View Full Version : Metaphysical paradox
FILMFREAK087
07-06-09, 04:30 AM
Okay, so you all know by now that I am a non-theist, or "atheist." I always get roped into philosophical debates with my brother-in-law, and I managed to stump him using a line of basic reasoning. One of my problems with Religion, besides the scientific hurtles, is the basic logical inconsistencies.
It is said that God is the Aplha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Now in the scientific corner, Newton's first law of motion states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, both scientifically and Biblically we are now on the same page. Now, the common belief is that God is pure and is the source of all that is virtuous and good. My question is; where did evil come from? According to Genesis all that is manifest is solely from the divine creator, so God had to create evil, which in it's self is essentially evil. Now going back to Newton, cause I love mixing two things as compatible as science and religion, the force that would be known as evil had to already have been presnent in some state within God himself. He was the only thing in existence pre-universe, hence everything is a direct result of the force called God.
Please do not be disrespectful or ignorant, I am simply stating a fundemental problem within Biblical texts.
Iroquois
07-06-09, 04:38 AM
If evil didn't exist, how would we know what was good?
FILMFREAK087
07-06-09, 04:48 AM
If evil didn't exist, how would we know what was good?
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Better question; How can God be Good, if there is no objective view of morality, pre-universe anyway? I mean, I'm pretty sure that God, in and of himself, would think he was infallible. So, God isn't as "perfect," as is believed, objectively anyway.
Which brings me to another question; is God's will good, or is it good because God will's it? I mean if God decreed that all followers must disembowel non-believers, would that be quantified as a good act because it was ordered by God?
Ish1987
07-06-09, 09:25 AM
Filmfreak, if there is a god (which there isn't!) but if there was.. IF there was.. You'd be it.. Cause you speak the ultimate truth lol.
God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God. I guess he isn't such a good lad after all?
And so on…
Evil is not necessarily a thing; it can be described as the absence of a thing; the absence of good.
Regardless, the problem of evil is probably among the oldest and most-discussed theological concepts, and the answer is quite simple: free will. God does not need to create evil for it to exist, God merely needs to decide that the importance of giving beings control over their own lives outweighs even the terrible things they may choose to do with them.
God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
Like what? If God turns water into wine, the "physical evidence" would be wine. You have no way of determining if they left physical evidence, because you have no way of identifying it.
Not to mention that requiring physical evidence to prove the existence of a metaphysical fact is completely circular.
God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
People claim to have been spoken to all the time. I don't know if I believe them, but again, you seem to be asking for evidence that you'd have no way of identifying to being with.
Regarding The Bible; let's not confuse the issue of God with the issue of Jesus, because one, philosophically speaking, encompasses the other. If you want to make an argument, by all means, make one, but a string of broad declarations isn't really advancing the discussion.
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
...which demonstrates only that God does not answer most (or possibly any) prayers. That's completely apart from whether or not God exists, and any view of prayer which views it only as a way to get things is a very narrow one.
Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God. I guess he isn't such a good lad after all?
As I stated above, this is easily explained by the concept of free will, and it doesn't take long to realize the pointlessness of any existence without it.
Free will, by the by, is not an osbscure concept. If one is really out looking for the truth of such things, or pondering them with any seriousness (as opposed to looking for validation), they'd be hard-pressed not to have run into it.
Regardless, the problem of evil is probably among the oldest and most-discussed theological concepts, and the answer is quite simple: free will. God does not need to create evil for it to exist, God merely needs to decide that the importance of giving beings control over their own lives outweighs even the terrible things they may choose to do with them.
There seems something a bit cheeky in letting God off on having 'created' evil. He is known as the 'Creator' of universe after all, is he not?
More importantly though, even if he is just tolerating manifestations of evil for free will purposes, what are we to make of circumstances where we have no influence or choice? What happens when it's not an apple dangling in front of someone, but a tsunami hitting them on the head? I've never heard a satisfactory 'God is benevolent' response to that kind of thing. Answers seem to range from 'oh they were all evil', to Job-like tests-of-faith, to the marvellously blithe 'Oh, they're all in heaven now, so that's alright'.
Don't like to push the point normally, coz the concept of a benevolent God seems to inspire some of religion's more positive aspects, but it does seem a bit of a deal-breaker to me. I struggle to tuck natural disasters / diseases into the category of 'ineffable acts of a cheeky chappy who's looking out for us in the end'.
Ish1987
07-06-09, 12:40 PM
If you can't prove it, it's not officially known to exist. End of story :)
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound even if nobody can hear it? Yes it does, but that can be proven scientifically.
Things do get murkier here, but let's delve deeply into the question (which I certainly admit is a good one :)):
There are some explanations which are possible, but which I don't believe. For example, the idea that our own actions over time have somehow contributed to the existence of natural disasters, making even tsunamis the result of free will, albeit indirectly.
Anyway, onto things I might actually believe. ;) I have to wonder how we could know whether or not even natural disasters don't serve a greater good that we're unaware of. Forest fires, we've learned, are a necessary part of the forest's cycle. Might even tsunamis serve an important ecological purpose which we've yet to grasp? Perhaps they're just the same sorts of trade-offs, writ much larger, of course, that exist on a smaller scale in front of us every day.
One thing that intrigues me is that everything you're saying could apply to anything short of perfection. I mean, is it evidence against God that we can't fly, or heal ourselves like Wolverine? I'm not sure why a God must create a perfectly innocuous world devoid of any peril whatsoever to qualify as benevolent. If there were no tsunamis or earthquakes or disease, we might be having this same discussion, only someone would cite pimples as evidence of God's non-existence (or indifference to our teenage woes), and it would be, fundamentally, nearly the same argument.
But the most important point, I think, is that all this also presupposes that a benevolent God's first and highest priority would be to shield us from any kind of pain. I'm not convinced of this. One need look no further than most parenting philosophies to see to see that such a principle would do a terrible job of raising a child. The child never can comprehend why they can't have what they want, or why they can't run out into the street, or why they need to slow down, or what possible purpose a spanking could serve to make them better people, but it does. In the long-run, it serves a greater purpose, and if there is an afterlife, it's no stretch to suggest that this world might bear some strong similarities to the idea of childhood.
I realize that these sorts of ideas will not offer much comfort to anyone who has suffered a great loss, and I doubt I'd be any different if and when something terrible befalls me. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, either.
If you can't prove it, it's not officially known to exist. End of story :)
You're describing the scientific method which, by definition, has nothing to say about the possibility of things which are unobservable, or exist outside of the physical. If it did, it would cease to be scientific.
That's what this comes down to: you're asking for physical proof of something which is not physical. That's circular.
Now, you can choose to only believe in the physical and observable (and it would seem that this is what you've done), but that decision is an arbitrary one.
king_of_movies_316
07-06-09, 12:52 PM
Who are we to say what is evil and what is not?
Evil is only what our societys have told us what is bad.
eg. Homophobia in the western world is looked upon as bad and almost evil.
In Iran, being gay is illegal.
Ish1987
07-06-09, 12:56 PM
You're describing the scientific method which, by definition, has nothing to say about the possibility of things which are unobservable, or exist outside of the physical. If it did, it would cease to be scientific.
That's what this comes down to: you're asking for physical proof of something which is not physical. That's circular.
Now, you can choose to only believe in the physical and observable (and it would seem that this is what you've done), but that decision is an arbitrary one.
Well by that definition I could claim to be god, and nobody can ever say I'm not.
king_of_movies_316
07-06-09, 01:01 PM
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg270/n0b0dy_/what_they_believe01.gif
When you saw that, unless you are a scientologist you probaly thought "what a stupid far out there relgion".
Sceintology cops alot of crap, but i realised something today, all other relgiouse followings (except athiests) are just as far out there as sciontology.
Think about it, Christianity is about some dude in the sky who created everything one day and then impregnated a random chick with out having sex with her. This chick then had a kid who had magic powers and could walk on water and turn water into wine. One day, the kid of the virgin got killed and then turned into a zombie who wanderd the earth for ever.
When you think about it, all relgions sound boderline retarded (not just scientology) yet we for some reason beleve in them.
Deep down i know alot of followers of these relgions have doubt.
Well by that definition I could claim to be god, and nobody can ever say I'm not.
Well, first off, there's a difference between "nobody can ever say I'm not" and "nobody can ever prove I'm not." Anyone could say it (and they would). They could also force you to define what you mean by "God," and in order to not get talked into a corner, you'd probably have to define it in a very weird way that wouldn't fit most people's conceptions of the word.
But yeah, technically, you can claim ridiculous things and nobody can prove otherwise with science. That's kind of my point, and that's what you're advocating when you advocate the scientific method as the sole means of determining truth. It's defined as much by what it can't comment on as it is by what it can.
The fact remains: asking for physical proof of something which claims to be non-physical is circular and paradoxical. It's not an argument against the existence of God, it's simply you standing up and declaring that you've decided not to believe in anything you can't observe.
Think about it, Christianity is about some dude in the sky who created everything one day and then impregnated a random chick with out having sex with her. This chick then had a kid who had magic powers and could walk on water and turn water into wine. One day, the kid of the virgin got killed and then turned into a zombie who wanderd the earth for ever.
When you think about it, all relgions sound boderline retarded (not just scientology) yet we for some reason beleve in them.
I'd say the difference in source text is pretty massive; The Bible, whatever you think of it, is an historical record of the time and isn't exactly akin to something written a few decades ago (or whenever it was, precisely). And not to quibble, but Christians don't believe that Jesus is wandering the Earth, either. Nor would they choose the word "zombie" to describe the resurrection.
Phrasing, in other words, can make a big difference; the "dude in the sky" thing, for another example, is really a conception of popular culture, as is the idea of the Devil as being a guy with a mustache in a scaly red jumpsuit. The difference between Christianity and Scientology (one of them, at least), is that you don't have to caricaturize or re-word Scientology to make it sound ridiculous; it does that on it's own.
Ish1987
07-06-09, 01:23 PM
You're spot on Yoda. But for the sake of argument. In your opinion what proof is there that there is a god? I mean there are gasses that don't smell, can't be seen or otherwise be identified with our human senses. But science can. So I'm curious. How can anyone claim something to exist when they can't prove it? Sorry if I'm getting repetitive, it's just not logical to my way of thinking. It's not how I perceive the world. Gee, if there was proof of flying pigs in space I'd believe it no matter how ludacris it sounds.
<e>Time for example.. Does time exist? It's an invention of man.. Can we prove time exists? I guess not. Same with god. Only time we can measure, thus people believe in it. So far nobody has managed to gauge the presence of any god. If you can't identify it, you can't measure it. Time is made up, thus we can measure it. Too my best knowledge god is to, yet we can't measure "it's" presence..
Gee im getting dizzy just thinking of it lol.
There are some explanations which are possible, but which I don't believe. For example, the idea that our own actions over time have somehow contributed to the existence of natural disasters, making even tsunamis the result of free will, albeit indirectly.
Oo, sweet, that's even further out there than the Gaia theories :) (All they need to do is mix in chaos theory and they could blame it all on bad butterfly breeders or something ;))
I have to wonder how we could know whether or not even natural disasters don't serve a greater good that we're unaware of. Forest fires, we've learned, are a necessary part of the forest's cycle. Might even tsunamis serve an important ecological purpose which we've yet to grasp? Perhaps they're just the same sorts of trade-offs, writ much larger, of course, that exist on a smaller scale in front of us every day.
For sure, but how would that effect the apparent nullification of free will engendered by mass deaths? (And there is still a question of why a perfect God would see the need for checks and balances of such an apparently destructive order).
---
To be fair, i think the "everyone's now in heaven & hell" argument is a fair enough get-out clause for a theist when it comes to natural disasters (It just gets scant traction with atheists/agnostics ;)). It also fits with the 'tough love' God you describe, in many ways. (I would question where the chance for redemption goes in such a mass wipeout though. Might not some of 'the bad' have been working their karmic way to a better state of being at the time the lights got put out en masse etc?)
A tougher problem is the disease & deprivation end of free-will limitation i feel (including that which follows natural disasters). The tough-love idea still works in many ways, but it does feel a bit 'armchair'. It's very easy to praise Job-like stoicism in the face of suffering etc from a distance, but as you suggest, something else to live through it.
The 'hardest question' though surely has to be young kids born with severely limiting and/or painful conditions. Are they partially 'avatars of suffering' from which we are expected to learn? What of their limited options for free will, their slanted starting point of less capability for evil combined with increased excuses for wishing it (given their tormented life). That is very tough love indeed - from the perspective of the individual, & again on the broader scale of why God has chosen a world that works along such lines, where such lessons are necessary at all.
One thing that intrigues me is that everything you're saying could apply to anything short of perfection. I mean, is it evidence against God that we can't fly, or heal ourselves like Wolverine?
Nah, not sure i buy this sub-perfect argument. We have an existing scale that suggests God can make healthy humans, but chooses not too in some cases, or allows virulent diseases & apparently arbitrary conditions to strike them regardless of the morality of their actions (or so it often seems - and would you argue otherwise? Are those hit by brain cancer evil? Do malarial mosquitoes seek out the ethically unsound? Would be a stretch to argue that way no? :|)
king_of_movies_316
07-06-09, 02:29 PM
The difference between Christianity and Scientology (one of them, at least), is that you don't have to caricaturize or re-word Scientology to make it sound ridiculous; it does that on it's own.
That is true, as just telling the story of scientology sounds pretty far out there (anyone see that South Park episode), but regardless, Christianity and what ever other religion all have an extremly low chance of being true, regardless of which one sounds more far out there.
Sexy Celebrity
07-06-09, 03:05 PM
I'll just say that sometimes you feel like you've met the love of your life, then he leaves you, then you turn against God and go atheist (fabulously), then you check your e-mail and see that a new man has written to you (two hours after you got dumped, and messages from single men don't happen everyday), it turns out he's even more fabulous than the guy you thought was the love of your life, you wait for him to return from South Dakota and then you go out, then he nevers leaves your house, then he's outside fixing your car, etc. etc.
Is this proof of God at work?
FILMFREAK087
07-06-09, 08:46 PM
Evil is not necessarily a thing; it can be described as the absence of a thing; the absence of good.
Regardless, the problem of evil is probably among the oldest and most-discussed theological concepts, and the answer is quite simple: free will. God does not need to create evil for it to exist, God merely needs to decide that the importance of giving beings control over their own lives outweighs even the terrible things they may choose to do with them.
Regardless, the absence of good is still derived from the central point of origin, God. This means that there has to be an inherent lack of goodness within the Almighty himself.
Okay, so you all know by now that I am a non-theist, or "atheist." I always get roped into philosophical debates with my brother-in-law, and I managed to stump him using a line of basic reasoning. One of my problems with Religion, besides the scientific hurtles, is the basic logical inconsistencies.
