Is Preaching Warranted?

I don't understand how wanting to talk about any of that would be best initiated by a poll.

As far as I’m concerned you may as well ask the same question about Winnie The Pooh. That is not to belittle the message only to make the content accessible rather than taken as a literal interpretation of some ‘other’ figure. Winnie The Pooh has a relevant message and The Bible contains many relevant messages.

Personally I find many arguments from atheists about literal interpretations to be just as ridiculous as believers who claim the existence of this undoubtedly abstract idea which is ‘felt’ in human existence to some degree or another.

Mythological stories are powerful because they rely on the listener for their interpretation. The art of interpretation is something people should attempt to hone when listening knowing they are prone to misrepresenting and misunderstanding in equal measure.

Oh, Reply to Valentinus, voting definitely not mandatory.
It's just running an argument about proselytizers/indoctrinators.

Reply to I like sushi, story-telling is great.
This is more about the proselytizers/indoctrinators out there.
I guess it's implicit in the argument.

You're invited to argue pro et contra.

Quoting jorndoe

This is more about the proselytizers/indoctrinators out there.

Out there, not on this forum. No preaching allowed here. So this is kind of a one-sided argument and will remain so. I’d also say ‘Yahwah thumpers’ is a less than respectful manner to address anyone. There are levels of belief and many religious types don’t take a dogmatic approach - those that do take a dogmatic approach are usually beyond the limits of this forum and its rules of exchange.

I can only suggest you offer up your own view on this matter (the opening post) and then see if thre is anything to discuss. Otherwise I fear this will stop before it gets started.

Quoting I like sushi

thumpers’ is a less than respectful manner

Removed.

Quoting I like sushi

I can only suggest you offer up your own view

No. Nothing here is about me. It's about the argument in the opening post. Could in principle have been posted by anyone. Poster irrelevant to post. (As an aside, I typically don't vote on a poll I've posted, this one included.)

Consider it an intellectual exercise if you will. (y)

There is an unaccounted-for option, albeit uncommon

Reply to jorndoe I can’t make head nor tail of this. If you cannot offer your own response, as example, to the ‘questions’ (whatever they are?) then I’ve nothing more to offer.

Quoting I like sushi

I can’t make head nor tail of this

Hm it's simple enough, isn't it?

• the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
• Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf
... 5 more items ...
Then:
Opinions, arguments, pro et contra, ...?

That's really all it's about. Discussing the argument. How does it fare? Implications? ... (anything of relevance here on the forum)

Unless I misunderstood your comment?

If you were thinking of

There is an unaccounted-for option, albeit uncommon

then it was really just that I'd found an objection to the argument, though maybe not generally applicable.
But that wasn't intended as the purpose of the opening post.

Quoting I like sushi

offer your own response

I suppose you can just take my response to be

Quoting jorndoe

proselytizers and indoctrinators are conducting unwarranted business ?

1. Everyone doesn't know Yahweh
2. If everyone doesn't know Yahweh then either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish everyone to know of him
So,
3. Either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish everyone to know of him
4. If either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish that everyone know of him then proselytizing is unwarranted
So,
5. Proselytizing is unwarranted

I think premise 2 is questionable because there may be reasons other than Yahweh not wishing to be known by everyone that there are people who don't know Yahweh. For instance he may want to "expose" himself ( :smile: ) in a phased manner. This idea isn't improbable for we do it with children by deferring the talk about the birds and bees to the "right" time.

Also, what about the concept of secret teachings which I'm familiar with from Tibetan buddhism? There is a requirement that must be met before God reveals himself/herself and it must be that some of us fail to fulfill it.

:joke:

I think you are looking for the religious section.

Quoting TheMadFool

there may be reasons other than Yahweh not wishing to be known by everyone that there are people who don't know Yahweh. For instance he may want to "expose" himself ( :smile: ) in a phased manner. This idea isn't improbable for we do it with children by deferring the talk about the birds and bees to the "right" time.

Right.
John Chau might have raised such a reason when going on a preaching mission to the Sentinelese.
I think there is tension with ...
• Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf (nor had Indian authorities in this case)
• Yahweh has chosen that maintaining ignorance (of Him) is the right thing to do, and hence wants that
Furthermore, wouldn't you expect Yahweh to know (much) better than preachers...?

Quoting TheMadFool

Also, what about the concept of secret teachings which I'm familiar with from Tibetan buddhism? There is a requirement that must be met before God reveals himself/herself and it must be that some of us fail to fulfill it.

There could be exceptions to the argument in that.
I know a Shaivist mystic; in their faith, there are some select mystics that are "privileged" and can (allegedly) communicate with Shiva; others (unprivileged) may then learn from them, indirectly.
In some ways, this sort of privilege is like what the Protestants abandoned when parting ways with the Catholics.
Secret and/or esoteric and/or special teachings may fall outside the opening post.
The likes of panpsychism and Spinozism certainly does.

