Posted by Helen on: 08.21.2007 /
In a comment on the Christians Confess blog entry, Pete wrote
Most of what was said here was very interesting, in fact I’m swiping some of the quotes/regrets and using them with my college student discussion tomorrow because I think they will helpful to show them how non-Christians view some of the more offensive beliefs of mainstream Christianity.
But this one disturbed me:
I regret that I let my belief system dissuade me from thinking critically and applying the scientific method to everything.
Frankly, I think the scientific method is overrated. Judging everything simply by what we can measure, develop natural laws (which are just man-made explanantions anyways)for and somehow tangibly experience, is in my opinion, a narrow view of the world and one the biggest issues with the world.
We don’t apply the scientific method to love, justice, mercy, grace, the bond of friendship, the way a starry sky steals our breath, the grief from losing anything loved, the sympathy we feel for others, compassion and a host of other things. Yet we would never claim those things are not real or true or valid (in fact if someone were to do so here, I would daresay they would be challenged passionately for not valuing another person’s experience).
So why then does it have to be something we apply to everything?
Honestly, I see this as being the opposite of the ‘faith crutch’ Christians are often accused of. Often, when a Christian can’t explain something, they play the faith card. But it seems just as often that when non-Christians want to poke a hole in something about Jesus or the Bible, they play the “scientific method/empirical proof” card. Both seem like underhanded and dishonest ways to ‘win’ the argument or at least feel like your view is justified without having any real support.
Why can’t BOTH be valid?
Comment by: seekingsomething
1 08/21/07 1:45 PM | Comment Link |I don’t know if I am the right kind of person to respond here, because I haven’t come here either to support the Christan faith or to poke a hole in it.
But FWIW both things talked about above account for my current (not Christian) beliefs.
I struggle with the lack of empirical evidence. I also struggle with a lack of experience of anything that seems real to me.
With neither experience nor science to bridge the gap, the leap of faith is just too great for me to take right now.
Comment by: seekingsomething
2 08/21/07 1:46 PM | Comment Link |deleted a repeat post - sorry!
Comment by: Helen
3 08/21/07 2:01 PM | Comment Link |Pete, I might not have used ’scientific method’ correctly in that statement of mine you quoted.
The Bible says ‘test everything’ - what I was thinking is, I regret all the times I failed to do that. Or that my testing didn’t really go far enough - it was too superficial.
I wish I had assumed less and checked more; trusted less and used my discernment more.
I’m not trying to find one card I can always play. I’m just trying to be better about playing the appropriate cards at the appropriate time.
Comment by: Erin
4 08/21/07 3:32 PM | Comment Link |I think I understood what you meant, Helen. It’s not necessary or possible to scientifically test everything, but we have to know that our brains and scientific/natural laws are just as equally created by the Creator as the text of the bible and the beliefs we press for.
I don’t think it’s about winning an argument,though, at least for me. It’s more about having it make sense for me and being aware of how I might alienate people if I use one system or the other inappropriately.
Comment by: Stephan
5 08/21/07 4:34 PM | Comment Link |Helen, you may not have meant it that way, but I have talked with plenty of atheists online who say they will not believe in anything that cannot be empirically tested. If that were true, I think it would be a very sad life.
Comment by: Steve S.
6 08/21/07 4:59 PM | Comment Link |I believe that we often confuse what science is and what it is capable of saying. It is not capable of making statements about the bulk of what most people consider the core aspects of existence. What I would call the spiritual arena of life (will, desire, intent) and the rest of what we recognize as ‘real’ yet ‘non-physical’ emotion, thought, interpersonal relationships, etc.
This means that the assumption that all knowledge is scientific knowledge stands against what most human beings simply know to be true. We are just too familiar with the spiritual realm (and our knowledge of it), and too little educated in the area of epistemology, to refute that assumption…
Comment by: Karen
7 08/21/07 5:35 PM | Comment Link |Yipes. Out of all the destructive ideas in today’s world, this ranks highest? I can’t grasp that one.
Comment by: Laura M.
8 08/21/07 6:03 PM | Comment Link |Quoting seekingsomething, my thought here is “Ditto!”
What I mean here is that I neither empirically ‘know’ that God exists, nor do I ‘feel’ God’s presence/existence. So my atheism has nothing to do with an either/or choice of science over spirit or a choice between knowledge and feelings.
All my experience, feelings and knowledge, ’spirituality’ -if I have a spirit, lead me to the amazing conclusion that I don’t know if there’s a God!
Also, if I decided to pretend that I do ‘believe’ there is a God, just take that leap of faith, I don’t know that the God I would be trying to ‘believe’ in is perfect.
That would, for me, be the biggest lie of all, to say that I ‘believe’ in a wonderful and perfect God, therefore I love and worship God. While I don’t see any evidence proving or disproving the existence of God, I see extraordinary amounts of evidence that if there is a God that created this planet and all life on it, that God is not perfect.
This leaves me incapable of being a Christian by most folks definition of Christianity.
Scientific method:
1) No evidence of God’s existence.
2) Lot’s of evidence that if God exists, God sometimes messes up.
Conclusion: This God that may or may not exist may or may not be omnibenevolent, omnipowerful, omniscient. God may or may not have any of the qualities individually, but certainly cannot have all of these qualites.
Feelings:
1) I would love to believe in a perfect God who has perfectly planned everything and wants what is best (and knows what is best) for every human who has ever existed.
2) I would love to believe in a loving God who in his perfection has provided every human with everything they would need to find for themselves what God wants for them.
Results:
I have a ’spirit’, or a feeling (or both?) produced by chemical processes in my brain, based on my subjective experiences and personal base of information and knowledge which tells me I should care.
In other words: My ’spirit’ validates for me my feeling that I care what happens to humans, and so do many other, but not all, humans.
I do not know whether this feeling -or “spirit’ as many theists choose to define the meaning of feelings- is based purely on natural processes, or both natural and supernatual processes.
What I know, and what I feel, is that I haven’t been able to find any God(s) to ask.
Comment by: Laura M.
9 08/21/07 6:16 PM | Comment Link |Stephan, I believe I entered a conversation with you on the ebay Atheist blog where I made that statement.
I don’t think I have a sad life.
What I was doing was making a dinstinction between feelings and knowledge.
Feelings are not the same thing as knowledge or facts. This doesn’t mean a person’s feelings aren’t real, nor that they aren’t ever based on facts (nor are they always based on facts or truth, but sometimes on percieved or ‘believed’ truths which may or may not be the actual truth).
Nor was I saying that a person should never make a decision on the basis of feelings.
Comment by: Laura M.
10 08/21/07 6:23 PM | Comment Link |To clarify, no one can go through life being completely objective, making every and all decision pureley on the basis of facts.
I’m not a robot, nor do I want to become one.
For example:
If a person were to approach me asking for money, do I make a decision based on what I know, or how I feel?
A little of both, I think.
Comment by: David H
11 08/21/07 6:41 PM | Comment Link |That quote apparently comes from one of Willard’s books. I would guess that there is some context to it that would allow more effective judgment on its validity, but I can’t find that context. I came across a Christianity Today article that contains a similar quote, but no context for that thought. I would love to see the context before determining if Willard has any insight to offer on this subject.
Comment by: David H
12 08/21/07 7:14 PM | Comment Link |I’m not sure how to comment on this without coming off wrong or causing a conflict, but something about these two points together don’t seem to fit under the heading of scientific method.
My understanding of the scientific method is that you take available evidence and develop a model. That model can then be tested to come to conclusions. Those conclusions may or may not be considered fact.
I’m not sure how, if there is no evidence for God’s existence there could be clear evidence that God sometimes “messes up.” That would require you to create a model for a fallible God. That model may be valid, but there are models that could include a God that doesn’t make mistakes. There are models that could include an all loving, all powerful, all knowing God. How would you test the fallible model against those others when looking out at a world in which there is no evidence of God?