It is said that God is the Aplha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Now in the scientific corner, Newton's first law of motion states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, both scientifically and Biblically we are now on the same page. Now, the common belief is that God is pure and is the source of all that is virtuous and good. My question is; where did evil come from? According to Genesis all that is manifest is solely from the divine creator, so God had to create evil, which in it's self is essentially evil. Now going back to Newton, cause I love mixing two things as compatible as science and religion, the force that would be known as evil had to already have been presnent in some state within God himself. He was the only thing in existence pre-universe, hence everything is a direct result of the force called God.
Please do not be disrespectful or ignorant, I am simply stating a fundemental problem within Biblical texts.
With due respect, the thing that most bothers me about by-the-Book Christians and the atheists who love to tease them is that here are two polar opposites who both believe they have it all nailed down. But like comic Brother Dave Gardner (look him up) used to say, "If it's all nailed down, then what is this all around it?" Most members of both groups are basing their beliefs on what others before them have written or said. Most religious people haven't actually seen God or his angels. And most atheist haven't actually perform the scientific experiments and studies that they quote. In fact, they're most alike in that both assume things they as individuals can't possibly know. I've read that even some of Einstein's theories have since been proven wrong. But I haven't run the mathematics or done the experiments myself, so I just don't know.
Evil is not necessarily a thing; it can be described as the absence of a thing; the absence of good.
Regardless, the problem of evil is probably among the oldest and most-discussed theological concepts, and the answer is quite simple: free will. God does not need to create evil for it to exist, God merely needs to decide that the importance of giving beings control over their own lives outweighs even the terrible things they may choose to do with them.
Good and evil are simply expressions of man's free will, which exists whether or not there is a God. Man often assigns good and evil values to things of nature or of chance, the same way people see human characteristics in dogs and cats and dolphins, etc.
A flood kills hundreds of people in China, a volcano wipes out a South Sea island, a swimmer is eaten by a shark, your neighbor dies in a house fire. Are those acts of evil or acts of nature? Is a shark or bear evil because it follows its natural (or God-given, whatever) instincts in making a meal of another less-fit animal, even if that animal is human? Good and evil are simply human judgments imposed rather randomly. Most societies view lynching as evil because a mob operating outside the law elects to kill another person without due process or trial simply because of public prejudice against that person. A war can be good or evil, depending on one's point of view, which in turn is the result of one's free will, which can be God-given or natural.
Sir Toose
07-07-09, 10:22 AM
My question is; where did evil come from? According to Genesis all that is manifest is solely from the divine creator, so God had to create evil, which in it's self is essentially evil.
That the creation of evil is 'evil' is a moral judgement on your part.
If there is a god, and this god is omniscient, then he\she\it could not create anything unknown to itself.
If, as it says in the biblical text, god created satan, who by all appearances turned against him, then one has to assume that satan was created as part of god's larger plan and that everything satan could do is known already by god. The motivations of something so much larger than ourselves may escape our understanding. In fact it MUST be of an understanding that is wider than our capabilities or we would all equal god.
With due respect, the thing that most bothers me about by-the-Book Christians and the atheists who love to tease them is that here are two polar opposites who both believe they have it all nailed down.
Exactly.
Personally I have no problem with the concept of god/a god. It's when things start getting specific (ie a specific religion) that the interpretation of men starts clouding the waters.
Obviously life is THE mystery, followed closely by all things that support it. We can observe some things about it but IMHO people who are absolutely certain about anything have made a bunch of stuff up (or follow those who have) to fill in the gaps of understanding.
I have no inherent need to explain it all. For the time being, I'm happy riding the wave.
With due respect, the thing that most bothers me about by-the-Book Christians and the atheists who love to tease them is that here are two polar opposites who both believe they have it all nailed down. But like comic Brother Dave Gardner (look him up) used to say, "If it's all nailed down, then what is this all around it?" Most members of both groups are basing their beliefs on what others before them have written or said. Most religious people haven't actually seen God or his angels. And most atheist haven't actually perform the scientific experiments and studies that they quote. In fact, they're most alike in that both assume things they as individuals can't possibly know. I've read that even some of Einstein's theories have since been proven wrong. But I haven't run the mathematics or done the experiments myself, so I just don't know.
Fair points, but surely there's a distinction in that you could have a bash at delving into the Einsteinian maths etc if you really wanted to, whereas tracking down an angel might prove somewhat harder?
And i think there's a fair bit of 'gut calling' going on which can be seen of as independent of any big speakers on either side. (Everyone likes to fire that nail-gun wildly from time to time after all ;))
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
Maybe what your statistics really proved is that the answer to prayers often is "No." Answering prayers is not the same as granting prayers.
Ish1987
07-08-09, 06:57 AM
In all honesty praying creeps me out. While I don't hold religious people their beliefs against them, I personally think religion is BS frankly. But that's just me.
Just to make a point..
"Several studies have found Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) to be one of the most atheist countries in the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Also. Do keep in mind we take in a lot of people from Muslim countries (among other religions) every year, and that we are by numbers a tiny little country, so the percentage of those actually believing in a higher presence will affect the total percentage more than say Russia or USA.
Sci-Fi-Guy
07-08-09, 07:02 AM
God created man in his own image (spiritually, not physically).
God created evil and gave us free will to test us to see if we were worthy of that gift.
You're spot on Yoda. But for the sake of argument. In your opinion what proof is there that there is a god? I mean there are gasses that don't smell, can't be seen or otherwise be identified with our human senses. But science can. So I'm curious. How can anyone claim something to exist when they can't prove it?
Sometimes you just need faith.
As far as I (or any individual) know, I am the only thing in this universe that I know without a doubt is real.
Everything else I have ever known or seen has happened through my mind's awareness of those things.
For all I really know, I am the only certainty and all of you and the entire universe is all part of my own mind.
Can you prove to me that you exist?
Show me irrefutable proof that you and science are not a part of my imagination.
That you are not a dream my mind has conjured up.
That you aren't some program running in a matrix somewhere set to entertain me.
Nothing you do or say can ever truely prove you are as real as me.
Yet somehow I still have faith that you and your world of science are all real.
FILMFREAK087
07-08-09, 07:29 AM
God created man in his own image (spiritually, not physically).
God created evil and gave us free will to test us to see if we were worthy of that gift.
Sometimes you just need faith.
As far as I (or any individual) know, I am the only thing in this universe that I know without a doubt is real.
Everything else I have ever known or seen has happened through my mind's awareness of those things.
For all I really know, I am the only certainty and all of you and the entire universe is all part of my own mind.
Can you prove to me that you exist?
Show me irrefutable proof that you and science are not a part of my imagination.
That you are not a dream my mind has conjured up.
That you aren't some program running in a matrix somewhere set to entertain me.
Nothing you do or say can ever truely prove you are as real as me.
Yet somehow I still have faith that you and your world of science are all real.
You seem to be deviating into Plato's cave, I am pointing out what you just stated, if there was a God He would in fact hold the same weaknesses as man, which would nullify any idea of an inherently "good" will.
Ish1987
07-08-09, 08:28 AM
God created man in his own image (spiritually, not physically).
God created evil and gave us free will to test us to see if we were worthy of that gift.
Sometimes you just need faith.
As far as I (or any individual) know, I am the only thing in this universe that I know without a doubt is real.
Everything else I have ever known or seen has happened through my mind's awareness of those things.
For all I really know, I am the only certainty and all of you and the entire universe is all part of my own mind.
Can you prove to me that you exist?
Yeah that shouldn't be so difficult.
Show me irrefutable proof that you and science are not a part of my imagination.
That you are not a dream my mind has conjured up.
That you aren't some program running in a matrix somewhere set to entertain me.
Nothing you do or say can ever truely prove you are as real as me.
Yet somehow I still have faith that you and your world of science are all real.
Well I'm not saying that I'm not. But if so, then god is an imagination as well. Hence "not real"..
<edit>If by "your imagination" you mean things projected by your brain, then that would make everything unreal.
It's like people saying "How do you know my blue is perceived the way you perceive it?"
The answer is simple - It don't matter, because from the time we learn what blue looks like, that will always be blue to us. For someone else it might be our red, but we don't know that. Nobody can ever be sure two people are seeing the same shade of color. All they can agree on is that X shade is known as X color. :rolleyes:
You're spot on Yoda. But for the sake of argument. In your opinion what proof is there that there is a god?
There is no proof. Which leads into your next question...
I mean there are gasses that don't smell, can't be seen or otherwise be identified with our human senses. But science can. So I'm curious. How can anyone claim something to exist when they can't prove it?
I have two responses to this:
1) We all claim things to exist when we can't prove it. We all do it, all the time. We all believe in things we've never seen, conclusions we've never reached ourselves, and historical figures that only exist on paper. Burdens of proof vary from subject to subject, but nearly all human progress is based on the idea that we can and should believe things that other people have done or demonstrated somehow, without always doing all the legwork ourselves. There is no grand rule of logic which makes it inherently unreasonable to form conclusions about things for which there is no absolute proof.
2) Certain things are outside of the realm of empirical observation and the scientific method. Questions like morality, purpose, and God. These things matter, but can't be measured. This is where philosophy (or theology) comes in. The only way to determine whether or not these things exist -- and what they may be like, if they do -- is with simple reason.
It's the science of thought, really; a series of experiments inside your mind. It must follow rules of logic and consequence. It's the same sort of thought process that gives us the scientific method, but applied to things we can't fit inside a bunsen burner. A conclusion based on sound philosophy is every bit as valid as a conclusion based on sound science.
Don't forget love, Chris! :)
Oo, sweet, that's even further out there than the Gaia theories :) (All they need to do is mix in chaos theory and they could blame it all on bad butterfly breeders or something ;))
:laugh: Yeah, like I said, I don't believe it. But I'm not sure I could dismiss it as impossible, either. Though perhaps you could? No idea. I just couldn't stand the idea of thinking of a possibility and not mentioning it.
For sure, but how would that effect the apparent nullification of free will engendered by mass deaths? (And there is still a question of why a perfect God would see the need for checks and balances of such an apparently destructive order).
I don't think free will is nullified by those sorts of things, really. If it was, a mere murderer would be said to have the power to take away our free will. But neither takes away our ability to make independent choices; it just takes away our life.
Again, this is probably a pointless distinction for anyone who's actually dying, but it's an important distinction nonetheless. Killing someone takes away their choices, but not their ability to choose, if you get my meaning.
To be fair, i think the "everyone's now in heaven & hell" argument is a fair enough get-out clause for a theist when it comes to natural disasters (It just gets scant traction with atheists/agnostics ;)). It also fits with the 'tough love' God you describe, in many ways. (I would question where the chance for redemption goes in such a mass wipeout though. Might not some of 'the bad' have been working their karmic way to a better state of being at the time the lights got put out en masse etc?)
I'm glad you picked up on the "tough love" God idea, because I think it's very important. Now and then I'll catch myself dismissing an idea about God because I don't like it, and I'll have to remind myself that it can be true, anyway, and if it is it would be for reasons bigger than I can comprehend. And as you say about the "life is bigger than this life" idea, it's not a sentiment that plays well in these discussions, but it's undeniably both convenient and perfectly reasonable.
Re: whether or not some of the "bad" people could be working their way towards becoming good people. I think so, yes. Though at that point we're getting into questions of redemption that I don't understand and probably won't ever claim to. It seems a small thing to accept that, if God exists as I believe He does, that there are easy ways to make allowances for things. Or that the line simply has to be drawn somewhere.
A tougher problem is the disease & deprivation end of free-will limitation i feel (including that which follows natural disasters). The tough-love idea still works in many ways, but it does feel a bit 'armchair'. It's very easy to praise Job-like stoicism in the face of suffering etc from a distance, but as you suggest, something else to live through it.
Absolutely true. What I wonder, though, is whether this makes it more objective, or less objective.
This idea seems to pop up all over the place in any political or religious debate. People in favor of public welfare programs will insist that people opposed to it don't know what it's like. People in favor of abortion rights will suggest that people opposed to them should put themselves in the shoes of a young pregnant girl. People against the death penalty should think of how they would feel if their own loved one was killed. Et cetera.
On one hand, this seems reasonable. There are many experiences of heartache and pain that change our opinions about these things. But should they? That, I'm less sure of. I know there are certain things that have an important human element, and must be experienced to be understood. But I don't know if that understanding is the kind that allows us to genuinely comprehend the matter, or just the kind that allows us to genuinely relate to people who have suffered through it.
If I lost a loved one, some of my thoughts on this site would probably seem glib and heartless to me in retrospect. I would understand the pain involved and might come to a different conclusion. But would I really have a better understanding of the issue, or would my emotions simply be clouding my judgments?
After all, there's a reason we don't let the families of a murder victim choose the killer's punishment. There's a reason judges and lawyers have to recuse themselves from trials involving people they know. We all recognize that being close to an event can compromise your objectivity. Is human suffering different? I admit, I'm not sure. I am convinced that the philosophies I'm expressing are sound, but I'm almost as convinced that I'd temper them if I suffered great loss.
This is all just a long way of saying that I agree with you: it does seem to make sense as an explanation, and it does seem glib, anyway.
The 'hardest question' though surely has to be young kids born with severely limiting and/or painful conditions. Are they partially 'avatars of suffering' from which we are expected to learn? What of their limited options for free will, their slanted starting point of less capability for evil combined with increased excuses for wishing it (given their tormented life). That is very tough love indeed - from the perspective of the individual, & again on the broader scale of why God has chosen a world that works along such lines, where such lessons are necessary at all.
I think this is trickier, because there are many, many reasons why people can be born with these conditions. A careless mother could cause it. There could be some kind of genetic abnormality that stems from God-knows-what (no pun intended in the phrasing, I promise). There are so many billions of variables that I don't think we can possibly determine whether or not such things are the result of our own actions, directly or indirectly, or some cruel God-assigned fate. I'm generally of the belief that even the seemingly random events have an underlying order that we haven't yet discovered, as you know from many other discussions. :)
Nah, not sure i buy this sub-perfect argument. We have an existing scale that suggests God can make healthy humans, but chooses not too in some cases, or allows virulent diseases & apparently arbitrary conditions to strike them regardless of the morality of their actions (or so it often seems - and would you argue otherwise? Are those hit by brain cancer evil? Do malarial mosquitoes seek out the ethically unsound? Would be a stretch to argue that way no? :|)
Yes, that'd be a stretch, except insofar as I think all people are deeply flawed (don't know if I'd use the word "evil" to describe most of us, of course). But I certainly wouldn't suggest that people afflicted by life-threatening conditions are reliably worse than your average person.
But, back to the sub-perfect arguments. What don't you think works about it? If we didn't have earthquakes or cancer, why couldn't the same point be made about more frivolous things?