Thanks for participating. (y) :)

There's (at least) a 4[sup]th[/sup] (logical) option in the 3[sup]rd[/sup] bullet in the opening post: Yahweh cares not (apathetic, indifferent)
Seems uncommon, though, and more characteristic of non-descript unassuming deism.

By the way, this opening post is somewhat related to an older one:
Preacher, why should anyone take your word for it?

Reply to jorndoe

Christians believe Yahweh is Jesus Christ. If he doesn't exist then what difference does it make if Christians are misrepresenting him. Noah Harrari believes human's rise to dominance is based on us believing in fictions that enable us to have millions work together instead of just 200 Apes. Apes work together in groups of less than 200. Noah says the structure of an ant colony is very fragile even though they work together in groups of 1000s.

I believe there is a substantial chance my chosen religion is the correct religion.

I think god is a bit like that irritating teacher that tries to get the kids to find out shit for themselves instead of just telling them the right answers. "work in teams, boys and girls, learn to cooperate experiment and share."

Quoting unenlightened

I think god is a bit like that irritating teacher

The great thing about God is that nobody can prove He does not exist.

Quoting ovdtogt

The great thing about God is that nobody can prove He does not exist.

There's not much that anyone can prove does not exist. And it's one of the least important or interesting things about God. If you believe in proof, do you need to believe in the existence of proof? Can you prove that proof does or does not exist? What does it even mean?

Quoting unenlightened

There's not much that anyone can prove does not exist.

There is not much (if anything) that anyone wants to prove does not exist. The fact that we can't prove an anthropomorphic God does not exist, makes this powerful 'hypothesis'. so persistent and has allowed it to dominate western culture for centuries.

Reply to jorndoe [reply=";d7197"]

I think your argument entails some inconsistencies and false dichotomies.
To demonstrate this, I will attempt to restructure your argument into a common argument form to show that a couple of its premises are not sound, or are at least objectionable.

To begin, I will assess your first two antecedents:

1. The Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
2. Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf

While it can be argued that the nature of the Biblical scriptures are more nuanced than a simple "manmade" designation (i.e., Spirit-inspired or similarly authoritative), I will grant, for the sake of ease, the position that the scriptures are basically manmade.

Concerning (2), there needs to be more clarification on the meaning of "authorization" in this statement. For example, a strong and clear case can be made from the Bible that Yahweh as indeed authorized Christians to speak on his behalf regarding the reiteration of the gospel. Consider the famous "great commission" from Matthew 28:19-20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Special attention should be given to Jesus' command to "teach" in this passage.

The type of prohibition that it seems you are more likely referring to is one of additional or overriding revelation. The Bible does seem clear that, after the New Testament revelation, none can be officially added. Consider this stark passage from Revelation 22:18: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." Thus, based on these passages and the many others that they represent, it seems reasonable to redefine your statement (2) as follows:

2. Yahweh has not authorized anyone to effectively change the current state of Biblical revelation; the canon is closed.

Now, to assess your premises, I will do some slight organizing for ease of discussion and address your first suggestion - that "everyone would" know God if he so desired. I think the following is a charitable reformulation of your argument into modus tollens:

3. If Yahweh wanted everyone to know Him (and the truth of Him in particular), then everyone would.

4. It's not the case that everyone knows Him (there were/are devout adherents claiming to know different deities instead, people never having heard of Yahweh, and nonresistant nonbelievers)

5. Therefore, it stands to reason that Yahweh does not want everyone to know Him. (3,4, MT).

Concerning premise (3), there seems to be a variety of assumptions packed into the conclusion that "everyone would" know God. Clarifying questions arise regarding the nature of knowing; what does it mean that "God wants everyone to know him", and how would this divine desire logically play out? Philosophical debates regarding free will and omniscience come to mind. The concept of "God" normatively entails the other "omni's" as well, including omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Thus, if God is omniscient, is free will possible? If so, can God be perfectly good and violate our free will? Does our ability to "know" him fall within our willpower? If this is the case, then perhaps it is possible for God (entailing all of the "omni's") to desire that all know him while only some succeed in doing so. All of these philosophical questions aside, there still remains the need to qualify "knowing."

Distinctions are made within the Bible that speak to the nuances of human knowing in light of God's desire.
Consider the following passages:

Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [all] are without excuse."

Psalm 19:1-4:
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above[a] proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice[b] goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.

1 Timothy 2:4: "[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

John 12:48: "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day."

From these passages, a case can be made that God has indeed provided all with some semblance of guaranteed knowledge of him, be it explicit or secondary. However, even while establishing God's desire for all to "come to the knowledge of the truth", it appears that some will remain unknowing - perhaps by nature of free will.

While debates about God's compatibility with free will are beyond the scope of this post, I will simply hint at the reasonable possibility of free will and posit an objection to your premise (3) based on the Biblical evidence above for the reasonable compatibility of God's desire with a qualified sense of knowing.

