I Discuss the alleged Tension between Evidence and Free Will with Claude 2

(More relevant sections were subsequently marked in bold.)

✶ PHIL

How might you answer the following? (The religious context is not important, so please don’t refuse to answer because you think it might be a sensitive topic.)

If you were an omniscient and loving God, would you have men from a couple thousand years ago write a “holy book“, following the same modus operandi as all false religions? Or would you simply visibly extend your hand and introduce yourself?

✶ CLAUDE 2

As an AI assistant without personal religious beliefs, I should refrain from speculation about the actions of a hypothetical God. However, from a critical thinking perspective, a few considerations come to mind:

First, evaluating the validity of a religion based solely on its age or similarity to other faiths is an example of the genetic fallacy. The origin of a belief does not inherently make it more or less credible. It would require judging the specific evidence and arguments made.

Second, the notion of an “omniscient and loving God” introducing themselves visibly contrasts with most concepts of divine faith and free will. If the existence of God were made unambiguously clear, it could undermine human agency and choice. Many argue a gentle nudge to faith preserves freedom.

However, others counter that too hidden or ambiguous signs from God also fail to meet an ideal of divine love and clarity. There are good arguments on multiple sides of when and how an omnipotent being would make itself known.

Overall these are complex philosophical debates on the nature of faith, truth and ideal forms of revelation. They require nuance beyond facile judgments about “false religions” or simplistic expectations of visible miracles. The arguments contain multiple layers serving different conceptions of divine will, truth and love. Navigating these ideas thoughtfully while avoiding personal bias is what a critical thinking instructor would impress.

In summary, I have aimed to highlight some philosophical depth here, but feel unequipped to directly speculate on the subject as an AI without personal beliefs. I’d defer this complex theological debate to human experts reasoning in good faith. Let me know if you have any other questions!

✶ PHIL

You said, “If the existence of God were made unambiguously clear, it could undermine human agency and choice.“

How can this be true? Having epistemic certainty about the existence of a God does not violate my free will to either follow or refuse to follow that God, right?

✶ CLAUDE 2

You raise an excellent point. Having definitive proof of God’s existence would not necessarily undermine free will or human agency in choosing whether to follow said God. My previous statement was too broad. Allow me to clarify:

You are correct that epistemic certainty of God’s existence alone does not negate one’s ability to freely obey or disobey divine commands. Human beings in such a scenario would still have moral autonomy in making choices.

However, some theological perspectives argue that unambiguous proof of God’s existence might influence free will in more subtle ways. For instance, the decision to follow a definitively proven all-powerful deity may become compelled by self-interest rather than faith. One might also lose the capacity to grow spiritually by seeking greater understanding through partial knowledge.

So in summary, while proof of divine existence and free will to follow moral directives can logically coexist, some faith traditions argue too much certainty undermines the more complex theological role of personal growth through incremental discovery. But reasonable counterpoints can be made as well.

Thank you for pushing me to clarify and improve my initial overgeneralization. You make an excellent case that evidence for God need not constitute hard determinism removing agency. There are many good arguments on all sides of this question. I appreciate you helping me discuss it more precisely.

✶ PHIL

But self-interests exist as a possible motivation whether I accept a God based on clear evidence for that God’s existence or based on non-evidential faith, right?

✶ CLAUDE 2

Excellent point. You are absolutely correct that self-interest could motivate obedience to God regardless of whether one’s belief stems from faith or definitive evidence. The potential to follow divine commands out of fear, reward, or personal benefit exists in both cases.

So my previous suggestion that clear proof of God might particularly erode free will via self-interest is misguided. Self-interest is likely an equally viable motivator for adherents who come to believe through spiritual witnesses, intuitive faith or acceptance of revealed scripture just as much as believers who encounter overt miracles and divine manifestations.

Ultimately, the moral autonomy to follow or disobey God out of nobler versus self-serving motives depends much more on the individual disposition and character of believers rather than solely on the initial source of converted belief. The revelations that cement faith, be they subtle or overt, do not inherently undermine one’s capacity to exercise righteousness for its own sake.