Don't forget love, Chris! :)
D'oh! And the greatest of these is love! How stupid am I? Don't answer that.
Yes, love. Though, technically, I conciously steered clear of all emotions, if only because if someone wanted to be particularly cold, they could claim that all human emotions can be explained by mere chemical reactions (though none of them would ever say so their girlfriends or mothers). This is another of those things that could, conceivably, be technically true, but seems to fall short of the reality. But yes, there's a lot of philosophy about love which is worth pondering regardless of exactly what it is or how it comes to be.
Sorry for all the posts; necessary to keep things organized. I'll combine these last two, though.
That is true, as just telling the story of scientology sounds pretty far out there (anyone see that South Park episode), but regardless, Christianity and what ever other religion all have an extremly low chance of being true, regardless of which one sounds more far out there.
I disagree; religions aren't just random lottery numbers. If one idea is true, its likelihood of being true doesn't go down simply because someone comes up with an alternative idea. Nor are all ideas created equal. A religion's chance of being true is already set, but even from our perspective its odds would be determined by its internal consistency, overall coherence, historical examples, and whatever insight it has about the world at large and how to live in it. Some have more of these attributes than others, and thus are more likely to be true. They don't all get the same odds simply by virtue of existing.
Regardless, the absence of good is still derived from the central point of origin, God. This means that there has to be an inherent lack of goodness within the Almighty himself.
I don't think this follows at all. I think there is an inevitable conflict between freedom and perfect goodness, and that freedom is the better of two imperfect choices. Even a perfectly good being cannot make a better choice than the best of all possible choices. Thus, even a perfectly good God would choose to give us free will, which also makes evil possible. I see no reason why this would demonstrate a lack of goodness in God.
:laugh: Yeah, like I said, I don't believe it. But I'm not sure I could dismiss it as impossible, either. Though perhaps you could? No idea. I just couldn't stand the idea of thinking of a possibility and not mentioning it.
Bring everything to the table man, that's my philosophy too :). But yeah, tho i wouldn't dismiss it outright, the nigh zero-evidence in its favour does weaken its case a touch ;). (Of course Gaia theories started with some huge evidential gaps, altho from a firmer factual basis than that hypothesis ;) - and some of those gaps eventually got filled in surprising ways, such as bacteria influencing weather conditions and such. That said, it now suffers from another issue pertinent to this discussion - the 'Medea' counter-argument: life-earth interactions going down globally 'life-destructive' paths {photosynthesis causing past ice ages etc} - if perhaps beneficially so in the long run]
(****, i've just realised, exponents of this idea really should join the gun-jumpers saying increased storms / hurricanes are definitely due to anthropogenic climate change - kinda fits the bill ;))
I don't think free will is nullified by those sorts of things, really. If it was, a mere murderer would be said to have the power to take away our free will. But neither takes away our ability to make independent choices; it just takes away our life.
Again, this is probably a pointless distinction for anyone who's actually dying, but it's an important distinction nonetheless. Killing someone takes away their choices, but not their ability to choose, if you get my meaning.
Yeah, i was stretching my own hypothesis too far there ;). Reckon the disease/disability fallout from natural disasters is still a potential 'free will' problem though, if possibly only on a level of 'scale' (IE the limited options & increased torment thing).
I think this is trickier, because there are many, many reasons why people can be born with these conditions. A careless mother could cause it. There could be some kind of genetic abnormality that stems from God-knows-what (no pun intended in the phrasing, I promise). There are so many billions of variables that I don't think we can possibly determine whether or not such things are the result of our own actions, directly or indirectly, or some cruel God-assigned fate. I'm generally of the belief that even the seemingly random events have an underlying order that we haven't yet discovered, as you know from many other discussions. :)
There's a difference between not knowing the exact root cause of an inherited or novel infirmity & suggesting human causation or influence as a strong candidate. Introducing ethical dimensions makes it a bigger leap still.
We can rule-out human-only causation in certain senses after all. Many variants of cancer, for example, seem to pre-date humanity, & many inherited diseases seem to be preserved because the normal gene serves some important evolutionary purpose. No human action, ethical or otherwise, could have influenced these changes back in the day.
I grant you that we might now be modulating these 'pre human' conditions, but establishing to what extent, even in highly-studied fields like cancer, is wrought with difficulties. Certainly the existence of genetic propensity for certain cancers suggests a strong 'nature' component regardless of societal influences (altho i am very strongly in the 'nature-via-nurture' camp, so i'm not saying it's impossible that human actions might influence all known diseases & infirmities. It's just that the evidence for infirmities in particular suggests strong 'deep time' nature factors being predominant).
And all of this still begs the question, why in many cases is the child suffering for the flaws of the parent or grandparent etc - or indeed for the 'environmental' actions of others? It all fits with the tough-love idea, & the 'inscrutability' aspect contained therein, it just seems harsh to a non-believer. Having settled on this idea of Godly benevolence not necessarily tallying with our human perception of it, i'm happy enough to let the suffering go (within this argument :|). The 'inscrutable good' angle is a rather stonkingly huge get-out clause when it comes to examining good & bad in 'nature' & human actions though, it seems worth pointing out.
But, back to the sub-perfect arguments. What don't you think works about it? If we didn't have earthquakes or cancer, why couldn't the same point be made about more frivolous things?
I agree with that angle, just not the bit about 'absence of superpowers also being a potential critique of god'. The critique of deficits from the observable 'norm' seems fine on its own as an 'agnostic' attack on 'natural evil'. Extending it into the fanciful feels like 'reification' more than a justifiable expansion of the argument.
I actually thought I was posting this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=547259) in this thread. :o
So all these gods keep evolving? The God of the Bible evolved, especially in the way He interracted with man. The more primitive Man was, the more primitive God seemed to be. In John the Baptist's and Jesus's time, God seemed to believe that Man was ready for fewer physical rules and more spiritual openness in trying to "work with Him". So, although Jesus did reinforce some old laws, he brought a new covenant which did away with such things as eating/not eating such and such. Paul tried to adhere more strongly to what the Old Testament said than even Jesus did, at least according to some more-than-casual readers. Nowadays, when you'd think that Man would be open to more spiritual awareness and fellowship with his fellow Humankind and the Universe in general, more and more people seem to feel the urge to look at "religion" as only a negative, bloodthirsty, warmongering, hateful thing, kind of like the really Old Testament where God seemed to have to keep destroying most of his people to save the idea that they were actually worth saving. Nowadays, God has been replaced by Humanity and "Science" as a kind of God for some, and when we blow up hundreds of thousands of people with a nuclear bomb (or kill them with other weapons for non-religious reasons), it's all good because it wasn't God who was responsible, it was science and this thing we call a non-superstitious human, who is, as we all know, much kinder and gentler than anyone who feels some personal relationship with somebody they can't see or hear in person. (Wait a sec; it sounds like the Inter Nets now! :cool:)
I hope this isn't too off-topic. The idea that God created "Evil", if you believe it exists, has always been fascinating to me. The idea that you should blame a God for all the bad things in the world is equally interesting. Now, which God do you want to take on? Maybe we need to divvy them up? Maybe I need to shut up.
Sci-Fi-Guy
07-08-09, 10:59 PM
There seems something a bit cheeky in letting God off on having 'created' evil. He is known as the 'Creator' of universe after all, is he not?
Don't like to push the point normally, coz the concept of a benevolent God seems to inspire some of religion's more positive aspects, but it does seem a bit of a deal-breaker to me. I struggle to tuck natural disasters / diseases into the category of 'ineffable acts of a cheeky chappy who's looking out for us in the end'.
(And there is still a question of why a perfect God would see the need for checks and balances of such an apparently destructive order)
You seem to be working under the impression that this universe should have been God's utopia.
Heaven is his perfect reality so why create two?
I've always thought of the universe he created for us as his 'testing grounds' of our worthiness for an immortal soul with free will.
Some will pass, some will fail.
You seem to be working under the impression that this universe should have been God's utopia.
Heaven is his perfect reality so why create two?
I've always thought of the universe he created for us as his 'testing grounds' of our worthiness for an immortal soul with free will.
Some will pass, some will fail.
I'm exploring the idea of what a benevolent God might mean, SFG, especially against the backdrop of apparently impartial suffering in the world. Beyond that, as a non believer (or at least, a 'non-aligned' believer), i'm always intrigued by the warp and weft of religious thought. Such as that bit of "heaven exists, therefore..." 'a priori' thinking you just displayed ;)
I'll just say that sometimes you feel like you've met the love of your life, then he leaves you, then you turn against God and go atheist (fabulously), then you check your e-mail and see that a new man has written to you (two hours after you got dumped, and messages from single men don't happen everyday), it turns out he's even more fabulous than the guy you thought was the love of your life, you wait for him to return from South Dakota and then you go out, then he nevers leaves your house, then he's outside fixing your car, etc. etc.
Is this proof of God at work?
Sounds like it's proof nature is at work and taking its course.
Why is it, I wonder, that atheists seem always to come from a Christian background and complain about the Christian faith? I mean, have you ever heard of athiests demanding that the statue of Buddah be removed from the corner Chinese cafeteria?
Why is it, I wonder, that atheists seem always to come from a Christian background and complain about the Christian faith? I mean, have you ever heard of athiests demanding that the statue of Buddah be removed from the corner Chinese cafeteria?
I think living in a predominantly Christian country might account for a lot of that ;)
I think living in a predominantly Christian country might account for a lot of that ;)
Here, yes, but what about other parts of the world? Are there homegrown atheists trying to put down Buddahism or the Muslim religion in Asia? Or is it only members of different religions that try to kill each other overseas? Is there the equivalent to our concept of atheist within other religions of the world? Or is it limited to Christianity?
Even in this country, atheists limit their animosity to Christian symbols and doctrines. Yet the Hebrew and Muslim faiths worship the same God and spring from the same roots. Are atheists upset as much by those two faiths? Or are they simply hoping to put down Christianity first before moving on to other faiths?
Here, yes, but what about other parts of the world? Are there homegrown atheists trying to put down Buddahism or the Muslim religion in Asia? Or is it only members of different religions that try to kill each other overseas? Is there the equivalent to our concept of atheist within other religions of the world?...
Within other religions? Probably not, but I get your point ;)
My experience with international students suggests atheism or agnosticism are present most places to varying degrees, but some social set-ups dissuade people from shouting about it. I certainly wouldn't say it's a 'Christian only' phenomenon anyway.
There's some (http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2008/04/if-religion-makes-you-more-honest.html) evidence that nations are more religious if they are poor and politically corrupt. I would suggest that under such circumstances people are more circumspect about going against the societal norm, for various reasons (and hence aren’t going to shout about any atheistic feelings they may have). Be the country Christian or whatever.
Even in this country, atheists limit their animosity to Christian symbols and doctrines. Yet the Hebrew and Muslim faiths worship the same God and spring from the same roots. Are atheists upset as much by those two faiths? Or are they simply hoping to put down Christianity first before moving on to other faiths?
I'm UK-based, so I can only speak to that. I'd say any focus here on criticising Christianity is due to it traditionally being the predominant religion (even if in a very reduced form these days). Religious views are most likely to be couched in Christian language (& any Church power/privilege is mainly in Church of England hands etc). It has an ‘overdog’ status that makes it the most prominent, easiest and ‘fairest’ game etc.
Speaking for my self though, as a mainly-atheistic man, I'm happy enough to criticise nigh on any aspect of any religion i think is daft :) In the nicest possible way tho ;)
king_of_movies_316
07-15-09, 10:15 AM
It has just hit me right now (well before when i was watching Family Guy actually) that it makes no sense what so ever to believe in religions.
Like i was thinking, how on earth to people actually believe such un-proven and unbelievable stories?
Like if i told some one that aliens were coming after me and were going to go 1996 blockbuster action movie Independence Day on our asses, they would ask me why i'm not taking schizophrenic medication, but stories that were written thousands of years ago which tell extremely unbelievable stories, that are totaly rediculouse and unproven seem to be accepted as common knowledge.
How can a normal intelligent human being actually believe things like a giant god in the sky created earth or be completely oblivious to the blatant contradictions the bible makes?
Like i simply do not understand it? Am i missing something? Did i miss out on talking to Jesus before i came down to Earth? Because unless i did, then it actualy makes no sense at all.
Hopefully people will start to see that all most all religions make no sense what so ever.
But hey, believe in what you want. Just next time you pray to god, ask your self if what you are doing is actually logical.
OK, but you're the one watching "Family Guy". :)
It has just hit me right now (well before when i was watching Family Guy actually) that it makes no sense what so ever to believe in religions.
Like i was thinking, how on earth to people actually believe such un-proven and unbelievable stories?
Like if i told some one that aliens were coming after me and were going to go 1996 blockbuster action movie Independence Day on our asses, they would ask me why i'm not taking schizophrenic medication, but stories that were written thousands of years ago which tell extremely unbelievable stories, that are totaly rediculouse and unproven seem to be accepted as common knowledge.
How can a normal intelligent human being actually believe things like a giant god in the sky created earth or be completely oblivious to the blatant contradictions the bible makes?
Like i simply do not understand it? Am i missing something? Did i miss out on talking to Jesus before i came down to Earth? Because unless i did, then it actualy makes no sense at all.
Hopefully people will start to see that all most all religions make no sense what so ever.
But hey, believe in what you want. Just next time you pray to god, ask your self if what you are doing is actually logical.
Yes, I do think you're missing something.
This entire thread has been discussing these very questions in great logical detail. There's an entire branch of philosophy called theology dedicated to analyzing the ideas. I would suggest you expose yourself to some of it if you're genuinely interested, though it doesn't really sound like you are, as your questions are obviously rhetorical. Nevertheless, if you decide you actually want to know what sort of logical thought process can lead one to become religious, I can recommend a number of books and/or authors, some of which are a very quick and straightforward read. Namely C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which is one big giant syllogism from start to finish.
Most believers don't need to be reminded to doubt things and ask questions. I've lost track of the number of hours I've spent wondering about it to myself, reading books on the subject, or having my beliefs directly challenged on a regular basis on this very site (and others). I don't need to be reminded to think critically about my core beliefs, and I don't think most other people do, either.
Yeah, i was stretching my own hypothesis too far there ;). Reckon the disease/disability fallout from natural disasters is still a potential 'free will' problem though, if possibly only on a level of 'scale' (IE the limited options & increased torment thing).
Yeah, at some point we get into some pretty murky territory. On one hand you technically have free will even if you only have one sensible option, but on the other, what good is it? For purposes of these discussions I'm usually using the term in a very technical sense, which means it consists only of the person's own ability to decide, and not their circumstances.
There's a difference between not knowing the exact root cause of an inherited or novel infirmity & suggesting human causation or influence as a strong candidate. Introducing ethical dimensions makes it a bigger leap still.
