is true yada yada yada

This is exactly, 100% what I'm saying. Say we can see Rome off in the distance and the valley bellow is littered with crooked roads. But the roads are covered in mist. We can talk about from our recollection where we think certain roads lead, but there's enough mist that MG can sit back and ask us to prove that any given road system doesn't lead to Rome, and insist we must believe they do until proven otherwise. Of course, you could make the case the roads lead to anywhere but he's plugging his ears with his fingers and repeating himself.

Continually

[Marcus]

In recent posts I am pointing out some things that are being somewhat circumvented:

1. Faith is not an irrational move unique to believers but is a universal feature of human reasoning...

Mentalgymnast's habit of inserting his opinions as though they were facts is well known, but occasionally he still states such whoppers that a formal negation needs to be stated.

It is not a fact that faith is "a universal feature of human reasoning." If mentalgymnast would like to argue his opinion about this it would be interesting, but it is NOT a fact.

[Gadianton]

It's a ridiculous position as it undercuts faith. If faith is nothing more than inductive reasoning or optimism, and everyone has faith, then the scriptures wouldn't indicate "faith" is what separates believers from nonbelievers. I don't think any scriptures indicate "faith" is in play when serving false gods. I've never seen the success of evil powers attributed to great "faith" in the devil, or whatever. If all faith amounted to was believing in God like believing in China without having been there, then faith would be a joke. The scriptures aren't clear about exactly what faith is, but there is no reason to believe that faith is a deep conviction in the power of Satan that reflects a believers conviction in God, or that faith is the great confidence that if I put my mind to it, I can build a nuclear reactor in my garage.

[MG 2.0]

It's a ridiculous position as it undercuts faith. If faith is nothing more than inductive reasoning or optimism, and everyone has faith, then the scriptures wouldn't indicate "faith" is what separates believers from nonbelievers. I don't think any scriptures indicate "faith" is in play when serving false gods. I've never seen the success of evil powers attributed to great "faith" in the devil, or whatever. If all faith amounted to was believing in God like believing in China without having been there, then faith would be a joke. The scriptures aren't clear about exactly what faith is, but there is no reason to believe that faith is a deep conviction in the power of Satan that reflects a believers conviction in God, or that faith is the great confidence that if I put my mind to it, I can build a nuclear reactor in my garage.

In its broader definition faith is trust or confidence in something that cannot be empirically proven or fully known. Believing in concepts, ideas, or outcomes without absolute proof.

For example, anticipating future events or outcomes despite uncertainty.

I would assume that you and others here construct your own narrative in regards to the universe and your place in it. Whatever that narrative might be, you have faith in the coherence and truth of that narrative.

You move forward with that hope /faith. Sometimes that hope and faith you may have may seem illogical or unrealistic to others.

When all is said and done you exercise faith to predict outcomes and make decisions when complete information is unavailable.

It's a human thing. No religion necessary. Relgionists have faith in their own narrative of the universe and their place in it.

My argument is that this faith (specifically in LDS doctrine/theology) would not be possible under any other conditions other than that which I've outlined.

For critics to discount and/or reject that kind/form of faith because it is not readily transparent as to why that faith makes empirical sense is unreasonable at face value.

If, that is, faith is a feature and not a bug. I've explained why I think it is a feature rather than a bug earlier.

'Faith' is somewhat unique to each individual.

Regards,
MG