In the time I have participated with this blog I have become terribly aware of the difficulty in “proving God” to people. Besides this forum, my upbringing taught me that people create many models for God and that those are often fraught with falsehoods if not replete with outright lies. Given the number of models I have seen and the issues behind their formation, I am still frequently surprised that I choose to believe in a God who cares at all, much less loves me. And I have no scientifically testable evidence to offer that might establish my God as the actual model. Heck, my thought process on God isn’t always clear and cohesive even to me. I sometimes have trouble separating what has been acculturated or indoctrinated into me from things I have concluded on my own via cognitive or emotive process or experience. So, I don’t want to come off as if I am trying to push an agenda, or be unkind, or even be evangelizing.
I want to understand what leads to a model for a God that fails.
Comment by: Steve S.
13 08/21/07 7:29 PM | Comment Link |To respond to the Willard questions, what I understand him to be saying is that we have erased other forms of knowledge with the assumption that only the sense-perceptible is truly knowable. This eradicates an extremely large body of knowledge (actually it doesn’t eradicate it as we still rely on it every day) but it invalidates it and causes confusion on things that should be clear. This is related in large part to Willard’s academic work, and he speaks primarily of the realm of ‘moral knowledge.’ He has a book in the works entitled “The Dissapearance of Moral Knowledge.”
Comment by: David H
14 08/21/07 7:37 PM | Comment Link |That may be true, but it doesn’t really help me understand how that “is the single most destructive idea on the stage of life today.”
Comment by: Laura M.
15 08/21/07 7:44 PM | Comment Link |David, what I meant by the statement “no evidence of God’s existence”, is that I have neither seen nor heard of any evidence which proves the existence of God, nor evidence which could cause one to lean towards knowing God exists.
Many theists cite ‘creation’ (the world/universe) as evidence of God. The same evidence could be said to equally favor the non-existence of God. So, this ‘evidence’ shouldn’t be considered ‘evidence’ of either. Therefore I see no evidence of God’s existence.
The second statement was just an attempt at playing devil’s advocate (or should I say God’s advocate?), simply by giving for the sake of argument a point that hasn’t been proven at all. That is why I said ‘if’.
The working definition of God I was utilizing was the Christian one, considering the environment that I am having this discussion in, as well as an attempt that this definition accord with the majority of definitions of God, ie. the supernatural entity which created life.
Comment by: Laura M.
16 08/21/07 7:59 PM | Comment Link |Sorry, David, I forgot to respond to your final statement.
There are so many, many things which lead to the Christian ‘model of God’ failing.
One of the most obvious is the ‘existence of evil’ problem.
An all knowing, loving, all powerful, perfect God would not allow his children to kill each other for pleasure.
I am not all knowing, loving or powerful, but I wouldn’t allow my children to kill each other for pleasure. It would unequivocally be wrong to do that.
A perfect God should at least be able to know, understand, care about and do the same things that I can .
A perfect God should at least be a better parent than I am.
I could try to make God perfect by lying to myself and saying that there must be some situations where it really is Ok for a loving father to allow his children to kill each other, purely for pleasure. But, then I would be lying and God still wouldn’t be perfect.
This is called ‘cognitve dissonance’ and I just mentioned it in the Which Christianity Is Right? thread.
Comment by: Laura M.
17 08/21/07 8:30 PM | Comment Link |David, I don’t know if anything I’m saying makes any sense to you. Not that you agree, but rather that you intellectually comprehend what I’m saying. I’m not here to argue with or ridicule anyone.
Nor am I trying to change anyone’s beliefs about God, so please take this in the spirit that it is given.
If I truly believed there were a God who created ‘life, the universe, and everything’, from my perspective of the world I would have to conclude this God is either apathetic, callous, or downright cruel.
I’ve been very fortunate in my life that nothing bad has ever happened to me, although now I think of it- if most people had any idea of the life I’ve lived and the experiences I’ve had, they’d probably be surprised to read that I don’t think anything all that ‘bad’ has happened to me.
I’m not whining that God didn’t give me all the selfish things I’ve prayed for, or that my life hasn’t been perfect or anything of that sort. I hope this conversation doesn’t turn in that direction, because that is not where I’m coming from at all. As I said, I actually feel very fortunate.
For instance, I haven’t actually known anyone who was murdered. But I do know that children are being kidnapped, tortured, raped, and then murdered every day…yes every day, on this planet.
This is the ‘existence of evil’ problem I am talking about that breaks down the Christian ‘model of God’.
Comment by: David H
18 08/21/07 8:45 PM | Comment Link |I’m not sure there is much point in pursuing this. Better minds than I have spoken at length about this. But as a parent I’m not sure how I could stop my children from killing each other if they decided to pursue that course. I am not, however, all-powerful or all-knowing. I do realize that at some point my children will be free of any constraints I put on them. I hope to raise them so they won’t try to harm themselves or others, but at a certain point that will be largely up to them. An argument could be made that if I am a good parent then there is a greater likelihood of a good outcome on that front. So a perfect parent should have an even better likelihood than I do. That is something definitely worth considering. There are several Old Testament examples that could be construed as evidence of bad parenting on God’s part (Abraham and Isaac leaps to mind). And what kind of father would send his only son into a situation that he knew would result in that child’s death?
However, the issue of freedom continues to bother me. If my life is mine, then why is it God’s fault if I harm myself or others? Is it proof of God’s failing if he allows me to choose myself at the expense of others rather than obligating me to do the right thing? Does the evidence of failed people prove they were created by a God who fails? Who is responsible for my failures if there is no God? Why is it any different if there is a God? And if I allow my children to fall, does that absolutely prove that either I don’t exist or don’t care?
I don’t believe in original sin. Each choice is my opportunity to do good or bad. I know people who have done terrible things. I know that I have likewise done wrong, not to the extent of the worst yet not as well as the best. While I may wish that God would stop me when I am selfish, when I hurt others (especially those I claim to love), when I do wrong, I don’t believe it is his fault that he doesn’t.
Certainly some of the Christian theology behind the existence of evil is a problem. I have a lot of trouble with many of the explanations I have heard. But the reality is that evil exists. I see evidence of it almost every day. In a world without God there is still evil. I just can’t wrap my mind around the thought that if there is a good God then there will only be good people unless that God is a tyrant who would abort every fetus that would ever even think of doing something against his will.
Sorry for the rambling. Much of this is thinking as I am writing. I can’t say I have answers to all of my own questions and what I say on this subject isn’t an attempt to sway anyone toward my point of view. It is very possible that much is rationalization on my part. One of the really bad people I know is my father. And I’m not sure why I have never blamed God for him.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
19 08/21/07 9:31 PM | Comment Link |the discussion is really fasinating. I resonated with some of the ideas in the original post. One thing that I’ve noticed during the process of getting my undergrad degree is my own gradual conversion to what Robert Pirsig calls the church of reason.
that is, the university environment is intensely modern, and operating in that environment leads almost without fail toward one being more on the empirical evidence end of things. There is somehow a loss of …. the supernatural, the mysterious, the numinous. Is this what Willard is talking about? That we have a different way of lookin at the world than people did when Homer was alive? They really believed in the gods–that their lives were not their own, that the world was really enormously large, and they had very little control, and even less knowledge. One didn’t know what might be out there in the darkness. i think it was a bit … scary.
now we know, or believe that we can know. we believe we can explain, and figure out, and model. I mean we’re convinced that before too long we’ll be able to solve chess, and find a grand universal theory combining quantum physics and gravity, and that faster than light travel literally is impossible. etc. it’s not as scary, but it’s also not as wondrous. we read books and watch movies to get that hair raising on the back of our neck. the numinous is mostly lost.
I said when I was starting back ot university that I knew this would happen to me, and I must resist it. but it’s an uphill battle.
I was talking with Meg earlier this evening and telling her how immensely unsatisfying god and jesus are. I mean jesus disappeared himself from the story, and we are left with the christian church, which I think it’s fair to say I’ve had a fairly broad experience of and found mostly offputting. and god is so … ethereal. Looking at the way things are leads me toward the conclusion that god must either be weak or evil, and since that’s a bit of an oxymoron, I’m left with … not much. people, as … shocking as they can be sometimes, are a lot more enstorying and ensouling and real for me than god.