They're merely hypotheticals, though; I'm not suggesting we can prove it, or that it's necessarily true. But if we have no idea what causes something, I don't think we can exactly use it to invalidate the idea of a benevolent God. That's rather like the skeptic's version of the old trope about people invoking God to explain what they can't understand...invoking the absence of God to "explain" unexplained forms of suffering.
It never ceases to amuse me that believers and skeptics so often fall into the same sorts of logical traps if you go far enough in either direction. Sort of like every political ideology resulting in facism if taken to its extreme.
We can rule-out human-only causation in certain senses after all. Many variants of cancer, for example, seem to pre-date humanity, & many inherited diseases seem to be preserved because the normal gene serves some important evolutionary purpose. No human action, ethical or otherwise, could have influenced these changes back in the day.
I grant you that we might now be modulating these 'pre human' conditions, but establishing to what extent, even in highly-studied fields like cancer, is wrought with difficulties. Certainly the existence of genetic propensity for certain cancers suggests a strong 'nature' component regardless of societal influences (altho i am very strongly in the 'nature-via-nurture' camp, so i'm not saying it's impossible that human actions might influence all known diseases & infirmities. It's just that the evidence for infirmities in particular suggests strong 'deep time' nature factors being predominant).
And all of this still begs the question, why in many cases is the child suffering for the flaws of the parent or grandparent etc - or indeed for the 'environmental' actions of others? It all fits with the tough-love idea, & the 'inscrutability' aspect contained therein, it just seems harsh to a non-believer. Having settled on this idea of Godly benevolence not necessarily tallying with our human perception of it, i'm happy enough to let the suffering go (within this argument :|). The 'inscrutable good' angle is a rather stonkingly huge get-out clause when it comes to examining good & bad in 'nature' & human actions though, it seems worth pointing out.
Perfectly fair point, though the convenience is somewhat mitigated by it being inherent in the whole idea. That is to say, if God exists, it stands to reason that some things are going to be difficult to get our heads around. This may be convenient, but there's no conception of God that wouldn't include it, either.
I wonder how sin factors in, as well. Most of us are pretty easy on ourselves when we do something wrong, particularly when we make mistakes that everyone makes at one time or another. If everyone loses their temper or tells a little white lie, it almost seems to let us off the hook. It's as if there's an unspoken rule that, if enough people make a mistake, nobody has to feel bad about it. Maybe sin is a bigger deal than we always realize. I believe it's a real, important thing, and I still fall prey to the kind of examples above. Just something to ponder.
This discussion has raised some new thoughts that I haven't much considered before about just what a benevolent God would really do. Most of us assume, conciously or otherwise, that a benevolent God would minimize suffering, at least insofar as it did not invalidate people's choices, but the more I think about it the more I feel otherwise. Not just in a "tough love" sense, but in a larger sense, as well. It's a bit hard to put into words, probably because it's not something I've thought much about yet.
I agree with that angle, just not the bit about 'absence of superpowers also being a potential critique of god'. The critique of deficits from the observable 'norm' seems fine on its own as an 'agnostic' attack on 'natural evil'. Extending it into the fanciful feels like 'reification' more than a justifiable expansion of the argument.
You may be right, but I'd like to hear more. For the sake of argument: why wouldn't it work in both directions? Our conceptions about what are "normal" are understandable, but if we're talking about a God of limitless power, why can't we ask why our ceilings and abilities aren't higher? Presumably, He could have allowed us all to fly or heal quicker or make everyone an inch taller on average. If these things would increase our comfort or prosperity, is there any reason we shouldn't expect them from a benevolent God?
Why is it, I wonder, that atheists seem always to come from a Christian background and complain about the Christian faith? I mean, have you ever heard of athiests demanding that the statue of Buddah be removed from the corner Chinese cafeteria?
Leaving aside your discussion with Golgot about why this might be, I have noticed a somewhat related phenomena, wherein atheists seem inordinately upset with the idea of religion. I can understand why someone who believes in God would be extremely engrossed with the idea, and desperate to spread the word. That's internally consistent. What I don't understand is why people would choose email addresses like "godless76" or feel the need to proclaim their lack of belief so forcefully. When disbelief manifests itself this way, it seems almost pathological. Many seem to dislike religion in a way that necessitates a strong emotional repulsion, and not just a clean, earnest disagreement. As Heywood Broun once said, "nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."
They're merely hypotheticals, though; I'm not suggesting we can prove it, or that it's necessarily true. But if we have no idea what causes something, I don't think we can exactly use it to invalidate the idea of a benevolent God. That's rather like the skeptic's version of the old trope about people invoking God to explain what they can't understand...invoking the absence of God to "explain" unexplained forms of suffering.
Yeah my bad, i went off into some 'talking aloud' theorising about how it might work - the idea of human influence on all diseases/infirmities (no matter how tangental) had never occurred to me. Wasn't meaning to suggest the absence of proof undermined the idea.
I think 'unexplained forms of suffering' seems a broad term there though. Are you talking about all diseases etc (& the absence of a complete cause & effect breakdown of their nature)? We've got a handle on some key elements at play in large numbers of diseases & infirmities etc - so 'partially understood' might be a better term ;)
Perfectly fair point, though the convenience is somewhat mitigated by it being inherent in the whole idea. That is to say, if God exists, it stands to reason that some things are going to be difficult to get our heads around. This may be convenient, but there's no conception of God that wouldn't include it, either.
Ay, seems true enough. The issue for a believer though, i would think, is in gauging best action. The picture of an ineffably benevolent God we're painting here suggests a fairly chaotic connection between moral actions and 'moral results'. Even with the guidance of a text like the Bible, the pursuit of apparently good actions could lead to suffering etc in others, if performed slightly at odds with the desires of this indefatigable creator. (Or perhaps even if in line with them, if I'm understanding your new take on the 'suffering promoting' aspects of God).
Let's describe a real life example just to ground it though. Say you don't 'pass by on the other side' when seeing someone in distress, aid them, but in handing them some form of help accidentally transfer swine flu to them, which in their weakened state kills them. Their kids survive but contract the flesh-eating MRSA bug in hospital from a kindly volunteer who, despite having washed her hands, was innocently carrying a tolerant strain in her nose and wiped her hand against it without thinking. Etc etc etc.
Would you feel you had done good in that circumstance? Done God's work?
You seem to be building up to the suggestion that you might have done. I am intrigued ;)
Of course the problem for me here is that, although I've got no prob with the idea of a creator existing (the world lends itself to the idea in many ways), you're going to have to employ a 'perfect heaven' I suspect, to bring some of the 'traditional benevolence' back to the table. And you're also going to fall back on the broad 'God knows best' aspect too of course. Nothing wrong there from a theological perspective, it's just where the 'paradigm' clash really grinds for someone like me (given the true scantiness of 'a posteriori' backing for those realms of belief).
This discussion has raised some new thoughts that I haven't much considered before about just what a benevolent God would really do. Most of us assume, conciously or otherwise, that a benevolent God would minimize suffering, at least insofar as it did not invalidate people's choices, but the more I think about it the more I feel otherwise. Not just in a "tough love" sense, but in a larger sense, as well. It's a bit hard to put into words, probably because it's not something I've thought much about yet.
With the 'increasing suffering' angle i can see where you might go. Lessons learned, 'beneficial' character building, testing of faith etc. (although I still question somewhat why a benevolent God wouldn't just zap us into ecstasy, say, rather than employ this whole free will facade, involving torment to the extent that it does. The fact that he hasn't leaves you believers in the position of having to assume that all of this is part of the benevolence, prior to any other recourse to logic)
You may be right, but I'd like to hear more. For the sake of argument: why wouldn't it work in both directions? Our conceptions about what are "normal" are understandable, but if we're talking about a God of limitless power, why can't we ask why our ceilings and abilities aren't higher? Presumably, He could have allowed us all to fly or heal quicker or make everyone an inch taller on average. If these things would increase our comfort or prosperity, is there any reason we shouldn't expect them from a benevolent God?
My bad again. I'd strayed from the theological framing again ;). Sure, the absence of perfection could be viewed as a critique of the traditional benevolent God.
(My 'paradigm' kinda stops just at the principle that a creator could exist, based on observables, so i don't usually consider qualifiers like 'infinite power' etc. Have to keep reminding myself. I stayed on topic by using the 'ecstacy zap' question above though ;))
Just next time you pray to god, ask your self if what you are doing is actually logical.
Next time you type out an attack on a god you know doesn't exist, ask yourself if wasting that time is actually logical.
Outbreak
07-15-09, 03:20 PM
In the words of the great philosopher Epicurus in 2000 Years of Disbelief
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
And to answer the people who say it is free-will that evil is allowed to exist, I say to you true, free-will would allow all the disasters and horrific acts caused by man, but what about natural disasters, natural diseases, and (to some extent) animals, who many people believe don't have souls, and therefore don't have free-will, etc.
In the words of the great philosopher Epicurus in 2000 Years of Disbelief
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
Aye, I've heard that quote. And as you observe, it doesn't address the idea of free will; which is an indispensable part of the debate. So, let's use Epicurus' phrasing back towards him: either Epicurus is unaware of the idea, and therefore hasn't thought about the issue much, or else he deliberately omitted it, and is engaging in knowing demagoguery.
And to answer the people who say it is free-will that evil is allowed to exist, I say to you true, free-will would allow all the disasters and horrific acts caused by man, but what about natural disasters, natural diseases, and (to some extent) animals, who many people believe don't have souls, and therefore don't have free-will, etc.
We've been delving into these exact questions all thread. I realize it's a lot to comb through, but there it is.
I dig that not everyone wants to spend quite so much time debating abstract things as silly people like myself, or Gol (;D), and forgive my irritability, but this is maybe the third time someone's dropped into the middle of a discussion to try to make a point which is already under dispute or discussion of some kind, and always with the insinuation that they're blowing the doors of religion wide open or something.
As Heywood Broun once said, "nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."
Broun hit the nail on the head there!
The thing I notice most in debates like this is believers and non-believers both are limited by some common assumptions and images, especially when detractors point out the lack of miracles and angels and answers to prayers and such in real life.
All of us have seen copies of that painting of a shining angel with yellow hair, and wings and halo, hovering near two toddlers crossing an old rope bridge over a deep gorge. Whatever one's belief or dis-belief, that's our common image of an angel--a being in human form but with wings, helping us, sometimes through miracles. Even in Michael, a very unangel-like John Travolta had wings.
But who can say how an angel would look, if they exist? Say you're alone in a car with a flat tire on the side of a seldom-traveled road on a dark and rainy night with a bad back and no jack. Suddenly a motorist approaches, stops, and changes your tire. No wings, but like an angel, he responds to a prayer (or maybe hope, certainly unspoken) for help. Could it be, is it possible that "angels" are really just us stopping to help others, going out of their way to comfort the afflicted, helping strangers or even loved ones every day in millions of ways?
As for miracles, how about something like the vaccines that have essentially ended the horrors of whooping cough, measles, polio and other diseases that have killed and crippled children and adults for years. We take them for granted now, but does that make them any less miraculous, compared with what people had to suffer before those medicines were developed. And if God exists, couldn't He use humans as means of performing miracles? No one says miracles come instantly in a flash of fire and smoke. Maybe they come slowly through years of study and experimentation.
Atheists say that if one prays and that prayer is not answered, that's proof God doesn't exist. But that ignores other possibilities. Perhaps the answer to that prayer was simply, "No"?
I have my opinions on these subjects, but I don't know enough to claim the other guy's opposing theory is wrong.
Wait- I know exactly what angels look like!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Yh7C99Uri5s/ScjmIab06jI/AAAAAAAABu8/5LRml6xUwLA/s320/CapGaius.jpg
That said, I need to re-post one of the wiser things I have ever seen posted on this site!
I have my opinions on these subjects, but I don't know enough to claim the other guy's opposing theory is wrong.
r3port3r66
07-15-09, 04:18 PM
I've found that in the grand scope of things there really isn't that much evil in the world. Perhaps through history there can be noted a few prime examples of evil, but just a few along the timeline. The world is not an evil place and its inhabitants are trying to do good things. It is primarily a good world and people do good things, or what they believe to be good things with a sprinkling of what could be perceived as evil.
Computers may take over the world one day, in fact they already have--how would you feel if all of the computers shut down all over the world? are computers evil? Is yours? Well they started out being helpful and good.
Outbreak
07-15-09, 04:51 PM
Aye, I've heard that quote. And as you observe, it doesn't address the idea of free will; which is an indispensable part of the debate. So, let's use Epicurus' phrasing back towards him: either Epicurus is unaware of the idea, and therefore hasn't thought about the issue much, or else he deliberately omitted it, and is engaging in knowing demagoguery.
Don't forget when Epicurus was around. ~320 BC. Times were different back then and they had a much different way of thinking critically. Epicurus (I believe) had a belief in free-will and also believed in God(s) and yet he comes out with this argument that "disproves" God's existence while at the same time not including a key facet of the argument he himself believes in. Why? I don't know... Maybe he had too much wine one night and went into a drunken rant, while one of his followers thought he was speaking the complete truth :rolleyes: ... or maybe not ;)
We've been delving into these exact questions all thread. I realize it's a lot to comb through, but there it is.
I dig that not everyone wants to spend quite so much time debating abstract things as silly people like myself, or Gol (;D), and forgive my irritability, but this is maybe the third time someone's dropped into the middle of a discussion to try to make a point which is already under dispute or discussion of some kind, and always with the insinuation that they're blowing the doors of religion wide open or something.
I realized that and I apologize. I simply read the first couple and last couple of posts so i figured I had a handle on it enough to comment. (I've been busy with work so I haven't been around much or anything) :p
I realize what I said isn't new, and I didn't post it as an end all be all response, hoping I'd receive praise. I just thought to add my own personal beliefs as a way to 'enter' myself into this thread. Metaphysics is a
part of philosophy, which is my major so I felt like I should get involved :D
Now I'm probably going to go and read the rest of the thread
Yikes, I wasn't expecting an apology or anything. :) And I realize you probably didn't intend much by it. This kinda happens in every debate; people want to weigh in, but understandably don't want to read through three pages of dense theological speculation.
Didn't know you were majoring in metaphysics. Very interesting. How has that influenced your beliefs (if it has)?
John McClane
07-15-09, 09:38 PM
I've given the past page and a half a look over (along with the first post) and I'm assuming the main point of this discussion is the existence of evil? Or am I off base?
God, why are all the responses so damn long?! :D
king_of_movies_316
07-16-09, 04:02 AM
Next time you type out an attack on a god you know doesn't exist, ask yourself if wasting that time is actually logical.
Why is that wasting time? I'm just asking people to question stuff. Thats pretty logical.
