The Problem of Revelation

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Problem of Revelation

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I always appreciated Thomas Paine's thoughts on the subject

Age of Reason posted:

Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication � after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention
...
Since, then, appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention.

Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief, (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show), it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a showman, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.

Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen, and wrote every word that is herein written; would anybody believe me? Certainly they would not. Would they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact? Certainly they would not. Since, then, a real miracle, were it to happen, would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if they were real.

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

TLDR: Since it's impossible by definition to determine whether a revelation someone claims to have had is true or not (if it could be ascertained by other means, then it's not a divine revelation, it's just something we could've figured out), it doesn't seem like the mode an all-wise all-powerful God would use to tell his creations critical information that must not be false, distorted, or misleading.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 08:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:18

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Kyrie eleison posted:

The truthful answer, although most won't like to hear it, is that someone may claim that they are speaking from the Spirit, and even believe it on some level, but they are actually being misled by the devil. The Spirit never contradicts himself. If you want to know what the orthodox teaching is on a subject, there are readily available and more informative resources than simply intuition. Proper education is essential to having a coherent theology, as is an earnest willingness to appreciate God's will.

In your heart, you probably have an inkling when you are trying to distort the teaching to accommodate some desire. Tell Satan to go away!

The best part about this reasoning is it fits any faith. How do we explain that a few billion people are Muslim/Catholic and are going to hell because the Catholic/Muslim God didn't give them a religious experience to change their minds? Um uh, oh he totally did but Muslims/Catholics hate God and secretly loooooove to worship the devil but they'll never admit it!

Also a handy justification for butchering the infidels. You can't save those who hate God so much they make themselves be Muslim/Catholic despite knowing the only true religion is Catholicism/Islam!

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 25, 2014

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 08:43

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

If we're going to play high school philosophy, you can't know any of this. It's impossible to know anything about a creator god. All things, ideas, and concepts are necessarily created by God in such a universe, so the definitions of things like "omnipotent" can't possibly apply to God, as he created the definition of omnipotent. You can't really even say "God is", because God created the definition of "is" and the very concept and fact of "being" when he created the universe.

Okay then we can't trust any supposed revelations either if our monkey-brains are too dumb to comprehend god, since there's no way to tell a true incomprehensible revelation from a false one.

We'll just have to hope God isn't the kind of nutcase who holds us to an impossible standard of behavior with a get-out-of-hell free card only for those who choose the true revelation by sheer luck.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 18:59

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I guess, but the idea that God created X% of humanity from the beginning on purpose to suffer eternal tortures through no agency of their own is kinda horrifying.

But I guess for the Puritans, getting to watch the savage red man burn in eternal hellfire for eternity was one of the perks of being God's elect.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 19:16

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Sooooo...the answer to the OP's question is to redefine revelation to include a hearty handshake and a "nice to see ya" and now revelation is a common personal and intimate experience available to everyone?

Well, that's one way to resolve it I guess.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 21:54

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Having a philosophical problem with magic?

Well, you shouldn't. Magic is just like not-magic so everything you do is magic. How can you doubt revelation but believe in handshakes? You can't. You've shaken hands before ergo the Gospels are literally true.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 17:50

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

You sound like you really really want to believe so just do it if it will ease your existential crisis. It's no big deal, just do me a favor and stick with the good stuff about charity and forgiveness, and don't get mixed up with the Moral Majority prosperity gospel villainy tia.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 20:49

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Unless doing so damns me to hell, which was my whole reason for sincerely exploring this in the first place.

Well it does, but so does being a Christian according to a majority of the world, so you're damned no matter what unless you get really lucky and select the One True Faith (btw it's the Second Revised Reformed West Kansatucky Bible Church, post-1836 Revision of the Reformation of 1826, pbuh)

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 21:07

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Mr. Wiggles posted:

Some guys met and followed Jesus and believed Him to be the Messiah. They spread the word about this to other people who thought them credible enough to believe and so on and so forth down the generations to the current day. That's nothing to do with being a literalist or not a literalist, but everything to do in believing people who were there and close to the action.

Why don't we believe the people who were there and were close to Mohammed's action? Especially since their original first-hand accounts actually survived instead of being cobbled together from tales like a game of telephone.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 23:38

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Mr. Wiggles posted:

Your question is a bit loaded. First of all, we do believe in accounts of Mohammed's life, which is why he is generally agreed upon as being a historical figure (just like Jesus).

Presumably you knew I was talking about the attestations of miracles, like how an illiterate man was able to write the Koran dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel.

Or the attestations in the front of the Book of Mormon of people who saw the golden plates or the angel Moroni

The Eight Witnesses posted:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

People attested to it, must be true.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Dec 2, 2014

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 00:54

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Mornacale posted:

If the only reason to be Christian is fear of hell, then rest easy knowing that it's exactly as likely that there exists a god that will eternally drat you for being a Christian as one that will do so for not being one.

This is why before he gets to his famous Wager, Pascal spends a good long time proving logically that dirty Arab and Oriental religions are stupid and dumb and the only choice is between Christianity and atheism.

So that's my advice for you OP, first assume everything but Christianity is retarded mumbo-jumbo for savages, then decide whether to be Christian or atheist based on which one is less likely to get you sent to hell. :catholic:

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 15:34

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

This is like the r/atheism of Christianity.