Before I formulate this revision, however, I will briefly note that perhaps your use of "knowing" conveys a more salvific meaning rather than mere intellectual understanding? If this is the case - that your argument gravitates toward the idea that if God wanted everyone to know him (in a relational and salvific sense) then he would assure everyone's "salvation", then I will just say that this is an entirely different debate. However, this may not be your intention at all, and with that in mind, I will continue on with a discussion of "knowing" as understood in the more intellectual/evidential sense (pertaining more to debates regarding God's "hiddenness").

Returning to the discussion regarding premise (3), my reformulation works out as follows:

6. If Yahweh wanted everyone to know Him (and the truth of Him in particular), then he would provide enough universal knowledge for him to be known.

4. It is the case that Yahweh has provided enough universal knowledge for him to be known without an apparent violation of free will.

5. Therefore, it stands to reason that Yahweh does indeed want everyone to know Him. (3,4, MP).

Reply to CS Stewart Well argued, C S Stewart, and good to have some educated apologists here.

I want to add a footnote however. The name ‘Yahweh’ is a corruption of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, which was spelled totally with consonants and therefore was unpronounceable. This was intentional, to preserve the understanding of the unknowable nature of the divine, who could not be brought within the ambit of ordinary speech. Normally, the name ‘Elohim’ was used. I say this because to invoke the name in the service of polemics does verge on blasphemy (although the concept is only meaningful to the believer of course.)

Reply to jorndoe It seems natural that "teach" and "preach" rhyme but there's a fundamental difference which may be relevant to this discussion. A teacher usually, not always, has something we think we might need. A preacher, on the other hand, has something s/he thinks we might need. People look for teachers but preachers look for people.

I dont think people need permission from others to make an argument for or against something. If people want to make an argument for the existence of something, then define it in such a way that EVERYONE can see.

If you can't define it in a way that EVERYONE can see, and part of your argument is that everyone comes to realize its existence in their own way, then that would be the best reason for them to NOT argue for the existence of that thing - to not make positive assertions that it exists in some objective sense. It would be subjective and not objective. There is no good reason to assert the existence of the subjective as if it were objective.

We don't use language to make subjective assertions. We make objective assertions with language-use - assertions that others can see and verify when they look. If others can't see and verify when they look, then what is the point in saying anything about it?

Reply to jorndoe Hello, jorndoe! I want to address the first couple of points you make before I get to the main thrust of your argument. You say the Biblical YHWH is only known from manmade scriptures. This is not necessarily disproof for the existence of YHWH. Firstly, the written record of YHWH was originally passed down as an oral history by the Jews, and this was based on what was believed to be the real, historical experiences of their ancestors (several story beats of which are proven to correspond and are corroborated by third-party histories). No one today was alive to know Abraham Lincoln, and I only know of him by either a) the written historical record/monuments or b) oral history passed to me by teachers trained to pass this knowledge down. There are several stories about Lincoln that have been passed down over the years that may or may not be true that have been incorporated into the narrative of his life because, let’s be honest, most of us like a little flair in our history textbooks, but that does not make Lincoln’s existence any more or less likely. Incorporate the fact that verses like 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claim that the Bible is directly inspired by God (some translations read “God-breathed”), and the fact that human hands got the Bible down on paper does not immediately cause a problem (and more argument is needed for it to do so). As for your second point, this seems outright false. In the Hebrew Bible, there are many, many individuals who are authorized by God to speak on God’s behalf. Moses, the judges, pick-a-prophet: you have lots of choices. In the Greek Bible, Jesus himself (if one believes him to have the authority of God, which I do) says in Matthew 28:19-20 to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations,” which is a direct call for Christians to speak on God’s behalf to others.

The second point more closely ties into the main thrust of your argument, which appears to be a rather novel usage of the divine hiddenness argument, albeit tangentially. I have not included your added statements about the possibility of YHWH being fictional since I think that goes to the traditional divine hiddenness argument, and I am more interested in addressing the implication you draw from that argument. I think your argument has this form:

1. Either YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him, or YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do.
2. If YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him, then everyone would.
3. Not everyone knows the truth of YHWH.
4. YHWH does not want everyone to know the truth of Him. (2, 3 MT)
5. YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do. (1, 4 DS)
6. If YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do, then YHWH wants to remain hidden.
7. YHWH wants to remain hidden. (5, 6 MP)
8. If YHWH wants to remain hidden, then proselytizers are violating YHWH’s will.
9. Proselytizers are violating YHWH’s will. (7, 8 MP)

This is an interesting implication to draw from the divine hiddenness argument, but I disagree with your argument. I have several objections, but I realize this post has already gotten quite long so I will address my most promising object and then leave this thread to further discussion before chiming in again. I object to premise 1 as a false dichotomy. It is quite possible that YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him but has very good reasons for remaining hidden. Michael J. Murray provides just one of the many responses to the divine hiddenness argument by making a soul-making defense for hiddenness, wherein humans would be unable to develop significant moral characters if they knew the truth of God for certain because the fear of Hell and promise of Heaven would be confirmed and therefore coerce most people into obeying God’s commands, effectively robbing them of free will (which is a great good, many theists will argue). It is very possible for a being to have a certain want and yet still chose the best course of action as something else. A parent may WANT to make a child happy by giving them a cupcake whenever the child asks, but the parent may (hopefully) choose to make the child abstain from cupcakes altogether because the sugar would be extremely bad for them. YHWH may want us to know Him, but He can choose another alternative if it is what would be best for us in the long run. Premise 1 is a false choice. YHWH can do both.