And my post wasn't really an "attack".
I've given the past page and a half a look over (along with the first post) and I'm assuming the main point of this discussion is the existence of evil? Or am I off base?
God, why are all the responses so damn long?! :D
Me and Yods are still knocking around ideas similar to those on the first page - could 'evil' in the world still be part of a 'benevolent' design. Within a purely theological context, it seems like you could make a case for it (by relying fairly heavily on the principle that God is pretty inscrutable, but there you go ;)). I think Yods is also going to draw on real life principles of suffering creating benefits too etc.
The most intriguing wrinkle for me so far has been the realisation that even free-will limitation via disease/suffering etc doesn't actually challenge the concept of theological free will. I've always gone along with the principle that natural events over which we have no control must by their very nature undermine that idea, but it seems it still holds good. IE even if your scope for action is limited by an inherited infirmity etc, choices still exist. (Although it's just occurred to me that extreme coma cases, where even thought decisions may be negated, does still provide a challenge.)
And that's why the posts are so long. New ideas and variants keep popping up :)
John McClane
07-16-09, 01:27 PM
Ah, gotcha. Well, I'll keep up-to-date in this thread from now on and chime in. Although, you already know me thoughts on free will. ;)
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza
Why is that wasting time? I'm just asking people to question stuff. Thats pretty logical.
And my post wasn't really an "attack".Um, you came in here talking about "schizophrenic medicine," "completely unbelievable stories," stuff being illogical, and asking people to see that religions make "no sense." If that's not an attack...what was it? Because it certainly reads and looks like an attack.
Outbreak
07-16-09, 01:29 PM
Yikes, I wasn't expecting an apology or anything. :) And I realize you probably didn't intend much by it. This kinda happens in every debate; people want to weigh in, but understandably don't want to read through three pages of dense theological speculation.
Didn't know you were majoring in metaphysics. Very interesting. How has that influenced your beliefs (if it has)?
hey no problem, it's the kind of person I am :)
Well I am going into Philosophy in my second year. It's so interesting, I love it. It has completely changed my way I think about things. While I am not, I was raised catholic, so I had the catholic biased way of looking at things. For example, I have come to accept death, not because of an 'afterlife' or anything, but mainly because of views of those like Socrates and Epicurus on the subject (again with epicurus... I don't even agree with him on most matters :P).
I really like Socrates' views about evil and I believe his often misrepresented quote " To Socrates, the only evil that can harm someone is injustice, and if you are 'good' it can't harm you.
And that just raises more questions, like what is a good life?
Some would say a happy one, or a pious one. Many philosophers believe (which I find amusing, yet partially true) that the life of contemplation and reason such as philosophers and poets are the best.
Some recommended reading for something deep (and somewhat pertaining to this thread ;) ) is Nietzsche's writings on "God is Dead". The Death of God would challenge mankind to look at what justifies our moral framework. We can't think of the world in theological terms, we can't believe the world to have purpose and order given to it by some greater power. Which goes on well with Satre's views that Humanity is the only thing in which existance precedes essence, mankind needs to give life its own purpose and meaning...
I'm rambling again aren't I? suffice to say I love philosophy
John McClane
07-16-09, 01:43 PM
Outbreak: I declared my major, Philosophy, a few short months after I transferred to my current college. This fall will be the start of my third year of college, and my first semester directed totally towards Philosophy and Religion. I'll probably be minoring in the latter.
Why is that wasting time? I'm just asking people to question stuff. Thats pretty logical.
And my post wasn't really an "attack".
I'm sure you didn't mean me personally when you typed your directions on what to do "the next time you pray." My advice concerning "you" typing was as generally directed at atheists as your remark was directed at Christians and didn't necessarily apply to you personally. But if the shoe pinches . . .
Meanwhile, there's nothing logical about a non-believer advising believers to question their beliefs. Unless, of course, you (yourself this time) are willing to question your own non-beliefs. And from the general tone of your (personal) posts, that obviously is not going to happen.
The thing that burns me about self-proclaimed atheists is that they are always talking about god, which is about as logical as someone lecturing on space aliens that he (or she) are certain do not exist. Atheists are as religious in their denial of deity as any Christian or other religion is in its support of god. I keep expecting atheists to show up at my door with pamplets on Saturday mornings like the Watchtower folks used to do.
A true atheist, secure in his own non-belief, wouldn't give a damn if someone else believes in god or not. Since he knows there's no god, the true atheist would also know that other people believing in a deity will have no effect on the universe. Only self-proclaimed (usually at the top of their voices) atheists keep picking at that spiritual scab.
I've found that in the grand scope of things there really isn't that much evil in the world. Perhaps through history there can be noted a few prime examples of evil, but just a few along the timeline. The world is not an evil place and its inhabitants are trying to do good things. It is primarily a good world and people do good things, or what they believe to be good things with a sprinkling of what could be perceived as evil.
Computers may take over the world one day, in fact they already have--how would you feel if all of the computers shut down all over the world? are computers evil? Is yours? Well they started out being helpful and good.
You're absolutely right. If it wasn't a good world, evil wouldn't stand out like a blood stain on a white shirt.
John McClane
07-16-09, 03:25 PM
I'm sure you didn't mean me personally when you typed your directions on what to do "the next time you pray." My advice concerning "you" typing was as generally directed at atheists as your remark was directed at Christians and didn't necessarily apply to you personally. But if the shoe pinches . . .
Meanwhile, there's nothing logical about a non-believer advising believers to question their beliefs. Unless, of course, you (yourself this time) are willing to question your own non-beliefs. And from the general tone of your (personal) posts, that obviously is not going to happen.
The thing that burns me about self-proclaimed atheists is that they are always talking about god, which is about as logical as someone lecturing on space aliens that he (or she) are certain do not exist. Atheists are as religious in their denial of deity as any Christian or other religion is in its support of god. I keep expecting atheists to show up at my door with pamplets on Saturday mornings like the Watchtower folks used to do.
A true atheist, secure in his own non-belief, wouldn't give a damn if someone else believes in god or not. Since he knows there's no god, the true atheist would also know that other people believing in a deity will have no effect on the universe. Only self-proclaimed (usually at the top of their voices) atheists keep picking at that spiritual scab.I disagree. And I think you and I had this same discussion in another thread? Correct me if I'm wrong.
These atheists that harp on and on about no God, in my own experience, imagine themselves to possess superior knowledge about the world and why things are the way they are. They want people to know that *they* got it right and not those crazy Christian preachers. ;)
Kinda like when in school and there was always at least one kid that was damn smug whenever he got the right answer and he made sure the other students knew about it. This just, in my experience, tends to be the overwhelming reason for some atheists harping on and on about it. I certainly know it was the reason *I* talked about it so much.
Although, I totally agree on the last part of your post. A comfortable atheist just doesn't give a hoot. ;)
king_of_movies_316
07-17-09, 03:37 AM
A true atheist, secure in his own non-belief, wouldn't give a damn if someone else believes in god or not. Since he knows there's no god, the true atheist would also know that other people believing in a deity will have no effect on the universe. Only self-proclaimed (usually at the top of their voices) atheists keep picking at that spiritual scab.
I pick at that scab for two reason.
One reason is so in the future, people don't think of our society the way we think of ancient civilisations that worshiped the sun and thought that lightning meant that god was angry.
Another reason, is because i generally believe religion slows down our society and has stopped society from evolving.
I disagree. And I think you and I had this same discussion in another thread? Correct me if I'm wrong.
These atheists that harp on and on about no God, in my own experience, imagine themselves to possess superior knowledge about the world and why things are the way they are. They want people to know that *they* got it right and not those crazy Christian preachers. ;)
Kinda like when in school and there was always at least one kid that was damn smug whenever he got the right answer and he made sure the other students knew about it. This just, in my experience, tends to be the overwhelming reason for some atheists harping on and on about it. I certainly know it was the reason *I* talked about it so much.
Although, I totally agree on the last part of your post. A comfortable atheist just doesn't give a hoot. ;)
After re-reading your post several times, I still can't find where we disagree. I, too, think that atheists operate on the asumption that they're smarter than religious worshipers and their egos drive them to flaunt their "wisdom" over and over and over. Our only difference is that you obviously stated it better than I did.
I pick at that scab for two reason.
One reason is so in the future, people don't think of our society the way we think of ancient civilisations that worshiped the sun and thought that lightning meant that god was angry.
You alone are going to do that, post by post by post? I suspect to get your message to folks hundreds of years into the future, you'll need to use something more durable than emails.
Another reason, is because i generally believe religion slows down our society and has stopped society from evolving.
And you personally have moved society forward in what way?
I, too, think that atheists operate on the asumption that they're smarter than religious worshipers and their egos drive them to flaunt their "wisdom" over and over and over.
Interesting that you like to tar all atheists with one brush. Don't you know it's a broad church? ;)
(I know you're talking in particular here about vocal 'god bothering' atheists, but it's not the first time you've used blanket phraseology)
r3port3r66
07-17-09, 03:20 PM
Joke interlude: My sentences are cold, I need a blanket phraseology! ;)
You're knitting too many strands together! :p
John McClane
07-17-09, 05:53 PM
After re-reading your post several times, I still can't find where we disagree. I, too, think that atheists operate on the asumption that they're smarter than religious worshipers and their egos drive them to flaunt their "wisdom" over and over and over. Our only difference is that you obviously stated it better than I did.Oh, I just disagreed with your true atheist only statement. I guess since you didn't state it well that I was confused. ;) Glad to see we're on the same page, though.
Interesting that you like to tar all atheists with one brush. Don't you know it's a broad church? ;)
(I know you're talking in particular here about vocal 'god bothering' atheists, but it's not the first time you've used blanket phraseology)Don't assume I'm doing the same! ;)
One reason is so in the future, people don't think of our society the way we think of ancient civilisations that worshiped the sun and thought that lightning meant that god was angry.Yea, when I think about the Romans I only think about how ass backwards their society was...I mean, those guys weren't advance at all.
Another reason, is because i generally believe religion slows down our society and has stopped society from evolving.You might want to take another look at history then. Numerous advancements in society were started by religious societies as well as non-religious societies. You ever heard of medieval Christians believing in a flat Earth? Yea, that one is a myth. Then again, I guess religion does slow us down...what with getting the shape of the Earth right.
I don't follow religion (but this is not a religious topic)...on the other hand i am more of a spiritual person, and i do believe in a higher power that created all forms of life...so if people chose to call it god, so be it.
Cliche i know but these are my thoughts on the subject.
(As for the scientific part of the topic that's a totally different subject, long one too )
Physics and metaphysics really do go hand in hand. There really isn't any way to get away from the idea unless you just plain dismiss one, and I'd say that's like saying that I'm God and starting a new religion or science (take your pick). I really do think the word "religion" scares off a lot of people because of the baggage it seems to connote concerning hell, death, sin, intolerance, etc. I believe that you can be intolerant and believe that religion is backwards or even evil whether you believe in religion or not. Of course, it's this modern era of terrorism which seems to confuse some people into thinking that religion is responsible for all these wars and terrorist acts, but the truth is that all the people who do these things are just vengeful zealots, and they're not religious zealots, they're hateful, killing zealots who are trying to settle some personal vendetta. They always have been and they always will be and they use their "religion" (what a joke!) to pathetically mask their personal hatefulness, insecurity and quest for power (always have, again).
On the other hand, there are a few "zealots" who never seem to go to outright war, but try to post the banner of science and intellectualism, and I'll be the first to remark that this often scares off what I might call the religious types. Certain people who profess a strong faith in certain religions are downright antagonistic toward scientists who they see as atheists who are almost more evil than actual terrorists because they are somehow subtle in what they profess and do. Now, sometimes there are multiple reasons to believe these scientists are "out there". For one thing, they're mostly politically-lliberal and seemingly borderline-socialist. You know, they're the tree-huggers. Well, whenever someone calls a group of people an insulting name, no matter if they aren't really a group but may fall under some enormous umbrella, it's a way to "demonize" them and not have to deal with whatever reality they have to bring to the table of various subjects. In other words, in dealing with politics and religion, one always gets caught in the never-ending circle of each group calling the other names and anathema to a form of reality. People just never seem to understand that Peace is far preferable to War, whether it's a hot war or a cold war, and no matter whether you are providing physical pain to the opposition or emotional pain.
Of course, politics has raised its head (where's that thread again before I get too off topic?) Oh yeah, the thread named "Obama!". It could be seen as a thread where a parent wants to know where his/her child is or why he did what he just did (so they could spank him). It could also be someone praising somebody. It could also just be somebody crying out for attention, but which somebody or how many of them are there? I hope some of this makes sense because I've run out of time, but I'll come back as long as you don't throw too many tomatoes at me.
FILMFREAK087
08-01-09, 02:34 AM
To add kindling to Golgot's free will conundrum, what of those who's attitudes and actions are at least some-what a result of environment, or what's more genetic predisposition? Let's say someone is born into an abusive home and suffers from a neurological defect, which causes them to react more assertively and aggressively than an average adult. As a result they live a harsh and ultimately short life. How much of a choice really exists for such a person to avert the aforementioned fate?
I think a theist could still make a case for a 'human component' (societal, environmental) playing a role in such genetic expression. You seem to be referring to the infamous MAOA gene, which is a great example (impulsive aggression which can be tempered above the norm or expressed in highly antisocial form depending on family upbringing etc)
I do find this whole human-influence angle to environmental forces intriguing (it's easy to perceive 'world events' as completely impartial & divorced from us - a form of thought which i think may have become more prevelant in modern times). The idea of people who's free will is consequently limited by the actions of others seems a bit murkier to me tho. (I'm still most intrigued now by how a theist would react to someone in the deepest form of coma who seems to not even have the possibility of mental choices, or of ever returning to such a state).
r3port3r66
08-01-09, 12:11 PM
I've always wondered why the 6 million Jews didn't rise up and strike back against the Nazi's....
Meh, the theists have an easy opt out on that one. They just say it was the Nazi's choice to be bad :|
(And then occasionally go on to blame it on 'secular vegetarianism' or some such ;))
John McClane
08-03-09, 02:24 PM
Oh wait, are we getting into free will now? Oh boy! :D
Interesting that you like to tar all atheists with one brush. Don't you know it's a broad church? ;)
(I know you're talking in particular here about vocal 'god bothering' atheists, but it's not the first time you've used blanket phraseology)
The most vocal atheists sound dully redundant to me. If you can perceive differences in the atheist cant, I'd like to hear them.
Oh, I just disagreed with your true atheist only statement.
Seems my "true" atheist is your "comfortable" atheist--neither needs to defend his lack of belief or to attack his neighbor for holding different beliefs.
The most vocal atheists sound dully redundant to me. If you can perceive differences in the atheist cant, I'd like to hear them.