"Oh see but those other books are obviously stupid, lol. Just not mine, it's different."

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 23:39

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I mean, look at Pascal's wager. 'Nuff said.

Pascal's Wager only works if you assume that every religion except Christianity is so obviously dumb and backwards savage poo poo that the only two meaningful options to consider in our risk analysis is whether there is the Christian God or no god.

And even then it doesn't make any sense because (a) God will presumably know if your faith is insincere and a cynical ploy to hedge your bets, and (b) when you're summing over infinites you can't just assume that summing even the infinite good of heaven over an arbitrarily small probability of God's existence will actually come out to have a larger expected value than the time you save by not going to church or studying the Bible. This is like basic calculus: you have to add in another assumption (that God is 10% likely to be real or whatever), because if the probability of God's existence approaches zero then you can no longer assume multiplying it by something that approaches infinite yields a large number.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Dec 4, 2014

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 00:15

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

The people writing those letters didn't know it'd become part of scripture because that was only decided later based on what theology was more politically advantageous to the Roman state. When Paul is telling Timothy about the infallibility of God's scripture, he's not talking about the letter he's writing in that moment.

Edit: I mean you could say that God knew and He was inspiring Paul to say that, but if that's the case why didn't God shortcut all this confusion by having Paul tell us what books are canon and what aren't so you don't get holy wars and schisms both in the early church and later on when Protestants decided some books "didn't count"

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Dec 4, 2014

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 17:03

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I addressed that in my second paragraph, which requires believing that God simultaneously told us unambiguously His Scriptures are inerrant, but then curiously neglected to mention which documents actually count as scripture, setting the stage for centuries of bloodshed.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 17:50

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

V. Illych L. posted:

God is the Utility Monster, IMO

Holy poo poo!

:tipshat:

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 17:55

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

LaughMyselfTo posted:

You're neglecting the possibility that there's only one God, and he's really bad at it. Or alternatively that there are two gods, and one of them doesn't care about making themselves known, just undermining the first one (read as: mainstream Christianity's view of Satan).

If there's one thing to take from the Old Testament, it's that God is poo poo at it. Killing everyone and starting over? Not noticing your people are slaves for like centuries, then being more concerned with mind-raping Pharaoh into being stubborn and pointlessly punitive to your people so you can show off with more plagues?

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 19:34

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

ClearAirTurbulence posted:

It's considered, but it seems illogical. I would think that an entity as old and powerful as the monotheist god would have developed some wisdom by now, even if it started out at a human or somewhat less than human level of intelligence.

Maybe it takes a really long time to mature and is just playing with its toys until mom and dad get home and make it clean its room before dinner.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 20:15

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Black Bones posted:

That refers to the Church's specific moral and theological interpretations of the Bible, which it arrives at through the following process http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm

Saying the collection is without error isn't the same as making a literalist reading of the books within it. The Church takes into account the types of genres and the historical context that is in play when dealing with the Bible.

God likes me too much to ever let me be wrong, therefore I am right.

All those other people who say God wouldn't let them get their faith wrong? Liars.

Like seriously this is the most :laffo:

part of Catholicism to me (and that's saying a lot). God is totally cool letting billions and billions of people fall into error and be condemned for it without giving two shits but oh he's totally guiding me while I write some bullshit about how the trinity isn't polytheism or how condoms are evil, this is all the unvarnished truth, would God lie?

But then I remember it's sad because once the Church takes an insane position like "wearing a condom to gently caress your wife when you can't afford another kid is a horrible sin just stop having sex forever", then no matter what subsequent developments in society or psychology have to say about it, the Church has no choice but to double down on that poo poo or backtrack and admit their teachings on morality aren't infallible after all.

And as we've seen from the child sex abuse cover-ups, an institution with a reputation of moral authority to protect above all else is a dangerous thing. :smith:

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Dec 12, 2014

# ¿ Dec 12, 2014 12:02

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Helsing posted:

Why are you making claims about what God would or wouldn't do? Why should God care about some dumbass mortal's ideas on what is or isn't logical?

Nope nope, you don't get to do this. The Bible wasn't written by God. It was written by dumbass mortals and other dumbass mortals are claiming God is speaking through those authors. And it's in competition with thousands of other traditions authored by dmbass mortals claiming to have some special insight into the divine.

So it absolutely is appropriate to evaluate these claims and decide which ones appear to have the kind of wisdom and moral sense that a perfect being would possess, and which ones were written by petty busybody assholes intent on controlling and guilting everyone about their sex lives.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2014 13:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:18

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

nucleicmaxid posted:

Literally nobody knows. If a God exists, it hasn't actually told anyone anything. You're basically asking if Harry Potter prefers orange juice or grapefruit juice with his breakfast.

Gospel According to Hermione 4:16 "Squeeze ye not the juice of the grapefruit and drink not thereof for it is an abomination in the eyes of the LORD your Harry. Peel not the orange with thy fingers, and breed not a seedless orange lest Harry strike thee down in thy insolence against what He has called good".

God, it's like you've never even heard of special revelation.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2014 02:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Problem of Revelation