Quoting unenlightened

There's not much that anyone can prove does not exist. And it's one of the least important or interesting things about God.

:clap:

Quoting TheMadFool

A preacher, on the other hand, has something s/he thinks we might need. People look for teachers but preachers look for people.

And the proof of this is that school is always voluntary, whereas if you don't send your kids to church, you get arrested and/or fined.

Just to clarify, the opening post is about authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers), not so much about whether Yahweh is real or not.
Yahweh, Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, or Allah may or may not be real; there's no particular assumption either way.

Thanks for the comments.

Quoting CS Stewart

Matthew 28:19-20

Quoting philrelstudent

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Quoting philrelstudent

Matthew 28:19-20

Having scriptures self-legitimize/authenticate/authorize/certify doesn't quite work (especially not if there already are ultimate authorities around).

Perhaps NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec/VeriSign) and other Internet certificate companies can be used as an analogy of sorts? Anyone can call up such a companies and get details about their certificate offers. For something important, such certificates are needed/expected, whereas someone running ad hoc Internet services out of their basement may just use self-signed certificates.

While on the topic of importance, there's a fairly obvious disproportionality between the (asserted) importance of messages from deities, and their delivery. Muhammad had private sessions with Gabriel in a cave, receiving messages from Allah, some 1400 years ago. The messages are supposedly the most important for all mankind. ("And your eternal soul is at stake.") If so, then we're talking deception, otherwise, well, maybe just deceptive.

It's not all that difficult to come up with a scenario that "matches" what we see (regardless of what we see, i.e. counter-example immunization). Say, Shiva wants to stay out of sight for any reason, and wants to rely entirely on humans for more or less everything. Yet, this is no different from supposing Earth being a game board, where some number of superbeings "plant" their respective scriptures, and observe and push a bit here and there, in a sort of Kafkaesque manner. (Incidentally, a Stargate Atlantis episode just came to mind.) :) This again renders authentic legitimacy a problem.

Quoting philrelstudent

1. Either YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him, or YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do.

Note, the opening post and this subsequent comment gives:

3. if Yahweh wanted everyone to know Him (and the truth of Him in particular), then everyone would;
or Yahweh has chosen that maintaining ignorance (of Him) is the right thing to do, and hence wants that;
or Yahweh cares not (apathetic, indifferent);
or Yahweh is a fictional character in scriptures

In the case of the Christian (Biblical) Yahweh, the two latter are rejected right away.

Some related inquiries, exemplifying the topic of the opening post:
[sub]
Did Yahweh inform you (the preacher) about Him and the importance of the Bible, or did other (fallible) humans?

Are we to peruse the supermarket of religions? "Pentecostalism is crazy. But those Jains over there are nice. I'll take that one." If it was readily admitted that we're talking just faith, with consequently proportional moderation, then inquiries like the opening post would largely fade off. That's not the case in the real world, however. And here advertisers have academic apologists helping sales (while helping their own sales as well of course).

The truth of the matter is a different ballgame. Whether some sort of polytheism monotheism deism or whatever, the truth of the matter has no dependency on peoples' (diverse) faiths, heck, no dependency on the universe (they say). No manner of belief one way or other can change the truth of the matter. Faith does not entail truth.

Denote any superbeing deity there may be with G (examples given prior):
1. G is the all-powerful authority (and originator of divine messages)
2. only G can confirm/authorize that you (the preacher) speak on their behalf
3. G could easily confirm/authenticate that you speak on their behalf
4. G has not confirmed that you speak on their behalf
Thus, why would anyone take the diverse preachers' words for it all?
[/sub]
Anyway, as far as I can tell, skepticism (of the elaborate religions in particular) is warranted.
This accords with evidence, and is both reasonable, rational, and honest.
[sub]
Animated map shows how religion spread around the world (2m:35s youtube)
World's Largest Religion Groups by Population 1945 - 2019 (2m:48s youtube)
[/sub]

Quoting philrelstudent

You say the Biblical YHWH is only known from manmade scriptures. This is not necessarily disproof for the existence of YHWH.

Right. Per my comment a bit earlier, this stuff is more about the preachers. (Apologies for any confusion on that.)

Compare this list (Wikipedia) with the history of the various elaborate religions (the youtube animations have some rough overviews). If memory serves, the Mormons' claim that Jesus visited the Americas has been thrown in the bin a few times over. Otherwise, that might comprise more significant evidence. If Allah (perhaps via Gabriel) had spread "The Word" through the Americas and Australia, then we'd have more significant evidence. Why would the Pre-Columbian Americans and the Aboriginal Australians (have) take(n) Muslim da'is word for it?