'Proselytizing' atheists steeped in their own certainty are as tiresome to me as their religious equivalents. I was just suggesting the phrasing of your previous posts made it seem like you were accusing all atheists of similar foibles.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound even if nobody can hear it? Yes it does, but that can be proven scientifically.
you can't prove it scientifically, but we assume that it does. Because, if we want to prove it in anyway, we would have to listen, and if we're listening, the tree makes a sound... Aha! :D
rice1245
08-04-09, 07:21 AM
Yeah I'm going to finish reading this thread when it's not five in the morning and I haven't slept. My eyes hurt
Resurrected! Man, has it really been a year? I was sure it was 4-5 months at most. Yikes.
Anyway, many thanks to Gol for reminding me of just where we were having this discussion about free will and how consistent natural disasters (and similar things) are with the idea of a benevolent God. I asked him about it because I've been thinking about this topic a lot more lately, and have been re-reading C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, which is about this very topic. Not quite finished with it yet, but it's all fairly fresh in my mind.
Gol and I left off mid-discussion, though at what was sort of an impasse. Correct me if I'm misstating anything, Gol, but I believe it was left with me saying that there could still be many unknown causes and effects (and even justifiable reasons) for the disasters that befall us, and that God by definition must do things that are often mystifying to us. You, I believe, acknowledged both points as technically consistent, but found each of them ultimately too convenient to accept. Would you say that's a fair summary?
Assuming so, here are a few scattered thoughts on the topic that might be helpful. I've structured them a bit to make them a bit more palpable.
1. Love is not merely Kindness
To most people today, kindness is the highest virtue. Helping people without ever judging them, giving them what they want, etc. It even gets mistaken for love. But love and kindness diverge at a key point: in the flaws they tolerate. Kindness will ignore flaws. Love will not. Love may accept flaws, but it accepts in spite of them, and, to borrow Lewis' phrasing as well as his idea, "it can never cease to will their removal." If you love someone, you want what you really believe is best for them, and that's not always going to be a perfectly agreeable thing.
The upshot of all this is that people can't fathom the idea of a loving God who "allows" us to be hurt because they have a modern notion of love that equates it with kindness and comfort. It is the cookie before dinner, in other words, and not the stern reprisal, even if the latter is what we really need to hear.
This doesn't explain away all the tragedies of the world, but I do think it takes the edge off of them. If we equate kindness with love, the idea of a loving God seems impossible. If we recognize where they differ, it becomes plausible. It's a necessary distinction for any of the other arguments listed here to even gain an audience, which is why it's listed first.
2. Is pain bad?
On a base level this is counterintuitive, but I wonder how bad pain really is. At worst, I would characterize it as necessary. Some of the reasons are obvious: we learn from it, it often makes us better people, it helps us to know when something's wrong, be it physically or emotionally.
But, specifically, it humbles us. And this is where I must give proper credit to Lewis, because this is a far braver argument than I think I would have been willing (or able) to make on my own: perhaps we need pain to remind us of what we really are. Lewis has several excellent passages about this. Here's one (emphasis added):
If the first and lowest operation of pain shatters the illusion that all is well, the second shatters the illusion that what we have, whether good or bad in itself, is our own and enough for us. Everyone has noticed how hard it is to turn our thoughts to God when everything is going well with us.
...
Or as a friend of mine said, "We regard God as an airman regards his parachute; it's there for emergencies, but he hopes he'll never have to use it." Now God, who has made us, knows what we are and that our happiness lies in Him. Yet we will not seek it in Him as long as He leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for. While what we call "our own life" remains agreeable we will not surrender it to Him. What then can God do in our interests but make "our own life" less agreeable to us, and take away the plausible sources of false happiness?I know this is true in my case; when something upsetting happens to me, I am far more likely to turn to God and to humble myself in various ways than if I achieve some sort of success. I am thankfully in the habit of thanking God for successes, as well, but it comes much less naturally.
If God is as good as I believe Him to be, then we have no hope of stacking up. And that means that God's existence is, on some level, a source of shame for us. And this means that we are all going to have a very strong natural aversion to being reminded of this. In many ways it is an unpleasant reality even for the most pious of people.
If we are left with any happy option that does not involve confronting our own brokenness, we would take it. If we could find real happiness outside of God, we would take it. If we could find contentment without our own stunning inadequacy before God having to see the light of day, we would take it. I do not think we would search and think and philosophize if there were not pain. I think we'd just sit and wallow in our enjoyment. The behavior of most people who inherit vast quantities of wealth is a pretty good testament to this.
3. Truth and justice (American Way optional)
No, this isn't going to be "we're all sinners so we deserve whatever we get." This is about establishing truth. The following passage is on the same page as the passage above, and it's a slight twist on point #2 (emphasis added):
Until the evil man finds evil unmistakably present in his existence, in the form of pain, he is enclosed in illusion. Once pain has roused him, he knows that he is in some way or other "up against" the real universe: he either rebels (with the possibility of a clearer issue and deeper repentance at some later stage) or else makes some attempt at an adjustment, which, if pursued, will lead him to religion.
... No doubt Pain as God's megaphone is a terrible instrument; it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. But it gives the only opportunity the bad man can have for amendment. It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul.To drive this point home, Lewis uses a hypothetical man who double-crosses people in both his personal and professional lives and achieves great success this way. He revels in shallow, material things, and thinks himself cleverer and better than everyone he has tricked. He has what he wants and is thoroughly convinced that he is living the "correct" way, by looking out for himself first.
The question is simple: do you want this man to be punished?
I think almost everyone would. And if you're anything like me, it's the idea that he thinks it's okay that bothers you the most. You would instantly feel more sympathy with him if you knew he regretted what he'd done at all or had some doubt about the manner he's lived his life, even if he never quite changed his behavior as a result.
There's a part of all justice-loving people that just wants him to know it's wrong. That can't stand him skipping along, thinking what he's doing is okay without reprisal. The pain he deserves is not revenge, but truth. It is a wake-up call. It creates that doubt and the opportunity for reflection, because nobody can ignore pain.
4. Lucifer
I realize that for many people the invocation of Satan is right about the time religion starts seeming goofy to them, though logically there's no reason this should be the case and it's probably due more to silly depictions of the same than any problem with the idea itself. Regardless, it's a pretty elegant solution: bad things may happen simply because God isn't the only force capable of altering our circumstances, and suffering causes many people to question God's goodness or existence. The fact that we're having this conversation shows as much.
5. Entitlement
While I'm borrowing heavily from a much keener mind than my own with some of this, I did have a thought of my own while reading The Problem of Pain the other day.
I try to be in the habit of thinking about the argument I find hardest to answer against any idea I hold, and in the case of pain and God's alleged goodness one of the hardest contentions to answer is that of someone who has lost a loved one. Someone whose spouse or family member, for example, has passed away because of some disease or natural disaster, or something else that appears largely random. Their pain will likely last them the rest of their lives, and even perfectly valid arguments as to why this might have happened sound glib. If they insist that the hurt is too much for any loving God to allow (let alone inflict), nobody can really tell them otherwise.
With that in mind, I am about to advance an idea that may sound a little callous to anyone who has lost a loved one. I apologize if this upsets anybody; I'm just trying to explore an idea here. It isn't meant to belittle anyone's suffering, which I cannot measure, and will not try to.
While thinking about this type of loss, I realized that anyone mad at God for such a thing is making a pretty sizable assumption: they're assuming that the person they loved belongs to them, in a way. That, having found someone to love, they are therefore entitled to that person's presence. But we all know this isn't so, and most people who love another tend to regard (rightly, I think) their presence as a gift.
A fairer comparison then, if one were calling God to task, would not be "this person should still be with me," but "this person should not have existed at all." But who really thinks this about someone they've lost? Almost to a person, they remain glad they knew them. The loss, then, is not about receiving a bad event, but about not getting as many good ones as they hoped. It's about a gift that only lasts for so long, and not a belonging which was unjustly wrestled away from them. If we really believe the presence of our loved ones is a gift to us, then their absence, painful though it may be, can't be an injustice even though it feels like one.
I don't expect this answer to satisfy anyone who's had to endure this type of loss. I'm not sure I expect it to satisfy me if and when I must confront it. It's entirely possible my grief will lead me to dismiss my own argument in time.
It's not clear, however, which version of me will be right; will my grief enlighten me as to how inexplicable this kind of suffering is, or will it only cloud my judgment? There's no way to know. But sitting here now, of sound mind and body and with a sincere respect for how immense this pain must be, it seems to me that the presence of the people we love is a generosity, and not a possession, and that this truth in turn means that we have nothing to call God to task for, and that our grief quite probably could not be satiated by any answer God could give us, anyway.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I'm still making my way through The Problem of Pain, and some of these thoughts can't be condensed very well. I'd be glad to reproduce more of the book for context, which makes all the difference in the world, given how subtle and delicate some of these points are.
Correct me if I'm misstating anything, Gol, but I believe it was left with me saying that there could still be many unknown causes and effects (and even justifiable reasons) for the disasters that befall us, and that God by definition must do things that are often mystifying to us. You, I believe, acknowledged both points as technically consistent, but found each of them ultimately too convenient to accept. Would you say that's a fair summary?
I had issues with some details of the former IE the potential sin/human-action causes for apparently 'natural' suffering (inherited sin in the form of certain illnesses, human immorality playing a role in natural disasters etc), mainly on the grounds of lack of evidence. But certainly, within the big black box that is God's motivation, I'm happy to go along with the 'unknown vectors' and 'mysterious moralities' aspects of both args :)
1. Love is not merely Kindness
...This doesn't explain away all the tragedies of the world, but I do think it takes the edge off of them. If we equate kindness with love, the idea of a loving God seems impossible. If we recognize where they differ, it becomes plausible.
Tough love in other words? ;) Yep, seems all fair enough.
2. Is pain bad?
On a base level this is counterintuitive, but I wonder how bad pain really is. At worst, I would characterize it as necessary. Some of the reasons are obvious: we learn from it, it often makes us better people, it helps us to
know when something's wrong, be it physically or emotionally.
Couldn't you also make an argument here for physical deprivation (IE illness etc inhibiting or removing completely abilities enjoyed by unencumbered people) fulfilling a similar role. If so there's an added dimension in that it's no longer transitory (whereas pain often is). It reminds us of what we have in the world, but with a further reminder that we can no longer have it.
I'm not saying it discredits the principle that these could be God-given lessons to appreciate what has been created, to be humble, etc, but it is at these points that the argument becomes harder to see as a 'fair' lesson for the individual involved. You can put forward the argument that they benefit from a greater appreciation of other aspects of creation through having to struggle to fight harder to realise the good in the world etc. You could also argue that others can glean humbleness from both the individual's reactions and realising what they have personally. But what of those mentally damaged (sorry, have to bring out the big guns here) and so potentially incapable of appreciating their situation, yet capable of suffering (both in pain and/or incapacity).
I find this last circumstance a damning one. You've said previously that so long as they have free will in mind, if not in physical action, then this moral-lesson interpretation is still valid, yet it does seem there may be circumstances where individuals are incapable of that level of 'decision making'. The question then is, are they purely a lesson for others?
3. Truth and justice (American Way optional)
...There's a part of all justice-loving people that just wants him to know it's wrong. That can't stand him skipping along, thinking what he's doing is okay without reprisal. The pain he deserves is not revenge, but truth. It is a wake-up call. It creates that doubt and the opportunity for reflection, because nobody can ignore pain.
But our rich man exemplar can medicate against physical pain, eat and live healthily to avoid it, heal wounds with the latest contraptions. He can see the fact that his ill-gotten wealth facilitates him in doing this as affirmation of his path.
That said, God has provided plenty of ways to inflict pain, so I dare say one or two arrows from heaven will strike home ;)
4. Lucifer
I realize that for many people the invocation of Satan is right about the time religion starts seeming goofy to them, though logically there's no reason this should be the case and it's probably due more to silly depictions of the same than any problem with the idea itself.
There is clearly something risible about the idea of Satan as the go-to guy for explaining why bad stuff in God's creation isn't God's fault. It's only when you fold him back into the mix and say he's part of God's plans (something which isn't put forward in the initial/Biblical idea as I understand it) that he becomes a less comically black-and-white creation of convenience.
5. Entitlement
...A fairer comparison then, if one were calling God to task, would not be "this person should still be with me," but "this person should not have existed at all."
It's interesting that you don't take recourse in the 'They're in heaven now, one day I will be too' line of placation that you could do here. (That's often the final straw for the agnostically inclined, as a belief in a potential creator is often an easier jump to make than belief in an unseeable afterlife etc).
This emphasis you're laying on appreciation is one of the finer results of religious thought to my mind :) (Even tho I still struggle with it in the extreme incapacity examples given above).
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I'm still making my way through The Problem of Pain, and some of these thoughts can't be condensed very well. I'd be glad to reproduce more of the book for context, which makes all the difference in the world, given how subtle and delicate some of these points are.
He has a very curly mind does Lewis. Cheers for shining your looking glass around these particular rabbit holes :) Interesting stuff.
Ahhhh, what's this? A reply eight months later! Sorry this took so long. I wrote it all today. Generally speaking if I don't reply in the first week I start to forget about discussions and then I forget where they even are, which makes it harder to do.
Anyway, here we go:
I had issues with some details of the former IE the potential sin/human-action causes for apparently 'natural' suffering (inherited sin in the form of certain illnesses, human immorality playing a role in natural disasters etc), mainly on the grounds of lack of evidence. But certainly, within the big black box that is God's motivation, I'm happy to go along with the 'unknown vectors' and 'mysterious moralities' aspects of both args :)
Fair enough. I will say, though, that the "inherited" illness is certainly the result of independent human action. And while there are many that appear random to us.
Also, regarding natural disasters: though we may never know what role (if any) we might play in them, I wonder if they pose much of a problem either way. I was listening to a lecture the other day that made a point I'd never really thought of: that pain caused by natural disasters can often be ascribed to human ignorance or carelessness (or both). If someone builds a house on a fault line and is killed in an earthquake, I don't think any of us would put that on God. We'd put it on the carelessness of the man. And while there are many natural disasters that we are not really careless towards (we don't always know where fault lines are, for example), those instances are the result of our sheer ignorance of things. I wonder if there are any deaths or pains from natural disasters that don't arise from either careless or ignorance of some form, in fact.
And, of course, most of the time we simply make calculated decisions. People who live in California know there are earthquakes and will be more in the future. They just decide it's worth the risk.
Tough love in other words? ;) Yep, seems all fair enough.
Yay.
Couldn't you also make an argument here for physical deprivation (IE illness etc inhibiting or removing completely abilities enjoyed by unencumbered people) fulfilling a similar role. If so there's an added dimension in that it's no longer transitory (whereas pain often is). It reminds us of what we have in the world, but with a further reminder that we can no longer have it.
