God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

That's true, and it could also be considered moral in utilitarianism if we must maximize aggregate utility. Restricted to Holland and his son, is getting home five minutes quicker with increased anxiety better or worse than getting home five minutes faster with less anxiety. What if the anxiety taught a lesson about taking better notes next time?

In your case, the one God intended is only a moral concern under DCT but sure, it would be a moral concern if God has a preference. If God respects agency he might not have one.

But for practical purposes it's not a moral question as there is no codified moral law that covers it under any belief system I'm aware of, and it poses no meaningful moral dilemma as in the case of the switch operator. Do you save your kid, or save the train?

This whole line of thought keeps reminding me of The Good Place. When every outcome requires multiple decision points, you end up with the problems the show pokes at, where anxiety and hindsight result in indecision. I love this discussion!

[Rivendale]

Trolly problem aside it also sanctions and approves of the desire to be allowed to step in front of a moving truck immediately after baptism because as Renlund said, "I will never be as clean as I am now".

[malkie]

However, there are people who believe in predestination and still pray.

I think people in general who pray face a couple of psychological realities. I don't think people who pray are stupid about it unless grandstanding for political purposes, virtue signaling or whatever. In a normal private circumstance, people aren't stupid enough to ask for Ferraris outright because they know it's not going to happen, and they don't want to be wrong and to admit prayer doesn't work. If they thought there was a real chance of it happening, they would absolutely ask. People also play psychological games with God. They know they aren't supposed to be selfish, and so must ask in convoluted ways that emphasize his will and not to sound greedy. God might not give me a Ferrari but perhaps he'll give me a loaf of bread if I promise to share it with others.

I’ve thought about prayer within a predestination model and have a similar reaction as you describe, and I think it applies to the Book of Mormon prayer test as well.

If outcomes are fixed or always interpreted as God’s will after the fact, it’s hard to see what prayer is actually doing. I think the Lord’s Prayer as a model works, at least for me, as a means in which to achieve peace or acceptance within a given situation—this was particularly relevant during OIF. There might be more to it than that, but I’m uncertain there is much more—probably security and peace for my family and friends, as you mention. I may have a unique view in that what I’ve found myself doing is asking for God to live through me—because I have this simple concept that if God “is” love, then I’d want that effect.

I haven't followed the entire thread (it's very idea dense - my excuse anyway), so I apologise if this has already come up.

Perhaps prayer in general, but certainly the Lord’s Prayer, can effectively live in several "worlds" (neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive):

• the person praying is thinking about the words and phrases, and taking each element as meaningful, and, if appropriate, to be acted on, or
• the prayer is rote, essentially formal, ritual, and not imbued with meaning - a mantra

The second may be exemplified by its use during "praying the rosary", or as penance after confession - the combination of the Pater Noster and Ave Maria becoming a way of soothing the mind that involves little to no thought or effort - perhaps used as the "means in which to achieve peace or acceptance" that you mention.

A possible third world is represented by:

• the person praying in desperation, wanting to communicate with "god", but having no other model for what may be effective

Maybe even a fourth world after a tragedy when one feels obliged to say something (perhaps to an audience that one is explicitly "playing" to):

• "our thoughts and prayers are with those affected"

The target audience believes that prayer is effective, and is suitably comforted, while the cynic sees it as an excuse for inaction.

In the Book of Mormon case, I was explicitly told a “no” answer isn’t even possible, only two result count—confirmation or “there’s something wrong with you, or you didn’t ask with sincerity,” or whatever, which is essentially self-sealing and nothing can falsify it. I don’t think it’s about sincerity, though, really the problem is what would ever count as God actually saying “no.”

[Limnor]

Perhaps prayer in general, but certainly the Lord’s Prayer, can effectively live in several "worlds" (neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive)

There’s probably some residual Catholicism in my thinking(!). But I think you’ve presented a helpful way to describe how prayer can function for people. The collision of those functions, as interpreted through individual lenses, can make it hard to effectively communicate what prayer is supposed to be doing in a given case, or what would ever count as it not working.