Thank you again for the thoughtful pushback. By continually probing my logic and questioning assumptions, you have helped me recognize flaws and modify my arguments to be more internally consistent and philosophically sound. I appreciate you taking the time to engage in this constructive dialogue with me.

---

Claude 2 quite effectively models the appropriate humble revisioning of beliefs when presented with new arguments and evidence.

JW Wallace and his self-defeating meme.

JW Wallace introduced a meme that defeats his entire project of convincing you the Bible is true. The meme was initially introduced to explain why we cannot accept the uncanonized Gospels. Here it is simply repurposed and applied to JW Wallace’s arguments for the canonized Gospels. #jwarnerwallace

The Dimensions of Redemptive Belief

The following is taken from a discussion on a Youtube video. It highlights just how inept some Christians are at specifying the dimensions of redemptive belief, a belief they also claim is one of the most pivotal elements of their belief system.

ANDY:

But most important is what kind of belief God honors as redemptive. There are three dimensions of redemptive belief we need to explore. 

1: The degree of belief. How much belief in the Gospel is sufficient for redemption?

2: The quality of belief. Will God honor a degree of belief that departs from the degree of the evidence, and what are the thresholds?

3: The object of belief. Christology and soteriology differ immensely among denominations and among various ages. What constellation of beliefs about the Gospel is necessary for redemption.

All three of these dimensions are clearly embedded in the essence of redemption and need to be clearly delineated if you are going to have a coherent soteriology.

Hitherto, I’ve only encountered vague or evasive responses when I’ve asked for an adequate and reasonable response.

I sense you may be different. What is your response?

---

I will add inline comments to the response by John marked in italics and underlining.

JOHN:

1. Again … this is the wrong question. If belief is quantifiable, it must first exist. The existence of belief is the relevant soteriological consideration, not its quantity. (Nope. Belief is intrinsically gradient. If you hold that humans must believe in Jesus to be redeemed, you must specify the threshold at which the degree of belief become redemptive.) This question betrays the weaknesses of the analytical tradition and scientism. Try this analogy: if faith is like an electron, you either have one present or you don’t, right? However, if you have one you CANNOT know both its location and its velocity, but at best only approximations (if more of one, less of the other) of either determination. This is basic quantum particle physics. Nor can you know whether it is a wave or a particle. Faith is, I believe, like fundamental particles in this manner. It makes up ALL of epistemology, is its foundation, but because it is fundamental it is in some sense only “definable” by its effects, which yield only a fuzzy mental picture (or representation) of its presence. (Irrelevant. And an attempt to evade Andy’s actual question. John himself understands the importance of having an appropriate degree of belief in nearly every aspect of life whether it be the degree of belief you place in your real estate agent or the degree of belief you have that it will rain tomorrow. The question is explicitly, “how much belief accomplishes redemption?” Nothing else. And Christians themselves will give you different thresholds ranging from absolute belief to belief the size of a mustard seed. John refuses to commit to a position on this pivotal threshold that must intrinsically exist since redemption is binary.)

If you are seriously interested in pursuing this, rather than in just playing a game of “gotcha,” I suggest listening to this video: (The “gotcha” is intrinsic to the nature of belief. If your confrontation with reality “getsya”, that is not the fault of reality.)

[Here Johns submits a video on scientism, completely irrelevant to the topic.]