Yes, you could make the same argument for people with significant disabilities. And while this is probably hard to swallow on some level, the same principles do apply. And we've all see, I'm sure, the testimonials from the loved ones of the disabled who talk, albeit sadly, about the surprising joy that their struggle has brought them. None of them would wish for it, I'm sure, but the ability to find a silver lining in the circumstances seems genuine, to me.
It will always sound glib, but certain virtues are only possible through tribulation. There is no pervseverence without something to persevere through. No bravery without something to fear. No long-suffering without, well, suffering.
I'm not saying it discredits the principle that these could be God-given lessons to appreciate what has been created, to be humble, etc, but it is at these points that the argument becomes harder to see as a 'fair' lesson for the individual involved. You can put forward the argument that they benefit from a greater appreciation of other aspects of creation through having to struggle to fight harder to realise the good in the world etc. You could also argue that others can glean humbleness from both the individual's reactions and realising what they have personally. But what of those mentally damaged (sorry, have to bring out the big guns here) and so potentially incapable of appreciating their situation, yet capable of suffering (both in pain and/or incapacity).
I find this last circumstance a damning one. You've said previously that so long as they have free will in mind, if not in physical action, then this moral-lesson interpretation is still valid, yet it does seem there may be circumstances where individuals are incapable of that level of 'decision making'. The question then is, are they purely a lesson for others?
Big guns, indeed. It is a very potent thought.
First off, I'd start by making a distinction between different levels of mental disability. Some probably don't require much explanation at all; I've met people with mental disabilities and most are plenty lucid enough for all the arguments advanced so far to hold together with room to spare. Even the ones whose minds were roughly akin to that of a young child are well within the bounds of all that's being suggested.
The more severe forms are trickier because at lower levels of mental accuity, I think pain is fundamentally different. I'm going to tell a short anecdote that might seem a little crude and possibly even disrespectful. I hope no one will take it that way; it is only meant to apply to major mental disabilities, and is only meant for illustrative purposes. Apologies in advance if anyone is at all upset by it. Still reading? Okay:
I was driving home from a poker game with some friends awhile ago with my wife and brother; it was cold outside (I believe it was close to Christmas) and we were stopping at a McDonald's to grab some food. Across the street we saw a stray cat wandering around. My wife felt sorry for it, as did I, but I think she was probably more disturbed because she thought about how it was alone on a holiday.
I pointed out to her that it was probably not as miserable as we think, because it has no conception of these things. Not just of holidays, but of circumstances. If you or I were struck by tragedy and rendered homeless, we would have the physical discomfort of lacking food and shelter and other things. But that would pale in comparison to the mental anguish over what had happened. And if we were homeless when Christmas rolled around, we'd probably feel even worse, because we would reflect on the significance of being alone at such a time. Our own examination of our pain would make it much worse.
The stray cat probably has pain and discomfort. But unlike a person, it only has pain and discomfort. It does not examine its pain, and I think this need to examine and consider our pain is the thing that turns it into actual suffering. Pain itself is more an annoyance, but genuine suffering requires an ability to analyze and bemoan one's pain in a way that I do not think a cat can.
Similarly, I feel that, the more impaired someone's mental abilities are, the less their suffering is to be like suffering as we know it at all. The kinds of mental abilities that turn mere pain into suffering are perhaps, mercifully, the same abilities that the most disabled individuals would lack, so that the less they could glean the kinds of "lessons" God might teach us, the less suffering (as we know it) they would actually experience.
Beyond that, it's hard to say without having experienced it directly.
But our rich man exemplar can medicate against physical pain, eat and live healthily to avoid it, heal wounds with the latest contraptions. He can see the fact that his ill-gotten wealth facilitates him in doing this as affirmation of his path.
That said, God has provided plenty of ways to inflict pain, so I dare say one or two arrows from heaven will strike home ;)
Aye, I think so. Loneliness, certainly. And of course even the best care in the world is not without side effects. And even if the pain is dulled completely, it was there, and there is no way for him to ignore that it exists completely. The truth of it will still be known, even if he finds ways to hide it from himself most of the time. Every pill or IV is a constant reminder of it, and for the purposes of "planting the flag of truth," I think that works just as well.
There is clearly something risible about the idea of Satan as the go-to guy for explaining why bad stuff in God's creation isn't God's fault. It's only when you fold him back into the mix and say he's part of God's plans (something which isn't put forward in the initial/Biblical idea as I understand it) that he becomes a less comically black-and-white creation of convenience.
I feel the risible part is probably born out of the fact that some people carelessly use it as a catch-all, rather than confront the tough questions of existence. But I think they just taint and "ruin" the idea for everyone else, so to speak. I think their careleness and moralizing makes a perfectly rational explanation sound lazier than it necessarily is.
As for folding Satan being part of God's plans: I actually do believe that. Not in the sense that God wants it, so much as you're not going to out-think an infinite mind. You can't do anything that He's not going to be able to turn on it's head and work to His advantage in the end. It's one of the perks of being God. Human experience is filled with bad things that people are able to turn to good in various ways (tribulation and suffering in general constantly do this), so I don't have any trouble thinking it can happen on a grander scale.
There's a great book (one of Lewis' fictional works and one of my all-time top five favorite books) called Perelandra, where the main character says something to that effect, basically mocking the idea that an enemy of God's can do anything that God cannot then turn on itself in some way.
It's interesting that you don't take recourse in the 'They're in heaven now, one day I will be too' line of placation that you could do here. (That's often the final straw for the agnostically inclined, as a belief in a potential creator is often an easier jump to make than belief in an unseeable afterlife etc).
This emphasis you're laying on appreciation is one of the finer results of religious thought to my mind :) (Even tho I still struggle with it in the extreme incapacity examples given above).
Yeah, thoughts like these are actually when I feel a deep connection with religious thought. I may find certain explanations intellectually plausible or consistent, but the answers that account for and incorporate deep human experiences like pain and love and loss, rather than brush them aside as relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, are the ones that I feel are really getting at something.
I also think that the idea of entitlement needs to be addressed if one is to really objectively discuss the idea of God these days. The modern person is likely to place (to borrow Lewis' words again) "God in the Dock." That is to say, to put God on trial from the get-go. To adopt a posture towards God that one might adopt to a piece of missing physical evidence, a stance which I don't think there's really any rational reason to adopt. It's similar to the idea of having a loved one "taken" from you. In both cases, you are starting with the assumption that the world just is, and working backwards from the fact of physical reality and regarding everything else as an intruder who must account for themselves. To God, I imagine it would sound like a child strutting around and acting like he owned his parents' house. As if the food and shelter he's been given are, well, a given, and not the result of someone else's magnanimity.
He has a very curly mind does Lewis. Cheers for shining your looking glass around these particular rabbit holes :) Interesting stuff.
He does, but relatively speaking he's one of the less frivolous writers. He writes more like a straight logician, I've often felt, when he writes about God, at least compared to some other authors around or a bit before his time.
If you like curlier minds (and curly hair (http://www.nndb.com/people/325/000085070/gkc.jpg), for that matter!), I would highly recommend G.K. Chesterton. You may already be familiar with him, but the more I think about it the more I realize he is right up your alley. Whimsical, loves paradox, and his arguments are more about the feel of existence and likelihoods than mere rational inevitabilities. Lewis is a bit more "if X then Y," which I personally find very compelling. But Chesterton is more about the shape of things, more about what "fits" the general feel of human thought. Lewis' apologetics is more science, and Chesterton's more art.
Orthodoxy is the first book I'd recommend (of his non-fiction, I mean; his fiction is pretty brilliant, though). I'm about 40 pages into The Everlasting Man right now.
But yeah...he's tailor-made for you, I think.
Fair enough. I will say, though, that the "inherited" illness is certainly the result of independent human action. And while there are many that appear random to us.
I don't get the 'certainly'. You can't be saying that all inheritable diseases owe their inception to a moral human choice in the past - as you've no evidence for that. Are you saying then that the choice to procreate (& therefore spread the inheritable disease) is the human component?
(NB this is made trickier by genetic conditions that skip generations - & indeed those that only manifest when both parents are [often ignorantly] carrying recessive genes)
I was listening to a lecture the other day that made a point I'd never really thought of: that pain caused by natural disasters can often be ascribed to human ignorance or carelessness (or both).... I wonder if there are any deaths or pains from natural disasters that don't arise from either careless or ignorance of some form, in fact.
I don't see how ignorance can play in a 'free will' discussion (which I kinda thought this was centring on - with emphasis on its interplay with God's 'wrathful' side?).
Of course we're frequently ignorant of the vicissitudes of nature - but where then the moral input that you suggest is occuring?
Seems flat out arbitary to me in this conception of it. We get the pain, and it's due to our ignorance? (I get here that you must be thinking of the 'fallen/flawed humans' model to make this fit into a moral paradigm. For a non-believer it seems fairly unsatisfying tho, I must say. IE we all fit into the category of 'the ignorant' - hence no choice - no chance to make a call between good/evil etc. On these occasions we all hear the gameshow 'fail' buzzer of doom, irrespective).
Our own examination of our pain would make it much worse.... Pain itself is more an annoyance, but genuine suffering requires an ability to analyze and bemoan one's pain in a way that I do not think a cat can.
I've often wondered in these examples whether it is truly more painful/anguish-ful to perceive pain as we do as a human adult, compared to say a baby (as the comparison I prefer over animal, as it seems slightly easier to guess at their conceptions). The one thing that makes me think the baby might be worse off while in pain is that it might not be able to conceive of the pain's end - or if so, only vaguely. That seems a deep world of anguish indeed - to think the pain might be its permanent state.
The kinds of mental abilities that turn mere pain into suffering are perhaps, mercifully, the same abilities that the most disabled individuals would lack, so that the less they could glean the kinds of "lessons" God might teach us, the less suffering (as we know it) they would actually experience.
That's a nice sliding scale in theory, but I wonder if it's always so neat?
Beyond that, it's hard to say without having experienced it directly.
I agree it's ultimately a moot point. Even more so for the free will aspect I was pushing at. Science suggests at times that some extreme comatose cases are incapable of any conscious decision making at all etc - but I can't think of anyway you could preclude that they mightn't be able to make at least one 'moral call' in their head - even if only subconsciously. And that could satisfy the principle of 'internal' free will.
I think their careleness and moralizing makes a perfectly rational explanation sound lazier than it necessarily is.
As for folding Satan being part of God's plans: I actually do believe that. Not in the sense that God wants it, so much as you're not going to out-think an infinite mind. You can't do anything that He's not going to be able to turn on it's head and work to His advantage in the end.
I think the folding is the only way it can possibly make 'logical' sense. And in the sense of God wanting it IE wanting evil to juxtopose good, as you've defined previously. I can see an argument for the Devil having his own head, and God not prescribing his actions per se, but still surely he must endorse what happens implicitly, in terms of him being 'a benevolant god who has provided evil for our own good'.
Only that conceptualisation, to me, makes it a logical affair. (At least as far as internal logic goes ;))
I also think that the idea of entitlement needs to be addressed if one is to really objectively discuss the idea of God these days. The modern person is likely to place (to borrow Lewis' words again) "God in the Dock." That is to say, to put God on trial from the get-go. To adopt a posture towards God that one might adopt to a piece of missing physical evidence, a stance which I don't think there's really any rational reason to adopt. It's similar to the idea of having a loved one "taken" from you...
...As if the food and shelter he's been given are, well, a given, and not the result of someone else's magnanimity.
Agreed, in that this emphasis on 'thankfulness' is a beautiful side of many religious viewpoints. (If I were to be petty, and I am ;), I'd have a little chortle at new-earthers pointing to any 'missing evidence' in sci knowledge as proof of God, and merrily using evo-inspired drugs without being thankful. But they're a minority, of sorts, and the 'thankfulness for existance' thing is a larger and more beautiful concept :))
If you like curlier minds (and curly hair (http://www.nndb.com/people/325/000085070/gkc.jpg), for that matter!), I would highly recommend G.K. Chesterton. You may already be familiar with him, but the more I think about it the more I realize he is right up your alley. Whimsical, loves paradox, and his arguments are more about the feel of existence and likelihoods than mere rational inevitabilities. Lewis is a bit more "if X then Y," which I personally find very compelling. But Chesterton is more about the shape of things, more about what "fits" the general feel of human thought. Lewis' apologetics is more science, and Chesterton's more art.
Cool - will look into it :). He certainly feels evil should be smooshed in with beauty, from what I've read ;)
Flying by the seat of my pants a little here, so forgive me if I phrase something poorly or confuse terminology or anything.
I don't get the 'certainly'. You can't be saying that all inheritable diseases owe their inception to a moral human choice in the past - as you've no evidence for that. Are you saying then that the choice to procreate (& therefore spread the inheritable disease) is the human component?
The latter. That while we may do so out of ignorance or carelessness, ultimately it is the product of human choice. Beyond that we'd merely be speculating. Not that this doesn't raise interesting questions about the nature of will, addressed somewhat below...
I don't see how ignorance can play in a 'free will' discussion (which I kinda thought this was centring on - with emphasis on its interplay with God's 'wrathful' side?).
Of course we're frequently ignorant of the vicissitudes of nature - but where then the moral input that you suggest is occuring?
Seems flat out arbitary to me in this conception of it. We get the pain, and it's due to our ignorance? (I get here that you must be thinking of the 'fallen/flawed humans' model to make this fit into a moral paradigm. For a non-believer it seems fairly unsatisfying tho, I must say. IE we all fit into the category of 'the ignorant' - hence no choice - no chance to make a call between good/evil etc. On these occasions we all hear the gameshow 'fail' buzzer of doom, irrespective).
I'm not sure if "moral input" is required. Does it really pose a problem for the Christian God is a human dies because they're ignorant of something? I'm not sure there's a way to blame God for this that doesn't involve invoking some presupposition about Him owing us something. It seems obvious on a large scale, where someone deliberately refuses to learn the ways of the world and then walks into an open manhole cover. But is it really different on a subtler scale?
And as is very often the case with issues of God and man, an analogy based on parents and children proves pretty instructive: many parents have allowed their kids to do this or that even knowing they would regret it, so that they learn. I realize these things feel like they change fundamentally when blown up to a much larger size, but I'm partially of the mind that that's more about our own limitations than about the limitations of the analogy.
I've often wondered in these examples whether it is truly more painful/anguish-ful to perceive pain as we do as a human adult, compared to say a baby (as the comparison I prefer over animal, as it seems slightly easier to guess at their conceptions). The one thing that makes me think the baby might be worse off while in pain is that it might not be able to conceive of the pain's end - or if so, only vaguely. That seems a deep world of anguish indeed - to think the pain might be its permanent state.