[malkie]

There have been some pretty brilliant replies to the to the opening post, but I'm still struggling to see what MG is trying to say. He proudly asserts "God can write straight with crooked lines." With the right apologetic narrative, anyone--large or small; dumb or smart; old or young; animal, mineral, or vegetable--can write straight with crooked lines. It's not that much of a feat and, as such, is a pretty low bar for an omnipresent, omniscient God.

As I said earlier, MG's God is not Monet, he's Lewis Carroll's Red Queen--arbitrary and capricious. He actions are good only because he tells us they're good. Like the Red Queen, God’s ways are beyond our understanding--and what seems to be apparent injustice is reframed as holy mystery. The sentencing of "Off with her head!" comes before the verdict--which makes the verdict into a post hoc explanation for the pronounced sentence.

As the Red Queen, God's ways are not our ways, in that he's not constrained by the logic and reason that he himself provided us. His justice is not our justice, in that he's not bound by the same rules that he himself told us to live by. God's hoppy taw is not our hoppy taw. We are not to question God's crooked lines--through his prophets, he'll tell us whether they're straight or not.

Two thought here:

Because god's ways are not our ways, in cases where there is no explicit instruction from "god" - or god's representatives, if they truly represent god - we are effectively on our own. We cannot even imagine the subtle ways in which our thought processes diverge from those of god in order to attempt to generalise.

For example, the parent tells their child: "Don't ever say no to me!" Is it OK for the child to say "I'm not doing that", or to ignore the parent's instructions? Who can tell? This is why I feel justified in either disregarding those who would tell us what god wills, or in joining them as equally justified - my guess is as good as theirs.

Also, it's not just the Red Queen you have to worry about. Remember this exchange:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

You pays your money and you takes your choice, or chance, as the case may be.

[MG 2.0]

Fascinating discussion thusfar. I'd like to hear a bit more about how this concept in which God can write with crooked lines might dovetail or not with this thing we call agency. At an individual level and the composite level of many people acting upon the whims of a leader or group movement. Often without giving things much thought.

Then randomness seems to set in. No real rhyme or reason until navigated towards meaning after the fact.

Crooked lines happen. Would God not have to have some way of navigating the messiness of the human condition in order to bring everything back into homeostasis? Straightening out the squiggles of the human condition?

Otherwise, isn't there just plain chaos with no hope of resolution? What Christians would call redemption? It doesn't seem like this would be hunky dory with a loving God who ultimately wants the best outcomes.

Just some more props I'm putting out on the stage.

I'm really enjoying the Tolkein stuff and others bouncing off of that, etc.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Remember, in my original post I'm asking that we deal with a hypothetical creator God who would ultimately like to see the greatest good be the result of His efforts. Nothing else would seem to make sense. At least to me.

So I appreciate it if we can kind of, sort of, travel the course...for now...that there is a loving Creator (even if you have your doubts that this is so).

But I like the direction this thread has been going. Don't let me be a monkey wrench in the discussion. Kind of ignore me!

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think we have to agree on terms within this hypothetical game. Like how you understand “agency,” is the meaning universal? In Paul, agency is real but impaired—we will and act from a fallen orientation that can’t perfect itself. There is such a wide gulf that I’m not sure your game can reconcile the two, and I’m not convinced you are open to understanding the other view—you’ve already defeated the model you’ve set up.

You said: Would God not have to have some way of navigating the messiness of the human condition in order to bring everything back into homeostasis? Straightening out the squiggles of the human condition?

And also: Otherwise, isn't there just plain chaos with no hope of resolution? What Christians would call redemption? It doesn't seem like this would be hunky dory with a loving God who ultimately wants the best outcomes.

Redemption isn’t God straightening every crooked line or turning outcomes into “the intended path,” but re-forming persons while things remain messy. I’m not sure the homeostasis model you’re describing actually tracks with Paul.

[malkie]

Ahhh - I'd completely forgotten that this topic was a game with rules.

[Limnor]

Ahhh - I'd completely forgotten that this topic was a game with rules.

Ha! Sometimes it sounds like what I imagine LDS Gospel Doctrine (or whatever it’s called) classes must be like.