Quoting jorndoe

Let me just run this by you folk:

the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures

Er, where is the evidence for that?

Curiously, Scripture is chock full of people who knew Yahweh without the aid of manmade scriptures. And so are the stories of the saints, up to contemporary people.

This first bullet of your argument ran into a huge brick wall for me, so I would like to know more about your justification for it before proceeding.

Is this a question about law? If so moderate proselytising is warranted in most countries where human rights are respected AFAIK.

I think people should be free to try to persuade others of anything at all, as long as they don't do it in an overly coercive or abusive way. And they obediently fuck off when told to.

I think preaching is as warranted as it is effective. The more effective and convincing the preaching, the more people that would be willing to listen, simple as that.

Doesn't matter if it's truthful or not, since god can't be proven to exist or not exist, it's a matter of belief, in the end.

Quoting jorndoe

Opinions, arguments, pro et contra, ...?

Is preaching warranted? From a Christian POV (not that I have one of those, you understand), I'm told by some people who do have one, that preaching is not only warranted but mandated on account of the need for "all the Nations" to hear the Good News before the end comes...

Statistically, apparently, there are some 2.2 billion Christians out of total world population of about 7.6 billion - so that means if every Christian took this mandate on board and preached to no more than 3 or 4 others today, the end could very well come tomorrow. I'm not holding my breath!

Quoting Mariner

where is the evidence for that?

Some evidence, observations and such (some mentioned prior):

• no reports of Yahweh having informed a group of people of Him and the importance of the Bible, without them already having been informed thereof by other humans; likewise for others (Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah)

If memory serves, the Mormons' claim that Jesus visited the Americas has been thrown in the bin a few times over. Otherwise, that might comprise more significant evidence. If Allah (perhaps via Gabriel) had spread "The Word" through the Americas and Australia, then we'd have more significant evidence.

Compare this list (Wikipedia)

Did Yahweh inform you (the preacher) about Him and the importance of the Bible, or did other (fallible) humans?

• having whichever scriptures self-legitimize/authenticate/authorize/certify doesn't quite work (especially not if there already are ultimate authorities originators authors around) [sup]e.g. the Great Commission (Bible, Matthew 28:16-20), "Allah says the Quran is the final truth; Allah says so in the Quran."[/sup]
• ... the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
• are scriptures words of Yahweh, or is Yahweh words in scriptures?
• Authorship of the Bible (Wikipedia)
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to authenticate and legitimize preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to delegitimize other preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• ... Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf
• there's an obvious disproportionality between the (asserted) importance of messages from universal deities, and their delivery [sup]e.g. Muhammad had private sessions with Gabriel in a cave, receiving messages from Allah of the utmost importance for all mankind, to be written down by Muhammad's friends (and your soul is at stake)[/sup]
• roughly, anything found in King James Bible that's not in Jefferson's edition has no particular historicity, but are matters of faith (which is fine for what it is) [sup]e.g. supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food[/sup]
• almighty deities would have no trouble informing humans, whereas humans would have to be told by whichever deity there may be how to approach them (if somehow strangely needed)
• deities neither evident nor necessary, just humans and humans alone
• by the way, fictional characters can't legitimize preachers to the subjects/targets of those preachers

Not going to launch critiques of scriptures here. Suffice it to say, that'd be tedious and lengthy testaments to human creativity.

Quoting bert1

Is this a question about law?

Nah, freedom is not the topic (nor on the negotiation table).
Though, I suppose, Heaven's Gate should have received some sort of intervention?

Quoting jorndoe

no reports of Yahweh having informed a group of people of Him

Really?

No reports?

This, to my mind, is equivalent to "there are no bugs in my house". Have you bothered to look for them?

Perhaps you mean "no credible reports". Which would open the door to a discussion on standards of credibility. Probably off-topic.

But if you truly mean "no reports", you haven't bothered to look for them. (One of the great places to look for them, curiously enough, is the Bible. But there are others).

As for the larger argument, if someone has something [that he perceives as] good and wishes more people to have that, what is the problem? As long as no one's freedoms are being trampled, that is. (We are not talking about the cartoon version of missionaries).

[One point is that many atheist arguments begin with the presumption that Biblical and other sacred texts are fictitious or purely mythical by default, and that the burden of proof is on the believer to show that they’re not. But then the requirement for what constitutes ‘evidence’ is something like peer-reviewed empirical data.

Reply to Mariner The "...without them already having been informed thereof by other humans" part is important. Off the top of my head I can't think of any accounts in the Bible of God showing up to talk to someone who was previously completely unaware of his existence. That's the point about Jesus showing up to the Americas being a potential counterpoint, if those accounts held up.

Quoting Pfhorrest

I can't think of any accounts in the Bible of God showing up to talk to someone who was previously completely unaware of his existence.

So the Burning Bush doesn't qualify?

Moses was a Hebrew. Yahweh was already their god. The Burning Bush wasn't the first time Moses had ever heard of him.

