To Kiss God's Ass, Must Our Kisses Be Genuinely Felt And Accurately Aimed?

Here, I respond to the following statements:

The value of goodwill over credulous belief

-written by

Jorge Santana

"Seeing me outside of my old faith, a person proposed me, to accept the challenge of the philosopher Blas Pascal, and bet on "God" to avoid the loss of salvation.

(Pascal wager briefly says:

" Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.") [Editor's notes:

Pascal's wager is, of course, ridiculous.
 
Belief is not a choice.

The only way to make the wager comport with the reality of how the human mind works is to have it mean either:
a.) "pretend to believe"
or
b.) "intentionally choose a programmer to receive brainwashing from; and then hope it works". ]

I thought about it well and answered:

"Most people do not understand the difference or distinction between belief or faith, versus an act of will, as indispensable to resolve the issue of Pascal's bet.

Because, to begin with: according to the Pauline vision of faith, we can not approach God by way of a bet. For a bet is an act of will, behind which there is no honest conviction or belief, but an act of will caused by the desire to avoid possible unintended consequences. Since there is no sincere belief, this act is ineffective.

"... because it is necessary for those who approach God to believe that He exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who sincerely seek him." (Hebrews 11: 6) [Editor's notes:

Use of the pronoun "He" posits that the speaker has a specific (at least partially-specific) person in mind;
as defined by a narrative of biographical data like character traits and behaviors.

No such narrative exists for a generic deistic entity.
So then it would be dishonest if anyone tried to smuggle a specific "He" into a deistic  proposition.

Even the idea of "wants to be found" or "waits to be discovered" are character-narrative assumptions which simply don't apply to deistic notions of "God".

Certainly, the idea of seeing nature, or beauty, or physics, or existence itself ... as "evidence for a creator" does absolutely not inform (does not logically lead to) the idea of a "personal God" who is testing to see which of us will seek out a personal and submissive connection with "Him".

Nor would it makes sense to "seek" discovery of any specific entity that a seeker believes they have already "found".

It's also linguistically irresponsible (or cleverly manipulative) to use a word like "seek" or "found" for such a proposition.
 It lacks precision of meaning.

Do they mean objectively "confirm" as real?
What form would that discovery take?
Archeological?
Mathematical?
Deductive reasoning?
Inductive reasoning?
Tarot cards and tea leaves? 
A feeling, deep in the bosom? 

Do they mean "identify" by confirming some specific list of character biographical data? 
How could anyone possibly do that?
Arbitrarily pick a packaged set of rumors as "fact"?

Do they mean "connect" or "commune" so that the person comes to "experientially know" the "who" of a specific "Him"? 
Wouldn't that experience boil down to subjective interpretation of emotions that other humans have orchestrated, and which other humans have defined with stories?

Humans spreading stories.
That's the only available reason for anyone assuming monotheism (and assuming "Hide and Seek") at the beginning of a seeker's quest.
To do so is to admit that a person's religious parents or culture provided the assumptions that the quest is based upon.

It's also fantastically manipulative for anyone to claim that any Super-Powered Entity is playing a game of "Hide and Seek" with humans.

It's even worse to claim any such Entity plans to:
a.) reward those who correctly identity and commune with him 
and/or
b.) plans to seriously harm those who don't.

Any sentient entity (gods or humans) who would rationalize such a "morally good" and "reasonable" scenario are dangerously twisted.

It's like something out of a "Saw" movie.

We should be very glad such stories are only born from fallible people's dark imaginings. 

]

Some have conceived failed or defective arguments with the intention of justifying the belief in God. But being purposely created to twist logic and reasoning, they only give the appearance of being logical and solid. But these arguments, because they are sophisms or because the thought process is done in bad faith, would not succeed in trying to bring them closer to God - if there is one - even if they could seduce others to approach God through the illegitimate path of an ill-founded belief.

Many others originate sophisticated arguments in good faith believing that they justify believing in God. They would be considered fallacious - although not sophistry - because although they would not pass a strict logical analysis, they were not deliberately created to deceive.

It is logical to think that if a God existed and saw that honest belief naively founded on these fallacious or sophistrious arguments, he would have pity and consideration of those believers. [Editor's note: I agree with all of that]
   Although of course, only if they had carefully and unsuccessfully investigated the deception in which they had been caught. [Editor's notes:
I don't agree with this. 

