Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

"There is nothing you need to do." (In It Together, Page 84)

"The incessant anxious feeling like something needs to be done, something must be done, or something is lacking are all symptoms of discontent." (In It Together, Page 117)

"Nothing must be done that isn’t done." (In It Together, Page 132)

"Must and choice are incompatible. Nothing must be done that isn’t done." (In It Together, Page 135)

1. You don't need to believe in god.

I really don't understand # 1. As a Christian, believing in God is what has changed my whole life for the better, and without Him, everything was not life at its fullest. Having being created in the likeness of God motivates me every day: His Word in the Bible lights all darkness.

Hi, Moisés Alcántara Ayre,

First, I want to say thank you so much for your intriguing questions and the thought-provoking conversations we are having. I love learning about different perspectives and viewpoints, and I love discussions like these. So I truly and deeply thank you.

Second, I want to say that I do not disagree with anything you have written above.

However, what I would disagree with is if you followed everything you have written above with the sentence, "Thus, I need to believe in God."

I would not only disagree with that conclusion, but I would disagree that anything you've written above supports that conclusion at all.

In analogy, to me, it would be like saying the following:

Cats are mammals.
Dogs have fur.
Therefore, two plus two equals five.

The premises (i.e. the first two sentences) are true, but they don't support the conclusion.


Perhaps an even better analogy would be this:

Cats are mammals.
Dogs have fur.
Therefore, you need to believe in God.


As best I can tell, the conclusion that you allegedly need to believe in God simply does not logically follow from the other statements you made, which are all agreeable:

"As a Christian, believing in God is what has changed my whole life for the better, and without Him, everything was not life at its fullest. Having being created in the likeness of God motivates me every day: His Word in the Bible lights all darkness."

To demonstrate what I mean more specifically, imagine I wrote this:

"As a father, having kids is what has changed my whole life for the better; And, without my kids, I would not be living my life to its fullest. Having kids motivates me every day. For me, my kids light up the darkness."

We can agree that all of the above is true, but still acknowledge that I don't need to have kids. I don't have to have kids. I'm not required to have kids. Having kids is not something I must do and is not something anyone must do. In the same way, believing in God is not something anyone must choose to do or must choose not to do.

There may be many reasons why someone, such as me or you, would want to have kids or not. There might be many reasons why someone, such as you or me, might want to believe in God or be Christian.

There may be many reasons why someone, such as me or you, would choose to have kids or not. Likewise, there might be many reasons why someone, such as you or me, might choose to believe in God or be Christian.

But it would be inaccurate to conflate desire or choice with must or necessity.

And, by extension, it would be inaccurate to conflate reasons for wanting something or reasons for choosing something with reasons for needing to do something.

There are never any valid reasons for needing to do something (in the unconditional sense) because there is nothing you need to do. There is nothing you must do.

As my book teaches and explains in much more detail, must and choice are incompatible. Not only are they not the same thing, but they are basically opposites. Insofar as you don't have a choice about something that's being done or happening, then it's not something you—meaning the real you—are doing. Insofar as you do have a choice, then you are omnipotent over that choice. There's no room for real true spiritual slavery or such. There's no room for musts, or need tos, or have tos. When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning what you choose.

Whether you like it or not, you have that spiritual freedom.

The opposite (i.e. spiritual slavery) is always fundamentally an illusion. Typically, a self-deceiving dishonest delusion, riddled with dishonest denial and unacceptance about reality being the way it simply is.

'Must', 'need to', and 'have to' are all miserable slave words.
 
Political freedom can be infringed. A person can put a gun to your head and order you around.

But your spiritual freedom can never be infringed.

Spiritually speaking, whether you like it or not, you are free, always. One can be honest and happily accepting about it, or the opposite: dishonest and resentful.

I'm not personally religious, but to any religious person who does believe in a God, I imagine that God would give much less credit to you if you had to believe in him rather than that you didn't have to but rather chose to. Because if you have to (a.k.a. need to, or must), then it's not a choice, at least not a free one. In analogy, I love compliments, but if you are only giving them to me because you have a gun to your head, then I'm not going to give you much credit at all, if any. Even if the gun is imaginary, and is just a hallucination, it would still render the would-be compliment meaningless. If you are only complimenting me because you (falsely) believe you have a gun to your head, then it's like you really didn't compliment me at all.

If there is a God similar to what is described in the Abrahamic religions (namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), I don't purport to know the mind of that God. But my best guess would be that he would treat it the same to believe in him because you need to (or believe you need to) the same as he would treat not believing in him at all.

The property doesn't get credit for what the property owner makes the property do. If you are just slave-like property being required to believe in God or practice faith or pray or compliment or whatever, then you get no credit for doing that, and only the person or thing doing the requiring gets the credit, not the thing required.

Slaves obeying musts and need tos and have tos don't get any credit. Only free people get credit.

Without choice, there is nothing to credit you for.

If I didn't have any choice about being or at least behaving like a loving father to my kids, then it wouldn't even be something I am doing, and certainly wouldn't be something that had any honor or for which I would deserve or get any rightful credit.

Maybe your God is immune to flattery or such, but, if not, I imagine he'd be much more flattered if you said, "God, I could choose to not worship you, to not thank you, and to not have faith in you. I have that freedom. Yet, I use that freedom to choose to have faith in you, to choose to thank you, and to choose to worship you."

If someone said that to me, I'd open up my golden gates and let them in my awesome house. But if they said they only believe in me or like me or whatever because they (believe that they) have to, and that (they believe) it's thus not something they are choosing, then I'd keep my door closed to them and send them somewhere else.  

If you are saying and doing it because you believe you have to, then it's like you're not saying or doing it at all.

I don't believe in anything supernatural as to love and worship it, but I do love and worship my kids. And I never say something like, "I have to pick my kids up from school today." But I often say, "I want to pick up my kids from school today." And I often say, "I choose to pick my kids up from school today."

How sad it must be for the kids whose parents are there only because they believe they have to be. And vice versa, be that a sad literal parent or a disappointed heavenly guy in the sky.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

Must and choice are incompatible.png (1.55 MiB) Viewed 2284 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

[Shirley Labzentis]

I totally agree with what you said above, Scott. I am not a religious person either, and it is something that I do not believe that I have to do. For those who are religious, that's fine. Believe who and what you choose to. I, however, choose not to believe what most people do, and I have my own ideas on religion and God. I was born and raised Catholic, but because of circumstances, I do not practice anymore. You must not feel like you have to believe in God but choose to believe if that's what you wish.

[Sushan]

When it comes to believing or religion, I believe it has greater significance when it is something chosen based on sincere conviction rather than feeling like it is required or required of you. When faith is freely accepted rather than practiced out of fear or coercion, it seems to have its true beauty. What if we were obligated to be in our relationships rather than because we were in love? Without a question, that would lessen the richness and contentment that result from those connections. Similar to this, following a path in life out of desire rather than obligation can result in far greater satisfaction than following a path related to faith, love, or anything else.

[Jennifer Bells]

Every one has different need. some think that they should believe in God while others do not think so. It is a personal decision. It is also a conscious decision for every individual.