Comment by: Pete
20 08/21/07 9:33 PM | Comment Link |Wow…I’m really humbled and happy that my statement had caused so much great discussion. I only wish I could have been here in the middle and not so far down the line.
Helen~I wasn’t trying to assert anything extra from what you said. Stephan hit it on the nose. I was merely saying many non-Christians play that card as a sort of Wild Card to ‘win’ an argument (as many Christians play the faith card in similar circumstances). And my point was that it’s dishonest (and sort of underhanded) when used that way, because it attempts to trump everything with something that can’t be refuted (and that goes for both the empirical and faith cards). Which in the end doesn’t encourage good conversation, it squelches it.
As for all the talk about God allowing evil to exist if he’s good and perfect, I think the point about free will is very valid, but I also think it helps to see things from a different perspective.
By that, I mean when the issue of suffering comes up, it is often brought from the point of view that pain on Earth is the worst thing that can happen to a person. I think that mindset is faulty.
I’ve learned a tremendous amount from my pain–whether self-inflicted (like when I wrecked my car) or inflicted by others (like my abusive step-fathers). To shake my fist and rail against God (or conclude he can’t possibly be good) for those things when they were brought of the free will of others and made me a better man would be like saying the punishments and responsibilities I give my own children are bad because they find them unpleasant.
It’s sort of a catch 22 because we want free will (because otherwise God is cruel fro forcing us to do things) but then we’re angry when others’ free will causes evil. In the end, the only conclusion I’ve come to that makes any sense is that God allows free will, knowing it will cause pain, but also knowing there are worse things than temporary pain on earth (like everyone being without free will).
I hope that made some sense.
Comment by: David H
21 08/21/07 9:59 PM | Comment Link |Is it remarkable that much of the “evidence” for and against God is found in people. I have heard lots of explanations for why that would be. Some seem more plausible than others, but since the departure of Jesus from the world not even Christians can show much evidence of God clearly at work in the world as the Bible says he was up until the time of Jesus.
As I said above, I’m not entirely sure why I don’t have more problems with God. He doesn’t seem to have done much for me. But while Jesus “removed” himself from the world, I can’t really fault his action if his purpose was real at all. I sometimes feel as if I only believe in God because I believe in Jesus. The basic things he asked of people seem much more clear and understandable than the workings of God in the world. What was up with all those terrible things God told the Jews to do to their enemies? But I find myself falling back on the belief (rationale?) that if Jesus was God then God must be good. If God is good, then maybe I just don’t understand some of that other stuff that was going on in the OT.
As far as keeping my sense of wonder in the world, I find myself constantly amazed by the stuff science can’t explain. This week I read an article about how recent discoveries of pre-human fossils are forcing a re-thinking of the human family tree; in another article the observation of two galaxies colliding in a distant part of the universe is forcing re-evaluation of dark matter and the entire concept of how the cosmos functions; and a third article was about how scientists managed to cause photos to move at faster than light speeds (actually disappearing as the crossed a meter wide gap and reappearing instantly on the other side) in an experiment that seemed to say faster than light travel is possible but no one knows why. None of that causes me to question science or the usefulness of the scientific method, but it does seem to make it clear that we (people) aren’t in danger of soon knowing everything.
Comment by: Meg
22 08/21/07 10:57 PM | Comment Link |what a delightfully intriguing discussion you’re all having here! Think i might join in!
in my perception, part of what we’re discussing here centres around the transition we’re gradually experiencing collectively of shifting from the modern, scientific, empirically testable to the post-modern, sensitive to my own perceptions and needs and musings and conclusions about what is and isn’t. I personally veer towards the latter paradigm - I think it’s a very personal thing. Some people like scientific evidence, others like to base what they know on what they perceive and experience.
An important factor, which I think this blog does well (Thanks, Helen!) is that we respect and honour others’ ways and insights and conclusions.
Just like the incredible courtyard in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston gives an entirely different view of its wonders at each different level adn angle and nook at which one can peer down on it, each individual person seeing and describing their world is describing what’s really there - it just looks incredibly different from each new perspective - we can only see the bigger picture by listening to others who perceive bits we can’t see or know by ourselves.
Love, peace and unity-in-diversity,
Meg
Comment by: David H
23 08/21/07 11:13 PM | Comment Link |I will only quote myself in order to edit myself. I meant PHOTONS not photos. I’m seeking treatment for my slipped ‘N.’
Comment by: RC of strangeculture
24 08/21/07 11:20 PM | Comment Link |This is a great conversation to bring up…
it’s a tricky one isn’t it?
Comment by: Laura M.
25 08/21/07 11:28 PM | Comment Link |David, I don’t think it is God’s fault rather than yours if you harm yourself or others. This question confuses me because it seems to be directed at me in response to my entries above. But it would seem apparant that I never made nor implied any statement along those lines. I’m lost as to where you think I did. Particularly since I don’t believe in God.
I am talking about God being responsible for his own behavior, and the idea that we shouldn’t give him a free pass just because he’s God. This doesn’t imply that you are in no way responsible for your own behavior.
It’s not a case of either/or:
Either God is responsible for my behavior
Or I am.
Here’s the question I asked myself when I consider the Christian model of God:
If a parent were to consciously, with full knowledge, and with the clear power to stop it…
(no ifs or maybes here)
allow some of his children to murder some of his other children, just for fun or just for the heck of it…
who would be responsible?
The child/children doing the killing
or
the parent?
Comment by: Laura M.
26 08/21/07 11:30 PM | Comment Link |Hint**
It’s a trick question 8-)
Clue**
Remember I said it isn’t a question of either/or ?
Comment by: Laura M.
27 08/21/07 11:33 PM | Comment Link |Answer:
Both.
Both the child(ren) and the parent have their own measure of responsbility.
Comment by: Laura M.
28 08/22/07 12:02 AM | Comment Link |Or am I reading you wrong here David?
I inferred that you meant that if it were God’s fault then you would have no responsibility of your own. It has been my experience this is what people mean when they make statements like this.
Does the evidence of refusal to follow through on one’s responsibilities prove that one is at least one of the following :irresponsible, unknowing, uncaring, or incapable… and therefore not perfect?
Comment by: Pete
29 08/22/07 12:08 AM | Comment Link |So Laura…if I can play a little devil’s advocate (or would that be God’s?), let me ask this.
What if the child just beat up the other child?
Stole from him?
Said something mean?
Told a white lie?
Ignored him for a few minutes?
Pinched him?
Ate his last M&M?
My point is, where do you draw the line? When does God say “ok this is bad enough that I should step in and stop it, but this here isn’t THAT bad”? We either have free will or we don’t. If God gives us free will, then he’s criticized for the evil we do. If he doesn’t, he’s criticized for trying to control us.
But if God decided to put an end to all evil in the world tomorrow at noon, who would be here at 12:01? We’ve all done some things that are bad. It always sounds nice to say God should eradicate evil until we realize that everyone is included in that, and then there’s nobody left for evil to victimize. So what was the point?
The way you framed your question makes sense when we talk murder, but when you take it down to ‘lesser’ evils it seems to me that God would do nothing but stop people from doing anything wrong ever…and that certainly isn’t living my own life.
But if we say, “Well not ALL evil” then where do we draw the line? I’m sure we’d all have varying opinions on that. Who does God listen to?
Comment by: Laura M.
30 08/22/07 12:29 AM | Comment Link |I was very specific about the evil I was talking about. I didn’t mention any of those other things you define as evil. That would likely be because I don’t think they are evil.
Your argument is a fallacious, straw man argument, as you’re answering a question I didn’t ask, or arguing against a point that I not only didn’t make, I don’t even believe.
For example, I do not believe we are all evil or that we all behave in evil ways. I see no evidence of this, but rather, just the opposite.
Everything you mentioned on this list has happened to me, but I don’t think I’ve been the victim of evil. As I said, nothing too bad has ever happened to me.