Reply to Pfhorrest Surely a direct encounter amounts to something more than 'having heard of'. The point is, the Bible has many descriptive passages of God revealing Himself - hence the term 'revealed truth'. And no, I'm not a Biblical scholar, and can't pull examples out of memory without going and reading up on it, which I'm not inclined to do. But I think the point I'm making stands: that moderns will tend to look for the kind of evidence which can be validated on empirical grounds, which thereby automatically precludes consideration of all such texts. And then, having taken all of such accounts off the table, will demand: 'so where's the evidence'? To which the answer is: 'nowhere, so there's nothing to discuss. Good day.'

My point is just that @jorndoe didn't say there are no accounts, credible or otherwise, of gods ever appearing to people, but that there are no accounts of gods appearing to people who were not already aware of those gods because of being part of a culture where people already believed in them. Gods, it seems, only appear to people who were already aware of them, according to their own holy texts.

I'm not sure what his point was in saying that, but accounts of gods appearing to their preexisting believers isn't a counterexample to it.

Quoting Pfhorrest

there are no accounts of gods appearing to people who were not already aware of those gods

There was St Paul on the road to Damascus.

Reply to Devans99 Paul knew of Christianity prior to converting to it, as he had been actively persecuting Christians for their beliefs before adopting them himself.

Reply to Pfhorrest Whoops. Sorry.

Reply to Devans99 No problem.

Looking back at the OP again, I think @jorndoe's point in bringing this up is that whatever god or gods there might be, they apparently let people carry on having never heard of them (until other humans show up to tell them) when they could, being all powerful, immediately and directly inform everyone of their existence themselves; which then raises doubts about whether they care for people to be informed of their existence in the first place.

Reply to Pfhorrest Yes I agree the argument undermines the legitimacy of all prophetic revelation.

Quoting Pfhorrest

there are no accounts of gods appearing to people who were not already aware of those gods because of being part of a culture where people already believed in them.

There are no accounts of people who were aware of Newton's Laws of Motion before Newton published them.

Jorndoe is holding religious revelation to anthropomorphic standards, i.e. what he would expect from a 'divine being' if such a being adhered to modern liberal democratic standards.

Quoting Wayfarer

There are no accounts of people who were aware of Newton's Laws of Motion before Newton published them.

Besides Newton himself. In contrast we don't even have an account in the Bible of the first person who learned of God's existence. It's always treated as obvious to everyone that God exists, and just a question of whether or not to obey and worship him.

But also, we don't expect the laws of physics to even be able to have personal desires and do personal actions like telling people about themselves. We do often expect that of gods, and as you've pointed out, there's lots of accounts of them doing personal things like that, speaking to people, expressing wants (by way of issuing commands, at least), and so on.

Quoting Pfhorrest

It's always treated as obvious to everyone that God exists, and just a question of whether or not to obey and worship him.

It's treated as revealed truth.

Quoting Pfhorrest

But also, we don't expect the laws of physics to even be able to have personal desires and do personal actions like telling people about themselves.

Nevertheless it is the case that for secular philosophy, 'the laws of physics' are the nearest thing to divine writ.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's treated as revealed truth.

In the active religion it is, but in the holy texts of such religion it is not. In the holy texts, everyone just already knows that God exists. Nobody ever has a moment (that I can recall... open to Bible quotes showing otherwise) of suddenly having the existence of God revealed to them by himself.

Reply to Pfhorrest Abraham heard of God without reading a text. So did Isaac. So did Jacob. Sure, the children heard of God from Abraham, but they also had direct revelations.

The same applies to Noah. Or to Moses. Or to Samson. Or to David. Or to Salomon. Keep moving until the 21st century (i.e. beyond the Old and New Testaments) and you will always find reports (actually lots of them) of direct revelations.

The idea that a direct revelation somehow "does not count" because the recipient had heard about God once before requires a separate argument for it. I have no idea about what would this argument look like; and I'm pretty confident that it would also mean that countries, laws, traditions, habits, etc. etc. would not "count". Leading to an untenable situation.

Reply to Mariner If I'm understanding @jorndoe's point correctly, it's not about the credibility of reports of direct revelations, it's about how, if you take religions' own accounts from their own holy texts at their word, it seems that the gods therein are perfectly content to let people go about not knowing about them, because those texts never give accounts of someone who didn't know anything about the gods directly finding out about them from the gods themselves.

Jacob and Isaac, as you say, heard about God from Abraham first. All of the other names you list were Hebews who would have been raised in cultures that worshiped him. Abraham sounds more believable since he founded the Abrahamic religions that worship that God, but I'm not remembering Abraham first learning about God's existence, just God giving him some commands and Abraham seeming to already understand who it was talking to him. Can you find me the passage where Abraham first meets God and learns of his existence?

@Pfhorrest, you seem better at reading than some other commentators. (y)

Quoting Mariner

Really?

You forgot the rest. And authorship, self-legitimization, disproportionality, ... (Microscope deprecated here.)