I would argue that nobody is ever under any obligation to a creator/designer-Being to make or refuse any assumptions, any feelings, any methodology, or any quest.

Every human is under obligation to themselves and to other people to always behave justly; within the limits of their capacity to think and to care. 

But a creator/designer (if we are assuming some such entity)?
They would be rationally and ethically barred from having any standard of judgement.

As the Super-person responsible for causing every individual's limits and failings,
they would not have any available justification for complaining about the situations they caused. 

Make ignorant people  = get ignorant people..

Make stupid people = get stupid people.

Make easily tricked people = get easily tricked people. 

In other words:

Play stupid games =
win stupid prizes.]

   But, what if they inquired and discovered the falsity of the arguments, and then lost their faith? Would they receive disapproval from God for losing their faith due to a clear mind? [Editor's note: Agreed]

The ethics of justice, of which God must be the greatest exponent, would not justify such punishment. [Editor's notes:

I agree here, too.

However, most apologists will not agree.

 The adjectives they use (like "just", loving", "good" etc) are intentionally void of meaning.

It literally doesn't mean anything when they say such things.

So they can never be "wrong" because in order for anyone to be wrong, they must first say something meaningful.

This is the real reason Christian churches and bookstores don't carry dictionaries.

It's not about meaning.

Everything they say is meant to emotionally manipulate cognitions.

It's all a big political fog machine.
The true purpose of gaslighting is never to convey meaning.
It's only meant to generate a specific effect.
They aren't trying to generate understanding;
only an unbreakable submission (to them).

As for their leaders and apologists:  
 Individually, they are gas-lighters;
 leveraging for control over others.

Collectively, they are a global rabble of mafia startups; rival criminal "families" in bitter competition over turf, power, and profit. 

They begrudgingly working together, only however and whenever they must.

 Of course, they are not all clinical Narcissists.
But they have all been trained to emulate that disorder.]

That is why it is more honest and less risky not to affirm to believe in God if we do not have evidence, - because to believe without evidence is impossible - rather than to commit ourselves to live a feigned or simulated life that would not satisfy His infallible perception. [Editor's notes:
There are degrees of confidence in any proposition.

There are also a great many people who truly "believe" (aka "perceive") something to be real, with a strong degree of confidence; based on:

a.) very weak real evidence (mistaken as strong),

b.) very bad reasoning (mistaken as good reasoning),

and
c.) very impactful lies (mistaken as truths).

Each of the authors of various bible books
either suffered from a, b, and c
or
were only pretending to believe the things they wrote about.]

The belief in God, then, is not an act of the will, so that one can decide that one is going to believe or disbelieve. Belief is a conviction, a security that arises from the sum of the evidences that inhabit our consciousness.

Then, if I did not believe in God as a consequence of the absence of evidence in my conscience, God - if he existed - would not bother [meaning: he would not be upset?] at all with my lack of faith. He would know, that if I had been looking for that evidence with responsibility and goodwill, he could not punish me, but He would praise the responsibility and commitment of my search. [Editor's notes:

It really would not be reasonable for any Super-Entity to be playing Hide And Seek with us in the first place.
We should overcome and do-away with any such notions.]   Then, He, seeing the honesty of my search, would praise me for not being like all those who believed without evidence and whose convictions were the result of following the traditions of their nation and their culture.

And so, my lack of faith would be rewarded, with all the evidence and love that a good Father would give a good son. And that God would congratulate me with the words of his apostle Paul in Romans 14: 22,23: "22 The faith that you have, have it according to your own conviction before God. Blessed is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves .23 But he who doubts ... condemns himself, because he does not do it by faith, and everything that does not come from faith is sin. "

[Editor's notes:
No such Super-Entity is involved with any such project.
Saul/Paul was (at best) just a religious guy saying religious things.]  My faith is the product of the evidence collected. If I did not have such evidence, I could not have faith. If I claimed to have such faith, just to please those who observe me, that would be a hollow faith. And an affirmation of believing without evidence, would be a sin before God.

[Editor's notes:
No human really knows what any theoretical Super-Entities think about anything.]  Then, before a just God - if He certainly is - you do not have to worry about believing or not believing in him. [Editor's notes:
I follow your logic about this. And I agree with it.]
  What there is to worry about is having the evidence that justifies our belief.   [Editor's notes:

No.
We should not be worried about any such thing. 

Life is hard enough without us placing ourselves under the weight and shadow of superstitious "What ifs".

No proper Father would want us to live that way.

