Passage above....and all other similar passages simply by virtue of existing in various scriptures do not make the existence of God more tenable. In light of them, doubting "his" existence, at least as a loving God....does make some sense. So many believers go through mental and spiritual gymnastics to validate the "loving god hypothesis" as to boggle the mind.....stretching credulity to the ultimate limits. I do realize that my opinions will not be popular in this venue....given that its' purpose is to validate the Catholic faith.

Everyone should be able to acknowledge that that's the most straightforward view.

Thanks Andre - came home this morning to see your comment and my jaw dropped! I hope Strange Notions keeps getting the exposure - what goes on here matters, a lot.

Here's another way to get at it: when you accept that induction applies to the real world, are you accepting that simply as a useful fiction that helps you survive? Or do you actually think that that useful fiction is true in some ultimate sense?

"But this is only true in the ultimate or absolute sense."

Yes! This is exactly the ultimate or absolute sense in which I believe in God's goodness. I am faithful to my belief in God in the same way that I am faithful to my belief that induction applies to the real world. Or, to modify that slightly, my belief in God's goodness is even more absolutely foundational than my belief that induction applies to the real world, because the latter belief for me is predicated on the former belief.

Our intuition might say that induction works but logic tells us there is no good reason to believe this intuition. But this is only in the ultimate or absolute sense. We can't prove that it always will work, but we have enormous amounts of evidence that it has. This is what we mean by "evidence". We have made millions of predictions based on the inference that cause and effect occur and occur consistently. Malice doesn't enter into it. But the only way we can say that what we observe appears to be coherent is because we accept induction. So it is only necessary if you want to act in the world. Otherwise there is no reason to think anything will have any effect on anything one way or another.

So if we accept induction. And we all do. Always. We accept we can make predictions based on past practice. Wishful thinking occurs when we take positions that are against what we accept as more likely true. For example. If I take Ibuprofen for my headache, I can rely on my own experience as well as the science showing the efficacy of the drug in relieving my symptoms. It may not work but it is a reasonable inference to accept that it will. If I don't have any Ibuprofen, but I have some antibiotics I certainly may desire that it works but it is wishful thinking to take the position that it will. I have no evidence that it has and we know some things about biology to suggest that it will not.

There is no need for anything like faith in this.

Haha, OK, in that case don't trust your instincts :)

I am kidding of course. You should indeed trust your intuition (provisionally, at least) that religions are deluded hogwash, but you should also use your reason to bring that intuition into coherence with all of the other intuitions you have, whether they are natively held intuitions or intuitions mediated by reason.

For example, you have the intuition that there is absolutely nothing wrong with lusting after a woman. Seemingly in tension with that, let me postulate that you have met at least one Catholic in your life who didn't seem sexually dysfunctional or intellectually impaired or insincere. If you have never observed such data, just humor me and continue with this as a thought experiment. How could you bring your dominant intuition into coherence with this secondary, weaker, but still seemingly true intuition?

In this case, it shouldn't take long to find a Catholic who can explain that lust, like all other sins, ain't bad for what it is, it's bad for what it ain't. If your "lust" is, as they say, drawing you into the fullness of that woman's existence, causing you to be attracted to her not simply as an object, but also pulling you into the mystery of her hopes and fear and desires, then that ain't lust. That's the good stuff. Lust is only when you reject the fullness of her person, and thereby reject the fullness of life, by dwelling in thoughts that objectify that woman as a tool for you pleasure.

I would love to generalize this idea of bringing your various intuitions into coherence, but I recognize this message is already too long.

What up, Hume.

OK, so we agree that it is indeed a "cheat" to assume that past patterns predict, in the sense that that belief is not logically required. So, when you later say that it is a *necessary* cheat (which I also agree with), in what sense is it necessary? I propose that this cheat is only necessary if we start from the intuitive premise that the material world not altogether malicious or incoherent. That intuitive premise is part (though only part) of the wishful thinking that I was referring to.

So, if you and I have already agreed to make this leap of faith into this coherent, partially predictable, not altogether malicious worldview, let's now parse what you mean by "impossible timings [can't] happen". It is of course true that no impossible thing can happen, but that is true by definition, so I'm sure you meant something more. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe what you mean is: "no thing can happen that destroys my coherent aesthetic sense of how the universe works". If that is what you mean, then I would encourage you to stick with that intuition, which I also share.

My only counsel would be to continually refine and expand your aesthetic sense. If you have been living in, and loving, a world that is proceeding in 4/4 time, and you then hear, or at least hear reports of, some bars of the song that proceed in 3/4 time or 5/4 time, don't assume that's not part of the song. Maybe the composer was indeed trying to direct your attention to that part of the song. It doesn't mean that the 4/4 part of the song isn't beautiful, and it doesn't mean that the song as a whole doesn't cohere.