(emphasis mine)
Quoting Wayfarer

One point is that many atheist arguments begin with the presumption[sup]1[/sup] that Biblical and other sacred texts are fictitious or purely mythical by default, and that the burden of proof is on the believer to show that they’re not. But then the requirement for what constitutes ‘evidence’ is something like peer-reviewed empirical data[sup]2[/sup].

1. Check this comment.
2. Preachers aren't just talking about feelings, epic experiences and revelations (and that someone spoke with a burning bush on their own out in the countryside); they claim to be talking about the real world, and matters that supposedly apply to all. The moment they do that they're right back here with us (and Newtons laws).

Quoting Wayfarer

So the Burning Bush doesn't qualify?

Again, self-legitimization, disproportionality, ... (Telling tall tales? Won't do.)

Quoting Wayfarer

To which the answer is: 'nowhere, so there's nothing to discuss. Good day.'

That's all? Skipping interference in politics and other peoples' lives, I'll just refer to indoctrination (mentioned prior).

Quoting Wayfarer

There are no accounts of people who were aware of Newton's Laws of Motion before Newton published them.

Compare this list (Wikipedia)

(I'd comment a bit more, but don't really think it's needed...?)

Quoting Wayfarer

Jorndoe is holding religious revelation to anthropomorphic standards, i.e. what he would expect from a 'divine being' if such a being adhered to modern liberal democratic standards.

No, I have no expectations either way (already suggested here).
I'll just ask for authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) the moment they start preaching, be they Shaivists, Catholics, Sunnis or Mormons.

Quoting Mariner

countries, laws, traditions, habits

Are any of these words of authoritative absent gods, preached by people claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf?
(Really don't want to get into things like the awful Israel versus Palestine situation.) :(

Just remembered:
[quote=Patricia Crone]It is a peculiar habit of God's that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people's control.[/quote]

Let me just remind that this stuff isn't just about Yahweh and the Bible.

Quoting jorndoe

Preachers aren't just talking about feelings, epic experiences and revelations (and that someone spoke with a burning bush on their own out in the countryside); they claim to be talking about the real world, and matters that supposedly apply to all.

The real world, eh? You think that is something nailed down? You do know about the 4% universe? The 'sliding door reality' of Everett's many worlds?

Quoting jorndoe

I'll just ask for authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) the moment they start preaching, be they Shaivists, Catholics, Sunnis or Mormons.

Which is that they should be publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, right? The only sources of authentic knowledge of the real world, right?

Reply to jorndoe Let me see if I can articulate your argument. I think you're saying that if something amounts to valid knowledge, then it must be publicly available. That if claims about holy beings are true, then anyone should be able to validate them or see the evidence for such claims. And furthermore that if such holy beings really did want humans to know them, then they would make themselves clear in ways that we could all understand. Is that about the drift?

Quoting Wayfarer

You think that is something nailed down?

Of course not. I readily admit ignorance. Preachers, on the other hand, ...

Quoting Wayfarer

The only sources of authentic knowledge of the real world, right?

Or, say, Shiva, Yahweh, Allah, ... Except:

Quoting jorndoe

• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to authenticate and legitimize preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to delegitimize other preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers

Quoting Wayfarer

Is that about the drift?

Nope.

Feel free to assume so, and respond to that, though.

Reply to jorndoe Consider the issue from the perspective of the psychology or the psychodynamics of religion.

What after all are religions setting out to deliver? I mean, science is generally clear about that, because it starts out by defining scope, subject matter, methods, and results. Predictions and equations on the left-hand side, results on the right-hand side.

Religion is nothing like that. In some sense, it's a first-person undertaking, it demands personal, or first-person, assent. So criticizing it for not employing scientific methodology, which is third-person, misses the point.

To try and articulate what religion is about in a general sense, consider this passage from Bill Vallicella's blog which paraphrases Josiah Royce (great 19th c American idealist) as follows.

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer (!) or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. It is not, for them, what William James in "The Will to Believe" calls a "living option," let alone a "forced" or "momentous" one.

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/10/josiah-royce-and-the-paradox-of-revelation.html

I relate to that, as it describes my spiritual quest pretty accurately. But then if you've never had that sense, then sure, I see why it all seems meaningless. It's like peering through a soundproof window at an orchestra, and wondering what they all could possibly be doing. ('What are those things they're holding??')

Quoting jorndoe

Preachers, on the other hand, ...

I perfectly agree that dogmatic fundamentalism is odious. And they're the kinds of preachers that claim to have 'all the answers'. But there are also religious philosophers who are much more concerned with questions, than with answers. It's a kind of empirical dogma that faith is 'holding to propositions for which there is no evidence'.

Quoting Pfhorrest

Nobody ever has a moment (that I can recall... open to Bible quotes showing otherwise) of suddenly having the existence of God revealed to them by himself.

That is probably more damning for the modern man's consciousness than for the ancients. They also did not record any "sudden realization" that water is wet -- though you may be sure they realized it independently, without instruction from teachers.