Let’s just throw away the word ‘evil’ in this conversation, since I doubt we’ll come to an agreement on the meaning of this word. It’s pointless to get bogged down on a question of semantics.
Besides, it’s too easy a way to avoid the points that I did make and the question that I did ask.
Where do you draw the line?
Comment by: Laura M.
31 08/22/07 1:53 AM | Comment Link |I drew the line here:
Regardless of one’s definition of evil, or even regardless of one’s belief in or lack of belief in the existence of evil, wouldn’t virtually all Christians and atheists agree that the kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of children shouldn’t be allowed?
Why do we believe this?
If you believe that we know that it is wrong because God told us, or led us to believe that it is wrong, then I ask: Why would God want us to know that something is wrong and then leave us powerless to stop it? There is no way that we mere humans can wake up tomorrow and put an immediate end to this.
It will continue and we can only do our best, but is our best good enough when so many children continue to die horrific, agonizing deaths every day?
If you believe that doing our best is good enough simply because it is all that we can do, then does God do his best? Has he done all that he can do to prevent the kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of children?
Does the God you believe in have a power that we humans do not have?
Why has he not used it to stop this?
Why do Christians say you believe God is perfect when we see no evidence that God has done his best to stop his children from killing each other just because they feel like it?
Let me be clear. I’m not asking why do bad things happen, or why are people sometimes selfish, etc. I have a pretty good idea of why people behave in these ways, and it’s not because of God.
I would like to know Christians’ response to a very specific question:
Why doesn’t God stop all instances of the rape, torture and murder of children?
Comment by: Laura M.
32 08/22/07 1:59 AM | Comment Link |As for the question at the top of this thread, my answer is no, I do not think the scientific method is overrated.
I think the question is based on the fallacy that because atheist/secularists tend to express an appreciation of the scientific method, and believe in it’s importance, it then follows that the scientific method alone, or the scientific method and bad experiences with Christians, have convinced us there is no God.
Comment by: Laura M.
33 08/22/07 2:15 AM | Comment Link |Steve, have you studied any psychology, anthropology, or sociology?
Science is capable of ‘making statements’ about these ‘core aspects of existence’ that you name.
Comment by: Laura M.
34 08/22/07 2:20 AM | Comment Link |Pete, lots of people apply the scientific method to the very things you describe here.
Those people are usually called scientists 8-)
Do you mean we don’t ever, we don’t always or we don’t usually apply the scientific method…?
Comment by: hoverFrog
35 08/22/07 5:37 AM | Comment Link |You can apply the scientific method to the things that you’ve mentioned. They can be explained as social conditioning, chemical reactions, psychology, etc. You can even explain how people feel faith in these terms if you so desire.
To be honest though, I think that an explanation devalues these things somewhat. I may know that love is a heightened level of serotonin (and other hormones and chemicals) in my brain caused by familiarity, sexual desire and a host of other things but do I really want to? Do I want to lose that romance by having an explanation for a feeling?
I don’t want to provide proof that I love my partner and our children, that I enjoy a sea breeze or a clear night where I can see the stars. The proof is there if I want to look for it. This is the point that religious faith fails on for me. I want proof and there isn’t any.
Comment by: Stephan
36 08/22/07 7:07 AM | Comment Link |Laura asked:
Laura, I would turn this around and ask how God could do this.
I believe God set up the world with natural causes and natural consequences, and for the most part He allows things to follow this natural pattern. If He started randomly stepping in and stopping certain things from happening it would throw this cause/effect system into chaos.
Here’s another question. Perhaps there is some greater evil that could be done to a person that we actually have no knowledge of nor the ability to perform. How would we even know about it? Maybe God has put limits on our free will and we don’t even know it. How could we?
But if someone ate my last M&M, I would really be pissed.
Comment by: Laura M.
37 08/22/07 7:36 AM | Comment Link |Wow, Pete, somehow I completely missed comment number 20 above.
So you don’t think I’m ignoring what you had to say, here goes:
I made the decision to choose natural childbirth, no drugs at all, five times. I don’t believe pain is the ‘worst thing that can happen to a person’, otherwise why would I deliberately subject myself to that much pain over and over and over…?
I clearly stated in comment 17 that the problem of evil that I was referring to was the kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of children.
I also said:
It seems the conversation turned in the very direction I said I hoped it wouldn’t.
If I’m supposed to argue the point that pain is never good for a person nor could it possibly ‘make you a better man’, I won’t because I don’t believe that. Do you believe I somehow implied that?
Or are you comparing the hardships and pain you have faced in your life to the kidnapping, rape, torture and then subsequent murder of a child (hundreds of thousands of children)?
If not, then why bring this up? What does it have to do with my lack of belief in the Christian God?
I could figure out that it’s not a catch 22 at all, so why can’t God? Why can’t we have free will until we try to kidnap, rape, torture and then murder a child? What would be cruel about preventing the murder of a child?
I wouldn’t consider that cruel at all, would you? Now being able to prevent the kidnapping, torture, rape and then murder of a child (hundreds of thousands of children) but choosing not to, now that’s cruel.
Do you mean that you think there is more to be learned from these childrens’ deaths than to be gained from preventing them?
If so then how so? If not, then what do you mean?
Comment by: Laura M.
38 08/22/07 8:05 AM | Comment Link |If God can’t circumvent his own natural laws, he is not omnipotent. If God can’t ’step in’ then how does he stop back pain, cure cancer, and the myriad of other miracles accredited to God?
But Stephan, I don’t think you meant that he can’t, just that he won’t, since you say that
Do we finally have an admission from a Christian that God allows the kidnapping, rape, torture and then murder of countless children?
It wouldn’t if he were omnipotent. And again, if this were true, how does God cause most miracles or answer any prayer? BTW, stepping in to prevent the kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of all children isn’t random at all. Just the opposite, it’s pretty specific.
Greater evil than the kidnapping, rape, torture and then subsequent murder of a child?
My answer to that question would be:
Mega kudos to God for stopping that greater evil.
My question to God would then be:
Christians seem to believe that You (God) can’t prevent evil because You can’t interfere with free will, even though they give You credit for every miracle and answered prayer, which more often than not would involve Your interference with ‘free will’ and/or ‘natural consequences’ and/or ‘natural laws’.
Since You have prevented this greater evil, and managed in all Your loving wisdom and omnipotence to do it without throwing the natural order into complete chaos, why don’t you prevent the kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of all children?
Comment by: Stephan
39 08/22/07 8:35 AM | Comment Link |Laura, it seems like you have a similar view of God as most fundamentalists. Either God can do anything He wants at any time, or He cannot be God. I don’t believe this is a true statement.
I believe that in creating the universe God set aside some of His omnipotence to allow us to have free will. I don’t pretend to totally understand it, but I believe this is the only way to explain suffering of any kind.
You apparently have chosen one tiny subset of evil and decided that it negates God’s existence. You have defined God in such a way that it is impossible for Him to exist. As long as you persist in this your mind will be closed.
Comment by: Laura M.
40 08/22/07 8:36 AM | Comment Link |Pete, I’m not sure what you mean here by ‘play that card to win an argument’, when you refer to the faith of a Christian in God or the faith (my word) of an atheist in the scientific method.
Especially when you say it is dishonest. How can it be dishonest if it is what they feel or believe?
It seems very honest to me to say “I believe in God”, or “I believe in science” if that is what you believe.
Comment by: Pete
41 08/22/07 8:45 AM | Comment Link |Wow, Laura, your sheer number of responses makes it difficult to respond…so I will pick out the thigns I think are most valid and try to give the answer I have come up with for myself. Hopefully it sheds some light on how I feel.
If that’s the case, then I guess you wouldn’t accept my answers. But if those things (kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of children) are the entire scope of what you consider evil, then your definition is much more specific than anyone else I know, Christian or otherwise. But I have a hunch it isn’t (or is the murder of children wrong, while murdering a 20 year old is acceptable?)