I've wondered the same, and it's a fair question. I come down on the side that the ability to examine one's pain is worse, but obviously we can never really know. One of the things that sways me between the two, though, is that while the baby (and I agree, that's a much better example) may not be be able to conceive of it's end, it also often feels no lingering effects. You and I can ruminate about pain, have phantom pains, and suffer in all sorts of aftershock-like ways. But pain in infancy is often completely forgotten later.
I got to see this up close and personal with my wife recently when she went in for surgery. She had severe pain at first and was pleading with doctors to give her pain reliever, which they were unable to do for awhile because they didn't want to mask symptoms. Eventually, of course, she got some, but what struck me was that, even when she was in very little pain, she was still incredibly anxious because she remembered the pain and feared it might come back. She feared this even beyond the point at which she knew it was rational to fear. The pain rippled out past its own cessation in a way that was only possible because of her memory and lucidity.
That's a nice sliding scale in theory, but I wonder if it's always so neat?
A fine question, and one I wondered myself even as I said it. I won't pretend to know. I certainly think there is some correlation, but how far it might go, I have no idea.
Then again, it might be helpful to remember that I'm not saying "X is the answer." I simply find that there are enough plausible explanations for the problem of pain that I don't regard it as a serious philosophical or rational impediment to believe in a loving God. But that's about as far as my claim goes. I find some explanations more or less satisfying than others, but the main thing is that I find most of them plausible, moreso when taken as a group/range of options.
I agree it's ultimately a moot point. Even more so for the free will aspect I was pushing at. Science suggests at times that some extreme comatose cases are incapable of any conscious decision making at all etc - but I can't think of anyway you could preclude that they mightn't be able to make at least one 'moral call' in their head - even if only subconsciously. And that could satisfy the principle of 'internal' free will.
That's a good point. And this is really at the heart of the matter, isn't it? How you define "will," and what kind of physical constraints actually violate your will. Nobody thinks it violates free will to have a wall standing in the way of where we want to go if you can just walk around it, but they might feel differently if you were born locked in a room you couldn't get out of it, even though in a purely technical sense your will is not being deprived of you in either instance. This ties into the "Death By Ignorance" thing above, a little.
I think the folding is the only way it can possibly make 'logical' sense. And in the sense of God wanting it IE wanting evil to juxtopose good, as you've defined previously. I can see an argument for the Devil having his own head, and God not prescribing his actions per se, but still surely he must endorse what happens implicitly, in terms of him being 'a benevolant god who has provided evil for our own good'.
Only that conceptualisation, to me, makes it a logical affair. (At least as far as internal logic goes ;))
Oh, sure. And I think pretty much every Christian sect regards the Devil as an unwitting part of God's plan, at least insofar that good has been/is made out of it. My thinking is that things can happen which God did not ordain, choose, or "want," but nothing can happen that He cannot bend to His will in some way. The distinction is important because I think it leaves enough metaphysical room for God to simultaneously dislike and disapprove of Satan's actions, and ultimately weave them together for a larger purpose.
But here's the real distinction, I think. We're approaching this as if the only explanation is that Satan's interference still serves some larger purpose for humans, specifically; that it teaches us some lesson that God wants us to learn. But perhaps that's not the larger purpose: perhaps the value in allowing it comes from the fact that He's allowing Satan to do what he chooses. Satan's supposed to have free will, too, after all, which would put his evil in the same realm as suffering brought about by other humans. It might be about him, and not about us.
Agreed, in that this emphasis on 'thankfulness' is a beautiful side of many religious viewpoints. (If I were to be petty, and I am ;), I'd have a little chortle at new-earthers pointing to any 'missing evidence' in sci knowledge as proof of God, and merrily using evo-inspired drugs without being thankful. But they're a minority, of sorts, and the 'thankfulness for existance' thing is a larger and more beautiful concept :))
Heh. It does sound kind of new-agey, doesn't it?
I think it's a big concept, and a really crucial one. I think there are legitimate questions about God and pain and other things that people in all times have to grapple with, but I feel some of the purported issues with God are purely modern constructs, caused only by the default intellectual posture of this particular age. Lewis wrote a lot about that in God and the Dock, a collection of essays by himself and others, if I recall correctly. I think that's the book in which he recommended that someone read two old books for every new one, to help mitigate the blind spots that every generation and culture inevitably has.
Cool - will look into it :). He certainly feels evil should be smooshed in with beauty, from what I've read ;)
Well, if you end up digging into any of them, do let me know. I've read just a few myself but the ones I have read, I like to talk incessantly about. :)
The latter. That while we may do so out of ignorance or carelessness, ultimately it is the product of human choice. Beyond that we'd merely be speculating. Not that this doesn't raise interesting questions about the nature of will, addressed somewhat below...
I'm not sure if "moral input" is required. Does it really pose a problem for the Christian God is a human dies because they're ignorant of something?
On the death thing sure no, it doesn't matter. But it's the stuff that comes before - 'moral choice' free will - and by extension the destination after death (depending on your brand of Christianity etc), that still matters in this discussion no? IE we started out talking about how moral free will might impinge on apparently 'arbitrary' suffering - and you seemed fairly certain that it did, whether it be disease or disaster etc. But I don't see where you've made a comprehensive case for this.
In both cases you're counting 'ignorance' as the auto-moral failing for the more unpredictable punishments. Or so it seems to me. I just don't see how the copious 'ignorance' examples are "the product of human choice". (Certainly choices play a part in the build up, altho not always the participants' choices perhaps say in the case of rape-pregnancy [sorry, big guns again :|]. But I'm unclear about the theological significance of these 'choices', if we remove the moral component. I chose to live in a house. A freak storm flipped a roof slate into my head. Here endeth the lesson?)
It's cool if you're happy for 'ignorance' to be the 'sin'/failing which precedes 'misfortune' etc. And/or if you were to say there's no actual choice there and that's just how it goes. (As we've discussed these could still be part of an ineffably-benevolent God's plans).
But here's the real distinction, I think. We're approaching this as if the only explanation is that Satan's interference still serves some larger purpose for humans, specifically; that it teaches us some lesson that God wants us to learn. But perhaps that's not the larger purpose: perhaps the value in allowing it comes from the fact that He's allowing Satan to do what he chooses. Satan's supposed to have free will, too, after all, which would put his evil in the same realm as suffering brought about by other humans. It might be about him, and not about us.
Fair play. Certainly could be internally consistent with all the theological elements (as I understand them).
[I can't help but mention again that there are a helluva lot of 'black box' suppositions built into this discussion which make it I think, quite easy to argue for numerous things in a way that I wouldn't find that convincing outside of a theological context. From ineffability to implied benevolence we could possibly argue that: the Bible could be a God-designed patchwork of lies, but one meant to keep us on our toes and work out moral action for ourselves; or that the Devil secretly could be God, and benevolence as understood by humanity could actually be the deepest sin. Etc etc.
This is merely my slight frustration at staying within these philosophical confines - or more accurately - running around on such an open playing field ;). And I dare say to have this discussion with redress to scriptural specifics would move the goal posts a bit closer to the human realm of limits. That's naturally not a discussion I'm equipped to have tho ;)]
Well, if you end up digging into any of them, do let me know. I've read just a few myself but the ones I have read, I like to talk incessantly about. :)
Cool will do :)
Deadite
07-11-11, 04:57 PM
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
ollanik
08-11-11, 06:31 PM
I have no time now,later i will post a comment that explains our nature,existence and everything about our universe...i know a lot about thous stuff,have my own theory that i was explaining in some Serbian forums allready.
planet news
08-11-11, 06:33 PM
There's no rush.
Yeah, take your time explaining the meaning of the universe to us.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
How many pins can you stick in the head of an angel?
wintertriangles
08-12-11, 11:06 PM
How many pins can you stick in the head of an angel?I love you
ollanik
08-14-11, 11:32 PM
I am too lazy to write but i will have to...i wanted to copy and paste my text from some Serbian forums to google translate,then here,but i was using slang and everything,English and Serbian are just way too different languages and grammars,not even google translate can help...so i will have to write here again,but since i love writing about thous stuff,i don't mind...i will write about planets and possibilities of alien life on them,solar system,stars,galaxies,space,time,big bang and other dimensions...
In our solar system,now in this time,life exist only on Earth and maybe Europa,satellite of Saturn...Europa have water in atmosphere and rotating hot Saturn,state of that atmosphere is changing...when Europe is away from Saturn,atmosphere is frozen,but when when its close,atmosphere starts to melt...so life can exist bellow that atmosphere...there are also theories that life existed on Mars 200 million years ago,but some asteroid or something else destroyed everything,and now there are just deserts,rocks and volcanoes there...scientists also found water recently,so maybe there are still some primitive life forms...also there is theory that life existed on Venus...Earth and Mars are in right distance from Sun to support life,not too close,not too away...hundreds of millions or even billions years ago,Venus was on that same right distance also...everything else about solar system is not too interesting(except Earth off-course)...Titan,satellite of Saturn is kinda interesting,there are volcanoes that throw ice...rest of planets,satellites and asteroids are just bunch of dust,rock and gas,but solar system is only star system that we know something about...
Closest star to Sun is Proxima Kentauri and is 4,3 light years away...that is a long long distance...from Earth is away from moon 1,5 light seconds,and from Sun 8 light minutes...so 4,3 light years is extremely huge distance and is impossible to travel to there,except if we learn how to use wormholes(space-time shortcuts)...there are about 400 billion stars in Milky Way,and about septilion stars in known universe,so saying that life exist only on Earth is really funny...there must be whole bunch of alien civilizations in space...Sun will explode in 6 billion years from now and will blow whole solar system in pieces...what i find fascinating is that it happens every second in space with other stars...while you write a comment on forum,somewhere far in space a lot of stars explode blow whole system away
About galaxies and black holes...gravity of black hole is so powerful that even light cannot escape...black hole suck stars into,and there is whole mini-universe inside,with completely different objects and time in that universe goes faster...black hole creates galaxy sucking the stars,every star and smaller black hole rotate around central black hole and will finish inside,if don't explode before coming close to it...when black hole is full,white hole will be created...white hole works in opposite way,white whole throws energy in space,instead of sucking...but that is all about white holes,i will back to black holes...Sun will not finish in central black hole,because Sun will explode 6 billion years from now,and Sun is not enough large to create a black hole when explode...Star must be way too larger that a Sun to create a black hole...largest black hole attracts everything around(stars,dust,smaller black holes) and that is the way galaxies are created...closest galaxy to Milky way is Andromeda,2,5 million light years away...2 billion years from now,Milky Way and Andromeda will merge in one galaxy...Andromeda is larger with larger central black hole and trillion stars,so Andromeda attrack us more...both galaxies are part of local group of galaxies,and all will merge into one galaxy in far far future(because attraction of black hole that i explained)...galaxy with largest black hole is in the middle of local group...
While attraction of black holes work in local group(local cluster),it is expected that galaxy with largest black hole is in the center of whole universe...but no...7 billion years ago,dark energy appeared...that is a mysterious force that expand the universe,so clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other faster that the speed of light...
Now,space as a whole...space is infinite...in every dimension...when i say that,people ask me-,,but how space is infinite if expanding? ,,...space expands in 6th dimension,which shares with infinite number of other universes...but i will explain that later in text...
Space,time and parallel universes all begin with big bang...try to even think about-how something looks like that is not space and time,and your brain will explode...you cant...you cant even think about space without time,or time without space...all we know about is a space-time,whole our nature that we can explore is space-time...well before big bang there was no space,and there was no time...that is mind-blowing...what we can is releasing how it all work,and i will explain that...
Now,i will write about dimensions,most mind-blowing part of the text...there is infinite number of dimensions,but all that we as humans can understand at least a little are 11 of them,and now i will write about each of that 11 dimensions...
0th dimension-just a dot
1D dimension-line,back and forth
2D dimension-back and forth,left and right...second dimension experience 3rd as time...
3D dimension-back and forth,left and right,up and down...we live in that dimension,lol
4D-in fourth dimension besides 3 that we know there is one extra dimension...we experience only pieces of that dimension(moments),so we experience it as time,because we cannot see it as a whole...time is just dimension like all others,objective with no movement...movement don't exist in nature,movement is just a line frozen in 4th dimension,dimension we cant see...so in fourth dimension,you can see from one standing point 3D object as a whole...in space-time,world that we experience,you have to make 4D movement to see lets say computer as a whole...you have to turn around to see it as a whole...but when you are in 4D,you see all 3 dimensions,all 6 sides while standing in one point,you dont have to turn around...
5D-Parallel universes,everything that can happen,but didn't,happens there...for example,you throw the ball to the basket,and score,in some other parallel universe,you miss...there are numerous number of examples,like in some universe Hitler won the war and lot of others,in some universe you were never born,in some universe,Earth was never existed,solar system never existed...i gave lame examples,someone more creative would give better and more interesting ones...like there is Infinite monkey theorem...you give monkey printer to type some text...he will type some non-sense text like gm3ht6g7r5r7...but in some of the parallel universes,that monkey will type full Shakespeare roman at first without one single wrong spelling word and mistake
6D-That dimension is a fabric of big bangs...in that dimension our universe expands and in that dimension,our universe was born...in that dimension infinite possibilities of our big bang...like our big bang,but exploded in different way...also there are infinite number of big bangs that created other universes
7D-Infinite number of ways that universes are born...not big bang,but something else...that universes have slightly different laws of physics
8D-Every possibility that can happen in 7D
9D-Infinite number of universes that contains a lot different laws of physics,like there are not laws of action and reaction,but some other laws...that is also mind-blowing,because everything that happens in our nature,all we know and can think about is action and reaction...also there are infinite number of universes with no laws at all
10D-In that dimensions everything that can and cant be exist...everything in purest sense of that word...strings of that dimensions are what make up our world(google String theory)
11D-infiniteD-since everything that can and cant be exist in tenth dimension,we cant guess what is in higher ones
Since everything,really everything happens by that theory,all movies,cartoons,dreams and everything are real somewhere...i spend hours writing this,my hand hurt me,but i enjoyed,and i hope you will while reading this,now i am going to watch a movie The Usual Suspects,so i will answer on responds later or tomorrow,if someone respond...cheers
ollanik
09-18-11, 11:41 PM
i hope that there was at least one person who read my text...it is interesting.
will.15
09-19-11, 12:15 AM
So what your saying is there really is a Land of Oz?
ollanik
09-19-11, 11:52 AM
There is infinite number of combinations,so there is really a Land of Oz somewhere in universe,and every movie and is somewhere reality...there is documentary on you-tube about that,i will try to find it...watch this clip,it is about similar thing i wrote here,but he explain that zillion times better that me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.