I wrote a thread in the old PF about how modern man is unequipped to understand what "God's existence" refers to. A thorough reboot of the system is required -- a reboot consisting of shedding preconceptions (not specifically about God, but about the "real world").

A new and perhaps more depressing thread would be about how our schooling methods have a lot of responsibility in this. They make a desert and call it heaven, and then they get surprised at the ever-increasing hikes in suicide rates..

If I may try to paragraph @jorndoe's overall point, as I understand it:

"Hey God(s), if you're up there, a bunch of people keep telling me contradictory things about you, and I don't know which of them to believe. Since you're all-powerful and it'd be super easy for you, would you mind letting me know yourself which if any of them I should listen to? ...hello? Are you there, God? It's me, Jorndoe..."

In other words, the conclusion isn't God(s) don't exist, it's that if they exist they apparently don't care to set the record straight as to who if anyone is speaking on their behalf, and so probably aren't authorizing most if not all of these contradictory proselytizers to speak on their behalf at all. If they even exist.

Quoting jorndoe

(Microscope deprecated here.)

If it is unnecessary for the larger argument, just say so.

Quoting jorndoe

Are any of these words of authoritative absent gods, preached by people claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf?

Yep, for the most part.

Ever looked at Supreme Court discussions? If you don't realize that they are "referring to authoritative absent gods, claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf", then you should explore the notion of "gods" in more detail.

Quoting Wayfarer

I relate to that, as it describes my spiritual quest pretty accurately. [...] I perfectly agree that dogmatic fundamentalism is odious.

The topic isn't so much spirituality as such, or ...

Quoting jorndoe

The likes of panpsychism [...] Spinozism [...] non-descript unassuming deism

As an aside, I think Papal infallibility is perhaps taken with a grain of salt these days (in practical terms)?
The Protestants aren't on board anyway.

Apropos, there were some rumors on the street ...

Pope Advances One World Religion Agenda: Presents Buddhist Leader with Manifesto
Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz
Breaking Israel News
Dec 2019

Quoting Pfhorrest

In other words, the conclusion isn't God(s) don't exist, it's that if they exist they apparently don't care to set the record straight as to who if anyone is speaking on their behalf, and so probably aren't authorizing most if not all of these contradictory proselytizers to speak on their behalf at all. If they even exist.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together, and you were not willing.

How exactly would God go about "authorizing those speaking on his behalf"? What kind of certificate would be sufficient and foolproof? Jorndoe would quibble even if the Monty Python God (from the Holy Grail, clouds parting, big crown) were to admonish him about that. People hallucinate, after all. What is the solution here?

It looks like this is an unfalsifiable quibble. If it is falsifiable, perhaps someone can offer a circumstance which would falsify it.

(And, by the way, even if it were absolutely correct, it would have zero bearing on the ethics of preaching. As pointed out earlier, if someone believes he has something good to communicate to others, why shouldn't he, as long as he respects the wishes of others to not listen to him?)

Quoting Mariner

how modern man is unequipped to understand what "God's existence" refers to

Quoting Mariner

Yep, for the most part.

And with that you're now just declaring that your story (Catholic style?) is the be-all-end-all really real truth, incidentally contrary to ...
Quoting jorndoe

Just to clarify, the opening post is about authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers), not so much about whether Yahweh is real or not.
Yahweh, Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, or Allah may or may not be real; there's no particular assumption either way.

That's fine if you call it faith. Otherwise, it's starting to look like plain old fund?mentalism (unless you can show authentic legitimacy of course). :meh:

Quoting Mariner

the notion of "gods"

... in this context was already exemplified.
Quoting jorndoe

• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to authenticate and legitimize preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to delegitimize other preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers

[sup](Not the likes of spirituality, panpsychism, Spinozism, non-descript unassuming deism, God of the philosophers, ...)[/sup]

Quoting jorndoe

And with that you're now just declaring that your story (Catholic style?) is the be-all-end-all really real truth, incidentally contrary to ...

Man, now you`re just preaching.

Quoting Mariner

How exactly would God go about "authorizing those speaking on his behalf"?

Good question. I'm sure any almighty universal deity can come up with something quite good (if there's something sufficiently important to impart). Aren't they supposed to have created everything and know it all? Solipsists or some mentally challenged may not be reachable I suppose.

By the way, as of 2015, Christianity was the largest overall religion, counting about 1/3 of the world's population (not differentiating denominations sects cults fundamentalist or loosely associated etc). At best, some 67% had something wrong.
Projections will have it that Islam will become the largest religion in some decades, because they outbreed others and indoctrinate their children (those are my words, not Pew's, they're more "diplomatic").
Going by the 2m:48s youtube posted earlier, Sunnis already overtook Catholics about 20 years ago.
The truth of the matter is not a popularity contest, or what the most shrewd preachers preach, or who can produce the largest number of indoctrinated kids.

Quoting jorndoe

I'll just ask for authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) the moment they start preaching, be they Shaivists, Catholics, Sunnis or Mormons.