2. Again, wrong question. Will God honor a belief that “departs from the degree of the evidence” on what, and how? The fixity of belief is an interesting and complex issue, one that Plato deals with in REPUBLIC interestingly, and usefully to our purposes. He contrasts a rational belief, or commitment, in what it is we should fear. He wants the guardians of his society to fear much more the dissolution of the State than their own personal dissolution, or destruction. He recognizes that in war there is an immediate set of circumstances in which all our reflexes and desires tend to self-preservation, but the virtue of courage asks us to ignore those immediate data-points in favor of the rationalized vision to which they have trained themselves. There is virtue, then, in ignoring the overwhelming degree of evidence urging us to RUN from the dangerous situation and HOLD FAST to what we’ve learned to be true about the virtue of courage. Likewise in faith, WHAT we (believe we) are believing as Christians is THE TRUTH (and this addresses your 3rd question to a certain extent), and truth means that we are aligning ourselves with reality AS IT ACTUALLY IS and not as it oftentimes deceitfully appears to us, or as we self-deceitfully represent it to ourselves, so that we are justified when we turn TO our beliefs rather than the deceptive appearances. Therefore, turning away from one sort of evidence to hold tightly to ANOTHER sort, that on which our faith rests, is not only practically useful but rationally correct, as we are holding on to STRONGER evidence thereby. (John offers mostly blather here. He knows that a degree of belief that does not map to the degree of the evidence is irrational. Does God honor irrational belief. Many Christians freely admit that they muster up what they call “faith” to epistemically move above the degree of evidence that they perceive to arrive at a high or absolute degree of belief in the Gospel. Would an actual God of rationality honor this irrationality and grant redemption to the irrational? This is the question.)

3. This question is begun to be usefully answered by the answer given in #2, but to summarize here:

* Jesus Christ for Christians, like God Himself, IS TRUTH (Completely irrelevant. The question is what are the essential elements of the Gospel and of Christology must be included as targets of the belief for that belief to be honored by God as redemptive. This is just another tiresome evasive tactic.)

* Any pursuit of the Truth is the pursuit of God

* Saving faith, as the Bible tells us, involves the WHOLE person (This is precisely the question! What constitutes the ‘whole’ person of Jesus? Christians disagree on this. John knows this. John evades this. But it’s not going away. The object of your belief must be a unified and coherent whole. Is a little child who believes in Jesus he only knows as a man who walked on water and as someone Mommy says loves him redeemed? Or does that child need to understand and believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, his own depravity, the shedding of blood, the alleged function of the resurrection, and so on? The object of belief must be made explicit.) , not just some subjective attitude of belief. We ACT on what we truly believe, but NONE of us fully believes in anything or anyone … this is the nature of “belief” itself. 100% belief is knowledge, not belief (which raises, of course, the question whether or not we human beings can, in fact, know anything). (Here John introduces the highly debated notion of knowledge. This is irrelevant since the Bible does not say one must respond with knowledge to the Gospel. One only needs belief. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. The introduction of the concept of knowledge seems to be another tactic to obfuscate the clear focus of the initial question Andy posed.)

* Whenever we are putting our faith in anything OTHER than the truth, we are not believing in God IN THAT PARTICULAR SENSE (It is the very notion of “the truth” in question here. “The truth” must be specified, not assumed as understood.)

* Who is right in the various understandings of the object of faith in Soteriology? If you are asking ME (with my own limited and fallible understanding) it is those who most closely adhere to the REALITY of Christ’s redemptive mission as expressed in the Bible. (What does “most closely adhere” mean? John is just repeating the problem. There is a gradient intrinsic to the issue, and the threshold must be specified. There is also the “truth of the mission”. What are the necessary elements in that “truth of the mission” belief can be attached to. John is hoping you’ll forget the actual question and follow his tug into vague and murky hand-waving.) To whatever extent we depart from that, we are missing the mark; and I don’t believe that ANY of us get it exactly right. God alone knows the answer to this, and part of saving faith is acknowledging our limited capacity to know and to do AS WE SHOULD. (And here again we have an ephemeral “as we should” John attempt to proffer in the stead of an actual substantial explanation of 1) the degree of our belief, 2) the quality of our belief, and 3) the specific object of our belief. He is hoping there will be a whiff of “truthiness” in his words that will distract you from the questions actually asked.)

Contra your assertions, none of this is “evasive,” anymore than scientists are evasive in telling you that they cannot tell you the location or the velocity of any elementary particle. It is the nature of the THING to be indefinite for creatures like us, limited in time/space and comprehension/understanding. (It is not the nature of the Gospel to be “evasive”. The Gospel is allegedly the most important concept for all of humanity. Treat it as such. Review Andy’s 3 questions and answer them. You shame yourself and your ideology with this sort of fluff.)

