| IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
If we go back to the example in the OP where a person did all he could but still failed to alter his beliefs, would you say that God is just if he says he should have believed in him despite his guts telling him not to believe in God? As you said, we are able to analyze and assess arguments, but if that didn't alter his beliefs then would God be fair if he said, "You should have ignored those feelings and believed in me anyway."? Even if we really are capable of selecting what to believe to some degree, I say God is cruel in that scenario. Also, I used the expression 'guts' as it expresses a persons' true feelings without having to say "true feelings". It makes it easier to get across the OP's message, as I see it. |
Aren't true feelings and beliefs just the same way of discussing the same thing, at least in the context of this discussion. I mean there is a difference between internal beliefs (more appropriately termed attitudes) and the outward expression of these beliefs. If someone truly feels God does not exist, it seeems redundant to say they also believe God does not exist. The connection between feeling and belief, at least in terms of internal attitudes, seems necessary to me.
Your argument seem to be that feelings come first and then affect beliefs. Personally, if feelings are conceptualized more broadly to mean prior predispositions, I think its a mixture as to which one comes first. Simply, some people form beliefs, and these beliefs then become internalized(beliefs form "feelings"). In turn these predispositions can then affect future judgements ("feelings" affecting beliefs).
As to the God question, I don't think God would punish someone for failing to believe in him.