Sure there is. If the people committing the acts decide to stop doing them. They won’t? Welcome to free will. Free will gives us the opportunity to not do these things. If we refuse to exercise that free will, it’s God’s fault? (and why only those 4 things?)
Then my comments don’t apply to you. But I won’t elaborate because my post is long as is.
As for your last post (about post 20), I wasn’t specifically referring to you. I was referring to the general idea of people saying that any evil automatically negates the idea of a good god.
Nothing. But again, where do we draw the line? Why here? Because that’s where you would draw it? What about severe physical abuse of children? Do you not consider that evil like you don’t consider beating someone up evil?
My stepfather put 8 stitches in my head when I was 7. That wasn’t evil?
A year ago, my friend–who was 14 at the time–had two men jump him and beat him with pipes until he lost all of his teeth and the use of one eye. That wasn’t evil?
My sister’s friend committed suicide because her mother never once said “I love you” and only told her that she was worthless–constantly…screaming…yelling and cussing at her. Was that not evil?
If the 4 things you mention are not the entire scope of what you consider evil, then why not bring other things up? And if there’s more, why isn’t that worth stopping as well? You asked where would I draw the line, and I don’t know. I think either ALL evil is wiped out by God or none is. There’s no line to draw because what you consider horrific, I may not, and what I consider terrible you may not. And what neither of us bat an eyelash at, God may despise.
But to get this thread back where it was (though I really enjoy the other aspect of the discussion as well)
You mean no evidence that you accept as evidence? I see plenty. And just out of curiosity, what would you accept as evidence?
Really? I’m curious why stars take my breath away and how much they do that (and no, “alot” isn’t a scientific term I would accept here). I’d like to see the empirical evidence supporting justice as a law of nature. Or mercy or grace. How much do I love my wife? Exactly in some sort of scientific measurement. And I use those terms intentionally because it was the point I was making. Simply claiming there is no God because I can’t measure him or predict his actions based on research does not disprove his existence. It only disproves my capability to identify, classify and measure him using the scientific method.
But he doesn’t exclusively have that quality. So why is it valid to say he doesn’t exist because of that, but it’s not valid to say justice isn’t real based on the same criteria?
Comment by: Pete
42 08/22/07 8:52 AM | Comment Link |And I would agree. I was referring to the way the scientific method and empirical proof are often (not always) used as a wild card when a non-Christian runs out of ‘good’ answers.
And I was just as strongly pointing the finger at Christians who say “You just need to have faith” when science or skeptics give them a question they can’t answer.
If you can’t answer a question or refute an argument…you should say “Good point…I don’t know”. But we often default to “show me scientific evidence” or “well that’s where faith comes in”. I think that is underhanded and dishonest because some thigns simply can’t be empirically proven and faith can’t be disproven.
It’s one of the things I like about CatE. Usually, people here are willing to concede good points rather than fall on their trump card to save face (and thereby sabotage open discussion).
Comment by: Laura M.
43 08/22/07 9:20 AM | Comment Link |Neither do I Stephan.
That sounds like a fine explanation of how God could be the ‘creator’, yet still be a ‘good’ God. Thank you for sharing that with me.
If I were to find evidence to convince me to believe that there is a God, this is likely the type of God I would also be believing in. This not, however, the God I’ve heard described in the Christian Bible, nor is it my perception that this is the type of God that most Christians believe in.
This is not the God I’m speaking of when I say that I know He doesn’t exist because the evidence shows me otherwise. To the contrary, this is the God that I am alluding to when I say
You see, the God you describe is not perfect. He created us without the ability to prevent this horrible evil, but fully capable of performing it, and then set aside his own ability to prevent it.
I don’t negate God’s existence. To do that I would have to think I know a lot of things that I can’t possibly know. I don’t know if God exists!
IMO, most Christians have defined God in such a way that it is impossible for him to exist.
Do you agree that most Christians’ minds are closed about the qualities that God must possess?
Comment by: Stephan
44 08/22/07 10:00 AM | Comment Link |Most definitely, myself included. My understanding is limited and definitely incorrect and inaccurate about a great number of things. I’m just try to do the best I can with what I have. I try to have an open mind and weigh facts without bias, but I’m sure I’m more limited that I know in my ability to do this.
In some ways, a good Christian walk is somewhat like scientific discovery. All facts are held as possible wrong. Any new facts are compared to old information and new ideas are formed. Sometimes long held “truths” are shown to be incorrect, and beliefs need to change. Other times ideas are modified by more conclusive data.
There are several current authors whose view of God remains true to the Bible but has a more open view. I believe fundamentalism is seeing some long overdue challenges that will open a lot of eyes.
Comment by: Laura M.
45 08/22/07 10:31 AM | Comment Link |Pete, I agree. Are you asking me this question because you believe I said God doesn’t exist? Or are you just being rhetorical?
I think I get what you’re saying here now, because it seemed to me this is similar to what you were just doing in post 41 above. Rather than answering the question with “Good point…I don’t know”, or actually answering the question, you avoided the question entirely. This can come across as a ‘dishonest attempt at winning an argument’.
You didn’t give me an answer. You turned the discussion back to the definition of evil, which I specifically asked you not to do:
We could argue all day- all week -or who knows how long, about the things we disagree on and are never likely to come to an agreement on. What would we accomplish?
If we’re going to talk about the existence of evil, we should start with what we do agree on.
Because I thought this was something that we could all agree on:
~~**~~~**~~~~**~~~~~**~~~~**~~~
By evidence I mean signs that are clear, easy to see and understand. I haven’t seen any, obviously you have.
Something I would accept as evidence that God has done his best would be his actually stopping the ‘evil’ I described. Another, would be if I were to meet God and he were to reveal his knowledge, spirit or essence to me in such a way as to make it clear that he is omnibenevolent and therefore would stop the kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of children, if He could.
I just realized that last would be evidence that God has done his best despite the fact that he’s not perfect, not evidence that he is perfect.
Were you asking about evidence of perfection, or evidence that God has done His best? I’m interested in what evidence you see for both these things.
Comment by: Steven Carr
46 08/22/07 10:55 AM | Comment Link |Is psychology not a science?
Should psychologists admit that they are not doing science when they claim to study emotions?
Comment by: Steven Carr
47 08/22/07 11:02 AM | Comment Link |Sometimes some things have no evidence and have to be taken on faith.
There is just as much evidence that God loves us as there was evidence that Hitler loved Jews.
I mean, God has trapped us all in one place and made sure that we are all going to die in it, often of starvation or disease.
Isn’t that what Hitler did to the Jews?
Comment by: Pete
48 08/22/07 11:17 AM | Comment Link |I was being rhetorical. Clarifying what I meany originally, since you had asked me to.
Because I don’t think it’s fair to discuss the idea of why God doesn’t stop evil without including everything. To say God isn’t real or perfect because he doesn’t stop A,B,C but refuse to discuss the rest of the alphabet isn’t a fair dialogue. It’s easy to villainize someone when you require they answer questions on your terms and leave other relevant things out of it. That’s what I felt was going on. It sounded as if you said “ignore everything else in the world, but explain why you don’t stop these 4 things. If you can answer that without bringing anything else similar into the conversation, I’ll listen.”
I could reverse it, I suppose. Ask you to explain how God isn’t perfect. But you can only use the Gospel of John. Don’t bring science and pain and suffering into the equation, please.
I understand you felt we could all agree on them being evil, but I think we disagree on the context of that evil and that’s a very big deal.
Sorry you felt I was avoiding your question ‘dishonestly’, but the question was limited and sort of loaded. We can agree to disagree, but I don’t think it’s fair to ask anyone to answer a question about 4 specific things if similar things aren’t allowed in the conversation for reference.
Or at least that he sees removing free will as a greater evil than the things you mentioned. (Which is how I see it, personally. I thought that was clear. But apparently not, since you thought I was avoiding the question. Sorry for being vague =/).
Nothing as specific as that, really. I’ve just had many discussions with people who say “God has never proven he exists so I don’t believe in him.” Yet when asked what they would accept as proof, they have no idea–which is sort of unfair. I was only curious if you had an idea of what you would expect from God, or if you were pointing to some vague ‘proof’ that even you hadn’t pinned down in your mind. no need to answer that, it’s more food for thought.