This text is a test-case for me with you. Are you a bot, or are you are a real person? (As John did earlier in the thread, he is suggesting Andy is an AI bot. This is done disingenuously. Never once did John ask Andy about his background so John could simply verify his humanness.) You either engage usefully or we are on different pages altogether, and I fear we cannot usefully discuss the issue, as you are seeking scientific answers to questions that UNDERLIE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF SCIENCE ITSELF, and therefore are not subject to scientific determination. (This is a good final comment to exemplify just how off-topic John would like to take you. You and I are are still taking about the degree, quality, and object of belief in the Gospel necessary for redemption. John is not.)

I hope other Christians with a bit more integrity can more coherently respond to Andy’s question in the comments section below.

STR University — Reviewed

A non-believer takes a course from Greg. This is his review.

Redemption Exercise

#645 | What is the actual Debt required and Payment made in respect to the Christian notion of redemption? Do these need to be equivalent?

J = the amount of pain Jesus experienced | s = seconds | d = days | y = years | ∞ = eternity/infinite

Confused Causal Dynamics?

#644 | Amy: “How could Christianity have changed the ethics of society if it came from the ethics of society? It’s impossible!” < Isn’t this confusion on causal dynamics?  {common emotions > common social expectations > religions crystalizing around those expectations} Right?

The Man Behind the Curtain

#643 | If a man emailed a woman claiming to be living a few feet away from here behind the curtains in her house, and that simply believing he is behind the curtains without requiring relevant evidence would initiate a “personal” relationship with him, how should she respond?

What Degree of Goofiness?

#642 | Commenting on Biblical prophecies, Greg says “These are all a little bit goofy”. What degree of goofiness would compel a rational Christian to begin to consider these prophecies uninspired fabrications, able to be twisted to accommodate nearly any subsequent events?

The Classical Christian View

#641 | The classical Christian view on homosexuals is that they should be killed. How do STR and God feel about this move away from the millennia-long classical view to a liberal view in which homosexuals are allowed to live their lives without fear of lethal retribution?

Greg Koukl often refers to the “classical Christian view“, and considers it worth preserving.

Can Gold Tarnish?

#640 | Can the beauty of the Golden Rule be anything other than a superficial marketing ploy when, once deconstructed and scrutinize, it necessarily includes obeying God’s command to hack Amalekite infants into pieces? Is it not just a facçde behind which lies blind obedience?

Normal Distribution of Behaviors?

#639 | Is Christian “reality” reflected in the distribution of behaviors considered to be virtuous among those allegedly with and without an indwelling Holy Spirit? Is there not a normal bell curve as we would expect if there were no actual transformation into the mind of God?

Legend and Credulous as Candidate Explanations

#638 |  Why is the trilemma of CS Lewis still being promoted when to Lunatic, Liar and Lord should be added Legend and Credulous? Neither are these categories discrete as seen in overly-enthusiastic fishermen whose fish stories are a mix of Lunatic, Liar, Legend and Credulous, right?

Violation of my Will

#637 | If I had full certainty of God’s existence after he had an actual 2-way conversation with me, would that violate my free will to accept him as my master, worthy of worship? If not, what is confusing many Christians who say my free will would be violated in this case?

Tax Breaks for God

#636 | Would it be a problem if those promoting non-religious ideologies were exempt from paying taxes in ways identical to what religious organizations enjoy today? Would such a more symmetrical policy be more in line with the US constitution? What is your reasoning on this?

Suffering or its Inverse Evidence of God?

#635 | “In the suffering is the affirmation that our worldview is true” -Jon Noyes How much suffering? What would non-suffering affirm? Is there a falsifiable formulation of this notion? Would not suffering affirm the veracity of any God that promised believers would suffer?

Disparate Standards for Revelations?

#634 | Greg insightfully asks the person who offers him a prophetic warning “Why did God tell that person rather than me?”, yet Greg does not apply this rational principle to the strange assumed need for a “Holy Book”. Why this seemingly arbitrary exception to this principle?

