The Trickster God

[Not Buying It]

There’s an extensive debate about Christ as a “Trickster God” in another thread, and rather than join that discussion I wanted to start a separate thread about it, rather than thread-jack.

Oddly enough, last night my wife invoked the Trickster God argument. We were talking about the Book of Mormon and I noted that it describes a vast civilization of millions of people who apparently left not a single shred of verifiable archaeological evidence behind. My wife said “Maybe God didn’t want there to be any evidence”. My response was “Well, if that is true, then someday I will take tell God ‘Look, I know you have the power to send me to Hell and all, but I have to say, it wasn’t very fair to leave all this evidence making it look like the Book of Mormon was a fraud and expect me to believe it anyway”.

And that’s my argument against the Trickster God hypothesis - perhaps it is consistent with LDS theology, because it’s the go-to when the evidence is completely against the Church’s claims, but a rational, loving, fair, equitable Supreme Being would never operate that way. And frankly, a Trickster God privileges the stupid, gullible, and easily fooled and disadvantages critical thinkers and logical reasoners. He becomes the God of Those Who Don’t Use Their Brains, and displays an unacceptable bias against those who actually use the brains he gave them.

As dogbite says in the other discussion:

Once you posit a trickster God, there is no way to know anything. All things could be a deception. There is no basis for calling anything evidence; no basis for saying this is a deception and that is not.

Trickster God is a weak, pathetic argument that is used by those who don’t have anything better to defend their position.

[moksha]

The trickster-God reminds me of the old Buddhist koan, "If an apologist fell down in a forest, would there be any deception?"

[Rob4Hope]

Trickster God is a weak, pathetic argument that is used by those who don’t have anything better to defend their position.

I couldn't agree more. And what makes it equally pathetic is the degree TBM folks will go to defend their position, even in the face of conclusively contradictory evidence.

When my shelf crashed, I found myself not just disbelieving Mormonism, I also found myself disbelieving in God. Why?...because there are horrible things attributed to God and his Patriarchs in the Bible. God is not just a trickster, he is also amoral, even cruel.

[Mormorrisey]

When my shelf crashed, I found myself not just disbelieving Mormonism, I also found myself disbelieving in God. Why?...because there are horrible things attributed to God and his Patriarchs in the Bible. God is not just a trickster, he is also amoral, even cruel.

And this is the problem I have with the concept of God. Clearly the scriptures ARE replete with the concept of a trickster God, a vengeful God, and a compassionate God. Which one is he? Or she? Or is he/she finicky as a human being? To me, everybody has their own concept of God - the strict authoritarian, the liberal loving deity, the trickster. Which one is accurate?

One's vision of God, in my humble estimation, is merely a Rorschach test of one's personality. That's why I envision God as a loving Mr. Rogers or cuddly Grandma, rather than a Thanos or a Loki. And I have no problems with that, and I certainly have no skin in the game for people to see it my way. The problem with prophets and scripture are that God can be all four, all at once, depending who the "prophet" is at the time, and that's the vision we need to adopt, like Nelson's "conditionally loving" God that Christofferson picked up on.

The beauty of the NOM way is to just accept what you like, and bag the rest. I'll keep my Mr. Rogers/Grandma God and ignore the trickster/jerkweed version of God that others buy into, and others can keep what they want, or just jettison the whole thing! Thinking is wonderful!

[ed123]

.

[dogbite]

(2) forcing you to be good by spoon feeding you proof so that you are forced to choose the right by undeniable proof.

The second option sir, is what is weak, because it is what a person without resolve, that bellyaches about having to actually exert oneself mentally to have to believe in a situation where one is not forced to believe.

There is no force in that situation actually. If one could demonstrate that the LDS God is God, I would still not worship him. I consider him immoral and unworthy of worship. I still have the choice of judging his standards and actions and finding them lacking.

I suggest you read Hell is the Absence of God by Ted Chiang. The story is not about my premise above but it is tertiarily included.

[ed123]

.

[dogbite]

pleasse define your use of natural law.

[ed123]

pleasse define your use of natural law.

Cause and effect. Gravity. Justice.
Shoot yourself in the head, and you die, because you can't escape the consequence.
You were the one that did it, so you made the choice, and you got the consequence.
Stupid is that stupid does, and stupid receives.

[dogbite]

Ok, I fully agree morality has nothing to do with that.

[ed123]

.

[græy]

pleasse define your use of natural law.

This is what I was waiting for. You can't claim that fossils are part of some "natural law" and therefore not attributable to a trickster god the same way as the BoA, without defining "natural law."

Nature means nothing in the face of a trickster god, and nothing can be reliably attributed to natural order rather than the whims of that god. Anything could be placed purely for his enjoyment or for the torment of those beneath him and simply be made to appear natural.

Back to the original point of the thread... this idea of a trickster god idea was, looking back, one of the earliest and longest lasting cracks in my shelf. It first appeared when my mother told my 10 year old self how we "knew" that fossils were only placed by God to test our faith.

It is one thing to choose faith when there is a lack of evidence. It is something else entirely to place faith in an individual who knowingly places contradictory evidence in your path. How does the phrase go? Faith in the face of contradictory evidence is simply delusion.

[dogbite]

You have a habit of thinking and speaking sloppily and acting like you won a debate. Don't be stupid. You didn't.

[ed123]

.

[græy]

Also, ed, please stop with the personal attacks...

You have a habit of putting words in people's mouths and acting like you won a debate. Don't be stupid.

because you had a childish, emotional reaction to the thought rather than reason through it

Stop being an idiot and a child about it.

You're quickly going to run out of anyone willing to read anything you post.

edit: Posted while I was typing this...

You are a moronic troll without the ability to think independently and carefully.

Now you're headed for ban territory.

[ed123]

.

[ed123]

.

[græy]

You are not superior. You are just arrogant.

When I have found out what kind of people I am dealing with on this board, and I call them out and say it like it is, I don't give a damn if I am banned.

Keep the attacks coming, friend.

[ed123]

.

[dogbite]

Premise: Evidence for or against God is inconclusive to preserve free agency about choosing or not choosing God.


Faith is


(i) a belief in a proposition or set of propositions that is/are unjustifiable...


God is going to judge you based on the choice you make about which set of unjustifiable propositions you choose?