And the evidence I have is admittedly, somewhat circular. Or at least depends on my theology. Keep in mind I don’t think pain, or even death, here is the worst thing that can happen to a person. I also think that God stepping in and always stopping our evil deeds would completely ruin his integrity since he created us to have free will.
I’ve also seen good things come from pain and even death. I think God has done his best in things like the Bible (it’s existence that is) and Jesus’ teachings. But I also think that God’s ultimate goal is not and was never to eradicate evil. I think it was to have relationships with us, and share himself, his creation and a measure of his kingship with us. I feel when he created everything it was a humble action, because it was the first time he stopped being the only thing that existed.
When we screw up, God tries his best to show us the right way. He uses all his persuasion and wisdom, but won’t force it. I think it sometimes falls short because we have free will and when you’re as smart and powerful as him, you can only do and say so much before it stops becoming teaching and starts becoming manipulation–which is no better than just outright forcing us.
I think God has shown he wants to know us and share an adventure, a life with us. Here and in the afterlife. To me, this life is the 30 second preview clip before the real movie. If the preview sucks, or even upsets me, but the movie is terrific, I won’t complain. That’s sort of what I mean when I say pain or death here isn’t the worst thing that can happen to us.
I hope some of that made sense…I sometimes ramble because the concepts are hard for me to pin down with words.
Comment by: Laura M.
49 08/22/07 11:19 AM | Comment Link |Steven, LOL !!
Are you arguing for or against the existence of God, empirical evidence or faith?
Comment by: Stephan
50 08/22/07 11:55 AM | Comment Link |Laura said:
But if God actually did this, how would you know? If God did not allow children to be tortured, raped or abused, you would not know what torture, rape or abuse were, so you would not recognize that it was not happening.
This brings me back to my earlier point that God perhaps has kept us from committing some greater evil that we do not even know about. How could we know?
I believe it is a ridiculous standard you set for God to prove Himself, which is probably why you don’t believe.
Comment by: Laura M.
51 08/22/07 12:41 PM | Comment Link |Is it possible that you guys just can’t answer the question because it isn’t possible to answer the question, and you’re unwilling to simply say “you’re right, it can’t be reconciled in any reasonable way”, or “I don’t know”?
Or, are you afraid that if you try to answer the question your answers will show that an all loving, all kmowing, all powerful God cannot exist?
Or is there an option that I’ve left out that explains avoidance of the question?
I’m beginning to pick up on some defensiveness. Do you feel God needs defending? And if so, which God/definition of God are you defending?
Just trying to figure out why, if the question is answerable, nobody’s answering it? If it’s not answerable, why not simply acknowledge that?
Is it important that God be perfect? Why or why not?
Comment by: Pete
52 08/22/07 1:04 PM | Comment Link |Laura, I’ve explained why I won’t answer your question. Frankly, you refuse to let me answer it. And you’re coming off a bit angry at the fact that we won’t conform to your discussion rules.
I gave my answer…and you said, in effect, “I don’t want to hear that answer, so try another one, and leave out everything but the few things I allow in the conversation.”
When you’re willing to discuss evil on a broader concept than 4 things you have decided are the crux of the matter, then maybe we can discuss it. I’ve said that in every post, and yet you haven’t responded to it once beyond your inital insistance that we not use anything but the 4 things you prescribed.
Rather than attempt to insult us or call our ability to answer the question into question, how about proposing a fair question worth answering?
If I come off defensive, it’s because you come off argumentative and rude, not because I have to defend anyone. Do you honestly think I’ve just avoided these issues my entire life?
To avoid this becoming an angry, bitter discussion, I won’t be responding to anything else, unless the whole realm of everything relevant is made open to discuss.
Comment by: Stephan
53 08/22/07 1:28 PM | Comment Link |Laura, I am not offended or defensive, but, like Pete, I don’t think you’re asking a fair question. Your definition is so narrow and your acceptable answers are so limited that I don’t think it can be answered. You can’t address a specific evil without addressing the overall issue of evil, and you apparently are not interested in that.
There are answers, but it takes hours and volumes to answer them, not a few sentences on a blog, and you have to be open to answers that you might not like.
Comment by: Laura M.
54 08/22/07 1:35 PM | Comment Link |Pete, you’ve lost me. I don’t remember addressing anything along those lines.
Why not? I think it’s perfectly fair. It sounds like what you think is fair is whether or not you can argue this point the way you usually do. That doesn’t sound like a very objective measurement of what is fair.
Who are you implying I villainized? In what way did this villainization occur? And to the contrary, the other things you want(ed) to bring into the discussion are quite irrelevent, IMO.
That is why I don’t want to discuss them. To do so would be unfair since they have nothing to do with my question, or with my beliefs. And that is what we have been discussing. MY beliefs. I mentioned them, you guys asked me questions about them, I politely answered questions about them and now the conversation seems to losing it’s previous air of politeness and mutual respect. Apparantly because I want to discuss my belief on my terms, rather than on your terms.
I’m on shifting ground here again. Are you hearing this as a conversation between me and God, or between me and you? I was having a conversation with you, not God.
I was asking that you not bring anything dissimilar into the conversation. Such as someone taking a child’s last M&M when I’m discussing evil and God’s handling of evil in the context of something that is universally agreed to be evil. Do you not see that M&M’s and cussing are extremely dissimilar to what I was discussing? Not to mention that they are completely irrelevent to my belief about God.
Eureka !! I think I’ve finally found it 8-) Is this the answer to “Why doesn’t God stop all kidnapping, rapes, torture and then murder of children?”??
He sees removal of free will to be a greater evil? And here I thought I was envisioning the most horrific, most vile, most universally accepted concept of evil imagineable. Apparantly God doesn’t share my values.
So what does God think of people who frequently, most likely daily, are actively involved in the removal of free will from mankind? People like parents, teachers, police officers, judges, legislators, sevicemen/women. What about anyone who’s ever voted or signed a petition to pass a law?
Their ‘evil’ is worse, in the eyes of God, than that of a child kidnapper/rapist/torturer/murderer?
Comment by: Stephan
55 08/22/07 1:47 PM | Comment Link |Laura, I’ll chime in here because I don’t think Pete will. You last question was quite disingenuous. You are clearly taking things out of context to try to make Pete’s point sound ridiculous. That will not lead to any constructive dialog. You are now the one dragging dissimilar things into the conversation and muddying the waters. It makes me think your intent is not to understand, but simply to argue and prove someone else wrong. Like Pete, I won’t engage in that kind of discussion.
Comment by: Laura M.
56 08/22/07 2:04 PM | Comment Link |Stephan, are you being open here to answers you might not like? I’m not getting that sense at all, quite glaringly the opposite, in fact.
It comes across as though you guys don’t want to answer the question/ discuss the issue because you find yourself encountering answers you don’t like.
I could be wrong, but that is my honest perception. I don’t think you feel defensive because I’ve been rude since I can’t think of any instance in this discussion when I’ve been anything more than as polite as possible.
I have had quite a few instances of name calling slung in my direction as I continue to insist that my beliefs be discussed on my terms, rather than on yours. Is this insistence what you are referring to as my rudeness?
Yet it doesn’t seem likely that you consider it rude of you to insist that I not discuss why I am who I am, why I think feel, and believe what I think feel and believe, honestly by the terms that I came to these beliefs?
Should I pretend that it matters to me why God doesn’t eradicate all evil in the world? Because it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter to me, and that is the plain and simple truth of it. I don’t beleive a loving God would want or need to eradicate all ‘evil’, by the way you define evil, from the world.
I have had the experience, in previous discussions of this issue, and other atheists have mentioned a similar experience, of feeling that words have been put into their mouths, by way of claims that atheists beliefs are based on ideas that in fact have absolutely nothing to do with their/our beliefs. I was trying to avoid this problem, and keep the discussion open and truthful on all sides.