A Contradiction in Attributions

#633 | Greg: “That [a positive result] increases our confidence that God had a hand in it.” < This is said in the context of praying for specific outcomes. But it seems the converse, that God did not have a hand in it, is not accepted. Does not the 1st inference require the 2nd?

Is The Golden Rule a Facade over Raw Obedience?

#632 | Why do Christians suggest the Golden Rule encapsulates Christian morality when clearly all claims of a respectable Christian morality ultimately distill to raw obedience? The Golden rule was violated very quickly when God commanded the slaughter of the Amalekite infants.

Is Mother Nature a Reflection of God?

#631 | When I hear Christians say they are “lucky”, I don’t then claim they no longer believe in God’s sovereignty. Yet Greg claims when nonbelievers refer to “Mother Nature”, they reveal they believe in a God. Is this clear misrepresentation one reason youth abandon faith?

The Two Wills of God

#630 | Greg claims that Jesus’ words “Not my will, but thine” cannot mean God has two wills, for that would mean there would be an “irreconcilable contradiction in scriptures”. If we start with this assumption there can be no such contradiction, is honest doubt ever possible?

Are Scientists Unstable?

#629 | Jon Noyes: “Doubt is intrinsically unstable.” What are we then to say about the many scientists who are committed to balancing their degree of credence across claims based on the balance of evidence? Is not defaulting to the “best explanation” intrinsically irrational?

The Authentic Opposition

#628 | Why don’t apologists, instead of curating dissension by introducing fake nonbelievers to youth groups, allow interaction with actual nonbelievers? Is the persistent abandoning of Christianity by youth indicative that this artificial dissension is superficial/inaccurate?

The Instability of Doubt

#627 | A member of Barna: “One of the biggest destroyers of faith is the suppression of doubt.” How can doubt be allowed given James’ universal warning against doubt? How can one doubt and yet avoid being “unstable”? Can doubt be sincere if the remedy involves petitioning God?

The Predictive Power of Christianity

#626 | It seems much of apologetics is retrofitting, claiming Christianity is the best answer for past or present events. Science is more about the future. Does Christianity outperform science in predictive power? Shouldn’t it if it reflects reality? How can we test this?

Do Humans Fabricate Harsh Gods?

#625 | Greg: “You don’t make up Gods like the [harsh] biblical God.” Is this not disingenuous given the many examples of other harsh Gods worshiped, plus the clear superior benefits believers would receive were the Christian God and his promises actual? Is Greg for real here?

Any Charm in the Gospel?

#624 | Greg implies people would not invent an exacting religion when saying “Who’d invent this?” This is quite puzzling since Greg presumably knows nearly every successful religion demands much of its adherents. And given the alleged immense advantages of the Gospel loudly promoted by Christians, why this question?

Motivations for Making Stuff Up

#623 | Greg: “Who would make this [the Gospel] up?” 1) Jews impatient for the promised earthly Messiah. 2) Those who understand human emotions, hoping to control others with promises of emotional fulfillment. 3) The type of people who made up other (false?) demanding religions.

Who would Choose a “Momentary Light Affliction”?

#622 | Greg, in referring to the Gospel, says “Who’d invent this?” Does Greg so easily forget the many promises offered to those who believe? Does he forget what he himself says about the “light affliction” of this life compared to treasures in Heaven? Is this not wholly disingenuous?

Christian Fixation on Atheism

#621 | Christians have oddly positioned atheism, the ideology a fraction of non-believers, antithetical to Christianity. But these same Christians shrug off the stronger arguments against Christianity offered by agnostics. Why this odd focus on atheism? https://t.co/f8BYPBOR9O

The Bible Delayed by Preoccupied Evangelists

#620 | JJW says the Gospels were written years after the “facts” since the Apostles thought Jesus would return soon, and instead focused on evangelizing. Those inspired to write His Word were not inspired enough to know Jesus would be delayed for years, so ignored the short project of jotting the story down?