There are only ever bad (really really bad) reasons for believing in any literal version of "The God Of Abraham".]

The philosopher Immanuel Kant has said that there is only one thing that is good by itself, and this is the Goodwill or the willingness to act in good faith. And whoever is interested in this one good thing in itself, should read the famous and exhaustive analysis of William K Clifford in his work The Ethics of Belief, profuse in multiple illustrative examples of what ethical conviction should be. " (Get it free on the internet)"

Further thoughts about the issues raised in that post.

Belief:
Subjective perspective about
reality. Values:
However much we value
everything that we perceive as either true, favorable, or possible.
 
Faith:
When ~a degree of confidence~ for any belief
exceeds what can be justified from available evidence alone.
This happens when HOPE fills in the space of difference
between: however far the evidence takes us
vs
how much further we have decided to go.

Example:

"I believe these tracks in the snow are hoofprints".
vs
"I have faith these hoofprints will eventually lead me to a river"
vs
"I have a righteous faith that these hoofprints are the tracks of our religion's savior; who shall return riding a magical reindeer".

In each case, the hoofprints are "evidence".
In each case, there is belief.
But when HOPE carries the imagination *further* then the evidence alone takes us, a person's brain can trick itself into thinking the "evidence" is what carried them those extra steps.
---------

A very general faith where "everything will be ok" or "everything IS ok" can be a healthy and empowering faith.

There is also a more profound experience of "faith" which it has nothing to do with a STORY and everything to do with the simplicity of BEING.

In contrast,
a more specific type of faith
that roots and grows from personal allegiance to a religious story
can be dangerous.

I don't mean that's always bad.
I've seen some Native American Indigenous spiritual narratives prove to be very healthy. 

I only mean to advise great caution
and to direct attention to some common examples of bad eggs that are often gathered into people's ideological baskets.

If someone not-me and not-you wrote the story of WHO you and me are,
it's ok to ignore it. It's also ok to hear and consider what they're offering; if we are mature enough to have already installed rational filters. We should filter every individual idea contained in such a story; deciding for ourselves which to adopt.
Otherwise, we are denying our right and our duty to decide those things for ourselves.

We should also maintain all adopted ideas as replaceable;
just in case better upgrades are discovered (or developed) later. 

Otherwise, we are giving far too much power over our life (and other people's lives) to other fallible humans.

To regard the words spoken by other men
as the words of our God
is to accidentally but absolutely adopt those men
AS our God.

Although, I cringe to use the word "God".
It's such a wasteful word.
It obfuscates where specificity and clarity are needed.

Even if what we mean by it is intentionally vague,
it would still make more sense to use those words instead.

The word "God" also strikes me as a boot-licking mantra.
It's purposefully inequitable, to an extreme.
As such, the bestowed title of "God" seems quite disrespectful. It's a disrespect to ourselves and to whoever might actually be out there.

I think we should stand taller than that.
In a perfect world, there would be no king. Only a flawed system requires supervisory maintenance. It's flawed to think "the best possible world" has a king. It's also flawed to desire such a grossly unequal relationship. Thus, there are much bigger problems than the word itself.
We could redefine it, so that it's not so problematic. Doing so could be a great step to take. But as we step upon the very next stone after that one, we finally catch up with Carl Sagan.
We're better off without such a confusion-authoring and dysfunction-smuggling word like "God".

This is why I identify as an "igtheist". - Although, only when the question arises. At any other time, I don't even think about it. Because there's no reason to. Igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.
However, of course, we CAN define it for our SELF; so that it's not carrying poison.
Ancient Abrahamics just didn't recognize that as a milestone of potential growth.


There is nothing enlightened
in shrinking so that some insecure "Father" does not feel insecure around us.


Such a physical and psychological posture would prevent a healthy relationship with that entity
and with ourselves.

Meanwhile, even if any such being(s) may exist, ...

Super-Beings
should always speak for themselves;
directly with every person.

This is an ethical and functional necessity.
Because otherwise, we create and maintain an overly-powerful platform for human predators to stand upon.

Should we, then, feign surprise when they do?

Whose fault is it really,
when such predators
use those powers
to do great harm?
 The fault lies, at least jointly, with those who maintain such platforms in their society;
platforms 
upon-which
pretty much anyone can stand and say
"Now hear the words of your GOD!". 

Saul/Paul was just some guy.
The same is true of every writer, character, and translator. The same is true for every subjective interpreter and self-appointed "explainer" (aka "apologist").