It is a shame you couldn’t find value in an honest , direct discussion of my beliefs.
Honest and direct, but no, not rude.
Why should I allow myself to get bogged down into the position of defending a belief I don’t even believe, nor has it been my experience that most atheists believe?
Comment by: Pete
57 08/22/07 2:14 PM | Comment Link |I will take back and apologize for what I said about you in post 52 Laura. It seems you simply responded to someone else before you read all of what I said.
As to discussing things on your terms because they’re your beliefs. I think that’s a poor way to discuss things. It smacks of the type of thing Christians are often accused of. It reminds me of the “Free Jesus” post Helen made..I’ll quote her because she said it perfectly:
I’d love to discuss the problem of evil and God with you. But I feel like, since I don’t believe the same way as you do about what constitutes evil, handling the subject is a privilege not reserved for me. So instead I have to answer in a way that is incomplete.
I understand that we share different beliefs about evil. But you need to understand that my basis for how I feel is Biblical. So to tell me NOT to include the Bible’s definition of evil, and then criticize me for not being able to discuss it makes no sense to me.
My opinion stems from my very definition of evil. If I can’t use how I define evil to defend my viewpoint on evil and god, then what am I supposed to use?
Perhaps if I asked you to disprove God exists but only argue from the perspective of a Christian pastor, not from your own view point you’d understand why I feel the question is framed poorly.
You asked where I drew the line (post 30), and I told you. You draw the line in a different spot. That’s your right and I wasn’t criticizing it at all. But as you said:
Comment by: Laura M.
58 08/22/07 2:19 PM | Comment Link |Stephan, what I just posted is how I honestly perceive the conversation. I am not being disengeuous at all. Honest people can disagree and perceive things differently, and that must be what is happening here.
The truth is that I thought we were having a discussion of what I believe, and perhaps that is where this conversation went wrong.
I’m trying to figure out where it became OK to insult me?
I would like to add an apology for my posts demanding an answer to my question when an answer had already been given. We were cross posting and I had not yet got to the point in reading where I found that my question had been answered.
Again, no, my response was not at all disengenuous. I expressed exactly what if think on the subject. I’ve been nothing but honest and, in my opinion, polite throuout this discussion.
I’m not seeing what you think is disengenuous about my opinions. But it’s perfectly OK if you disagree with them. I would just ask that you disagree more curteously 8-)
Comment by: Laura M.
59 08/22/07 2:22 PM | Comment Link |Oops, cross posting again ! Pete,I see you have a post just above me here, while I’ve been writing mine. I hope I haven’t manged to further “muddy the waters” 8-)
Let me check out the damage.
Comment by: Pete
60 08/22/07 2:25 PM | Comment Link |I see no damage :D And if I insulted you, I sincerely apologize. I, too, was only trying to express where I felt the conversation was going.
Comment by: Laura M.
61 08/22/07 3:00 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Pete,
Not to be combative here, but I think we were both doing that.
I was beginning to feel precisely the same way.
I do understand that Pete. Do you understand that because I know something about the Bible’s definition of evil, this is precisely why I can’t believe in a God as described in and defined by the Bible? This was a bit of the point that I was trying to make.
This why I asked if you felt the need to defend God. I was getting the feeling that you felt your viewpoint needed to be defended. I don’t understand why you felt that defending your view of God was necessary. I don’t have any problem with the fact that you have your view of God. If I don’t have any problem with it, why do you need to defend it?
I thought folks were asking me to explain my view of God. Why I don’t believe in the Christian God, for instance. That is what I was trying to do.
I hope you don’t think I was asking you to argue about the existence of the Christian God, or to somehow prove he exists.
That would be asking you to do the impossible, now wouldn’t it? ;-)
Comment by: Laura M.
62 08/22/07 3:06 PM | Comment Link |So, to wrap up this discussion, I think I’ve effectively proven that the Christian God can’t possibly exist. Wouldn’t you agree?
Heh, heh, just teasing…
NOT !!!
But seriously, thanks for the interesting conversation, Pete, Stephan, and all.
Comment by: Pete
63 08/22/07 3:14 PM | Comment Link |Me too, but I think it was because we were arguing different arguments. You were defending your view, I was responding to the general idea of evil=no good god (which I mistakenly thought you were trying to assert). I’m just glad we were able to see it for what it was before it was too late.
I did because of what you said in post 25. It felt like you were attacking the idea of God.
I also see where you thought I was going directly after you (especially because I used the same phrase about being God’s advocate as you did in post 15…which I JUST now noticed–i.e. I didn’t notice it when I first said it in post 29…my mistake)
Glad everything worked out without hard feelings.
Comment by: Stephan
64 08/22/07 3:55 PM | Comment Link |Laura, no offense taken or intended. I just felt that you asking us to answer your question on your terms was a bit unfair and could never come to a satisfactory conclusion. Sort of like, “Paint a masterpiece using only white,” or, “Explain sewing using only a thimble.” Unless you open up the conversation you can’t get to the important parts.
Comment by: Laura M.
65 08/22/07 4:10 PM | Comment Link |Thanks again, Stephan and Pete.
I suppose, from your perspective, I seemed to be demanding that you answer the question. It makes sense then, that you would think I was attacking your beliefs which would naturally make you defensive in your response.
Mega sorries, and I’m also glad we worked it out 8-)
Comment by: Helen
66 08/22/07 4:12 PM | Comment Link |Laura, Pete and Stephan, I just saw this…thanks for doing your best to move things away from where you were getting frustrated with each other.
Comment by: David H
67 08/22/07 6:29 PM | Comment Link |Late to the party as usual, though I’m not sure I have much to add.
The problem with the question of either or is that in the end there is no responsibility for the child unless there is no parent capable of stopping them. The logic would appear to dictate that if God can stop bad people then he must. If he doesn’t, he either isn’t good or he isn’t God. If evil occurs then God isn’t doing his job for whatever reason. That eliminates responsibility for bad people if there is someone/something that could (but won’t) stop them from being bad.
I was struck when reading this statement by wondering, as a 47-year-old child of my parents, whether they would be responsible if I hurt one of my brothers or sisters? I wondered if, as an adult who understands that hurting a sibling would be wrong but still intendant on doing just that, how my parents would stop me even if they knew what I was going to do? If I really wanted to hurt someone else should they use force to stop me? What method of coercion would be acceptable? If they couldn’t convince me by argument, should they eradicate me by force? If they could reach inside my head and take away my desire to hurt others, would that be OK? Would I still be me if they did that? What choices would they need to eliminate? Should they just take away my ability to kill or should they also take away my ability to rob and rape? Should they take away my ability to strike another in anger? Should they take away my ability to think angry thoughts? Should they take away my ability to choose anything they consider bad and only do what they consider good?
In the end, it seems, this logic says that unless there is a dictator God then there is no God of value. If I can choose to do wrong that becomes proof that God either doesn’t exist or isn’t good. If I can’t choose — God stops me from doing wrong — then (and only then) is God doing his job. Once again the responsibility seems to be all on God. He has to prove himself by not allowing me to choose. God can be only if I am not me.
I don’t intend to convince or convert anyone. I expect my logic is full of holes and analogies full of crap. But I don’t think the issue of evil proves anything either, accept that people are capable of doing amazingly terrible things to each other. To blame anyone else, in whole or in part, is to absolve myself. And I, like everyone else who has the ability to make a conscious choice, am solely responsible for the measure of wrong I pour into the world — whether it is a thimble or an ocean.
Comment by: John Shore
68 08/23/07 6:43 AM | Comment Link |Fascinating stuff. I’m a book author (I’ve got a book out now called, “I’m OK–You’re Not: The Message We’re Sending Nonbelievers and Why We Should Stop”) who recently posted a little piece apropos (sp??) to this dialogue that I thought you guys might like to see. It’s called “Extra, Extra! Atheists Whip Christians in Debate! Again! And Again!” It’s here:
http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/extra-extra-atheists-whip-christians-in-debate-again-and-again/
The piece ran on the … extremely Christian, mega-huge websites, Christianity.com and Crosswalk.com. Um. Talk about generating a response, either way. It’s … something.