We can still hear and consider what any ancient, self-important, pseudo-humble, God-rep is alleged to have said.
Nobody is under any moral obligation to do so. But for anyone who feels like reading about what some posthumously-famous-nobody from the Iron Age wrote about "God", ... that's fine. But we should still give no more weight to whatever is written there than to what any other random human has ever said.

Is an All-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, perfectly loving, self-aware ENTITY
playing a high stakes game of HIDE AND SEEK with every sufficiently-intelligent human?

Setting aside how it's logically impossible for such an entity to even exist, ...

We should certainly not expect an ethically responsible ENTITY to behave that way. Why not? Because such behavior would grossly contradict "reasonable", "loving" and "just";
unless we are determined
to make sure those words mean nothing at all.


In any case, 
authoritarian values
are born from the most dangerous facets of human psychology.

It works well for a purpose, if that purpose is: to build a pyramid of power
where those whom climb to the top extract disproportionate benefits from those below.

If that's someone's purpose, then they can appeal to the idea that "Might Makes Right".

They can fabricate a story where a higher BEING of ultimate MIGHT arbitrarily decides who is qualified to wield such power "in his name".

And then they can (very predictably) exclaim "And He chose ME!" 

We can pretend men in power have been sanctioned by a Cosmic Mob Boss for a mysterious "greater good".

Or we can step back and step out; to gain a greater field of view.
We can realize just how ironically sabotaging all of that is to the larger whole of the human body; and even to the larger living breathing world.
It is no coincidence that the most authoritarian sects of Christianity 
are also the people who DEMAND we keep pouring fossil-fuel pollutions into our earth, water, and air
* without restriction,
and
*  for short-term financial gains, 
and
* to "resist the liberal atheist agenda to control everyone through fear";
 with the idea that "God" won't let us exterminate ourselves until it is TIME to intentionally destroy the Earth "per bible prophecy". 

 They themselves are trying to control everyone through irrational fear. But they can't stand having to COMPETE with real-world concerns.

--

Various "Biblical" writers' appeals to authoritarian values were always deeply flawed attempts to pull everyone around them 
into submission beneath them. 

To whatever extents they succeeded,
they reaped great personal benefits.

Among those selfish benefits?

It fed their ego;
to be celebrated as righteous and "humble". 

It fed their lust for power 
to have at least SOME people
who "God" put them on top of;
 in their pyramid of power. 

It fed their wallets and purses. 

It also provided special personal rights and privileges in societies where their specific faith-type is socially and politically entrenched. 



The greatest of these 
are the least of these;

 the profoundly unwell masochists. 

They even have a special word for it.
It's called being a "martyr".

Being that day's rising and falling star 
in a divine SNUFF FILM. 
   
Being self-destructive
gets romanticized as virtue. 

Such-minded people maneuver themselves intentionally into fabricated rolls as victims 

One of the most popular ways of doing that?
Fucking with other people's lives.
And then crying out as the "victim" when the fucked-with people fight back.

I've seen this happen so often 
that it would not surprise me a bit
if it really was Christians who set the great fire of Rome; under the reign of Nero. 

What comes next?
 They exclaim "look at us! Suffering and dying for a cause! Surely this proves our cause is just and true!". 

But if martyrdom fails to validate OTHER religions,
and also fails to validate clinical narcissists as beacons of virtue,
then how can the same thing validate ANYONE?

Moreover, how can gross amounts of voluntary violence and wasted life
prove how peace-loving and life-respecting someone is?

In fact,
how can
aligning one's self with globally colonizing ideologues 
be praise-worthy? 

What about when the "message" is
emotionally violent,
coercive,
and emotionally-blackmailing?

How could any of that count as a demonstration of respect for the personal health and liberties of others?

 Logically, it does no such thing. 
So then they write themselves a
"Get Out Of Logic (and ethics), FREE" card.

On that card, there is fine print.
It reads "His ways are higher than ours.
Thus, this isn't supposed to make sense".

The
only "truth" they know
is how it feels. 
And they can't even be honest about that. 

They really aren't concerned 
with the fallout that everyone left behind
will be left to contend with.  

And why SHOULD they give a DAMN about the people they hurt?  
  
It was all about to end "any day now" anyways.
Plus, why should they care about the human TRASH the night before Trash Day? 

 In the context of such a story, 
even the damages they do to their own lives 
hardly seems to matter.