Anyway, amazing stuff here. My whole LIFE is built around the relationship between Christians and non-Christians, so … so of course I find this exchange fascinating. What a great find this site is!
Comment by: Helen
69 08/23/07 8:46 AM | Comment Link |Hi John, welcome to Conversation at the Edge!
I looked at your article. Are you saying that, when atheists say “your faith is illogical and irrational” you say “Exactly!” And you’re completely happy with that response?
If you are then I respect that as your choice. It wasn’t a choice I could be comfortable with, because it seems to me that if God exists, he is the one who created me to be a logical and rational being.
Comment by: John Shore
70 08/23/07 11:34 AM | Comment Link |No, that’s not what I said at all. I said … well, these things, in that very piece:
“Rational thought is core to what it means to be human.”
“…. Which is not to say that we cannot fully justify our faith: My first book, Penguins, Pain and the Whole Shebang, proved (if I say so myself) that the entirety of the Christian belief system is nothing if not rationally supportable.”
and:
“It’s actually difficult to posit a God, proceed logically from that assertion, and end up anywhere but at the Christian cross.”
So. I mean. You just read it too quickly, I guess.
Comment by: Helen
71 08/23/07 12:36 PM | Comment Link |John, I read the conclusion and I thought the parts below, put in bold by me, meant you think faith is irrational and illogical:
I didn’t see the other quotes - my apologies - but I don’t understand how you reconcile them with the conclusion where it seems to me you’re saying faith is illogical and irrational.
Comment by: John Shore
72 08/23/07 2:10 PM | Comment Link |Sorry; I just saw how snarky my final comment looked. I didn’t mean it as, like, a MORAL judgement, or anything: I read stuff too fast all the time. So I just figured you did in this case. Made sense to me.
Anyway, right. I’m afraid there’s not much I can say beyond … well, simply, again (and boringly, I suspect, at this point) offering up the piece itself as saying … exactly what I wanted it to say. I’m saying that ULTIMATELY, FINALLY, we can’t subject God to rational understanding. Our minds simply can’t comprehend the totality of God’s majesty.
God is a larger than our minds can contain. That’s all I’m saying–and (I daresay) that’s all I said in that piece. And of course I stand by it. I wouldn’t actually WANT a God I could fully apprehend. No one is awed by anything they can fully understand.
Think of the Trinity. You believe in it, right? Also impossible to explain rationally, right?
That’s what I’m saying. We all live with the MYSTERY of God. Thank God.
Comment by: Helen
73 08/23/07 4:39 PM | Comment Link |John, I apologize if I came on too strong and put you on the defensive.
Regarding the Trinity: actually at this point in time I don’t know whether God exists. In the Christian-atheist dialog you must have assumed I was closer to the Christian side than I am.
Comment by: Pete
74 08/23/07 8:56 PM | Comment Link |Interesting.
I’m curious in this quote:
What is the final truth you speak of?
I think that article/blog (not sure what it is) is sort of what I was talking about with the faith card thing in my original post. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you’re saying “I can’t rationally defend the idea of God existing…but my experience (faith) is proof enough.”
I believe God is the God of truth. So rational thought doesn’t scare him, it reveals him. But before I go on with some long rant disagreeing with what I THINK you’re saying, I’ll give you a chance to clarify your thoughts and answer my question.
Comment by: Laura M.
75 08/24/07 3:59 AM | Comment Link |Well, this is a bit akward, but I think I have a feel for what Mr. Shore is saying. At least I know his words resonate with some of my own experiences with faith.
As Pete is saying, I think it does have to do with faith. For me, faith is something you can explain logically, but not rationally, to those who don’t have it. And never did have it.
It’s a bit like trying to explain the colors of the rainbow to a person who’s been blind their entire life.
Sure, you can logically explain how light rays bounce of objects… yada, yada, yada. But how do you explain the beauty of light and colors and nature? You can describe it, but how much meaning will it have for a blind person?
When folks talk about their faith to me, I feel like I’ve been blind my entire life. I can logically understand and appreciate the effect on their lives, the peace and joy and love and the sense of awe and wonder and commitment they have. That’s because I have these feelings too.
But I still have no clue what faith looks like. I can’t see it at all. Not even a blurry outline.
I don’t think it would make sense for the blind person to think all the people who are not blind (so many, many of them) are not rational, just because they share an experience he doesn’t seem to be capable of sharing.
On the other hand, I don’t get why the sighted folks would get mad at the blind guy and tell him if he can’t see it, he must not be looking hard enough.
Comment by: Laura M.
76 08/24/07 4:53 AM | Comment Link |Oh my, I just popped over to ebay Atheist and at the top of the page found this entry from Saimang about Mother Teresa.
Comment by: Helen
77 08/24/07 5:59 AM | Comment Link |Laura, I reposted your comments about faith here:
Faith
(Sorry, I couldn’t think of another title :-))
Yes, that’s quite something about Mother Theresa. We saw that news last night. Here’s the link to Siamang’s post:
St. Theresa: Patron Saint of Atheists?
Comment by: Laura M.
78 08/24/07 7:29 AM | Comment Link |Hey-Hey David,
I’m sorry ’bout that. Almost missed your last post. Thanks for jumping back into our talk. Truthfully I find this discussion of ‘evil’ fascinating.
For one thing, I don’t even know what evil is or means really. I see an amazingly beautiful world, full of amazingly beautiful people doing for the most part amazing, loving, courageous things.
Then we have these moments where the world seems to be completely spun in reverse on it’s axis, or we wish we could go into Superman mode and spin it into reverse ourselves. Because something so unbelievably and incomprehensably horrific, the worse thing you could ever imagine, has happened. Again.
The reason I use the parent child analogy is because this is the way I always hear our relationship with God described by Christians .
The difference, in my mind, between our level of responsibility for the actions of our children, and God’s responsibility for his children, is that he has knowledge and power that we don’t have.
If I were in a room and saw another person doing something horrible to a child, and I had any power or ability to put a stop to it, but chose not to, I would be responsible. I don’t just know and feel that I would be responsible, by law I would be responsible.
Legally, I would be an accomplice and considered equally culpable.
This is regardless of the age of the perpetrator. This is regardless of whether I am the parent, or never met either party (innocent child or guilty adult) previously.
If I am a five foot tall meek and humble woman, how arrogant of me would it be , to hold myself to such a far, far higher standard of morality than I hold God?
If I felt God had no responsibilty to protect the children (as in not adults) that would be equivelant in my mind as saying he is immoral, or cruel or callous, or incapable of feeling.
I don’t believe this type of cruel God could possibly have created this amazing world we live in.
But by the same token, this world is not perfect. Which yes,is a wonderful thing! I don’t know any atheists who want to slouch around all day in a boring and meaningless, completely carefree existence, absent of all strife and hardship (which is precisely why the concept of heaven has absolutely no appeal to us- I mean what would be the point of an eternity like that?)
What we gain from the opportunities to help each other
overcome our hardships are some of the best benefits of being human!
So here we have this amazing world, jammed packed full of incredible beauty and life, full of beautiful people who most of whom, I truly believe, would lay down their lives for each other if they thought it were necessary. But there’s a bizarre incongruity. This strange thing that’s so rare , so out of character with the rest of this world.
A mistake in this otherwise near perfect world. Something that surely couldn’t be what God meant to happen? And God doesn’t know how to change it, fix it , take it back. A small glitch in the program leading to an awfully big problem.
A problem without a solution.
A question that can’t be answered,
not even by a loving, powerful, wise, beautiful, yet imperfect God.
Comment by: Laura M.
79 08/24/07 7:44 AM | Comment Link |Oh neat ! Thanks for reposting it Helen.
Comment by: David H
80 08/24/07 9:12 PM | Comment Link |There you have it. A point of convergence. The divergence: what was the mistake and who is responsible. With the postulate of God, is the error that I am allowed to choose or that God doesn’t fix/stop bad (evil?) outcomes from my