|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 5/24/2008 11:28:26 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
dont be sarcastic
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/11/2008 9:33:41 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Hello,
I was hoping to revive this thread since I was partially responsible for letting the discussion degenerate and fizzle.
I think this IS definitely one of the supposed stumbling blocks for secular humanists and the like to considering Christianity.
I know a common answer to "why suffering" is "God is in charge; we cannot question his wisdom." I agree with this, as does every Christian. Of course, a non-Christian would not accept this, and why should we accommodate their beliefs if they differ? Would we go so far as to compromise our own? No, I hope not. I don't advocate that, but...
I think there is something more powerful to say about God's stance on suffering so to speak.
The Bible tells us that God is the sufferer. Specifically, Jesus points to the hungry, the poor, the imprisoned and so on and says, "That's me." God IS the sufferer. This is much more powerful than to say, suffering improves us in ways we may not be wise enough to know. Or, suffering enables us to relate to the suffering of others. These may be true, but they are neither necessary nor proper answers to "why suffering" in the first place.
Going further, I would argue from an existential standpoint that human beings are not capable of whole-hearted suffering -- but with a special caveat. If a human being is suffering whole-heartedly, that is, without being self-aware, i.e.: without being either despairing, dispassionate, or defiant, then that is when we are witness to Jesus on earth again. (I am not substituting this idea for his Second Coming and the apocalypse, but merely trying to be be faithful to what he said "There go I.") All a human being is capable of, in themselves, is sin. If we (the other) find a whole-hearted sufferer, we find one who is protected at that time by the Holy Spirit from sin and despair (despair is sin, at least a type also). It is then that we are called to be neighbors and to relieve the IMMEDIATE and present suffering to the extent of our ability. The extent to which we can help this suffering is teh extent to which we are a neighbor -- it is the measure of our "nearness." Now, it may very well be that past experience with suffering will help our nearness to a sufferer. I think that is what past posts were getting at. I don't think this means that we know that prior experience is required tho. For, if we found one lying in a ditch and said, "well, I have never laid in a ditch, so perhaps I am not the ONE to help this suffering. There is someone greater in suffering than I," then we have fallen into a fallacy of a hierarchy of suffering and it is easy to see we would be failing to meet Jesus' call. I do not say anyone is guilty of this, however; I am speaking hypothetically.
Thus, I say the reply to the one who IS crying out "injustice" at the idea of God allowing suffering or standing by while it happens is to say, "Show me the sufferer." If someone is able to mount a soapbox, they are not truly sufferring but merely looking to aggrandize and elevate "victimhood." Similarly, if someone is running around asking why God doesn't do something about sufferring, perhaps aren't they wasting time that ought to be spent helping sufferers. Finally, I belive that when suffering is called attention to either by the sufferer himself or by the other, then a self-consciousness is put upon the suffering that threatens its existence. Once self-consciousness steps in, a mechanism for coping with suffering has entered with the possibility that suffering will be transcended not through immediate alleviation but through a psychological bypass. I hope a psychologist would join me in agreement that methods of coping with suffering do not necessarily entail healing but may later result in the resurfacing of the suffering, as in post-traumatic stress disorder. Self-consciousness is the ACT of distancing oneself from one's (otherwise Godly) suffering, leaving on the one hand the possibility of later return (in which case self-consciousness can be seen to be procrastination) or, on the other, the possibility of refusing suffering out of a sense of injustice or even the self-aggrandizing PRIDE in suffering. (This, of course, may not be an option for a truly immediate sufferer.) It may be that a sufferer who is also despairing may be in need of SIMULTANEOUS care for their immediate (though distanced) suffering and reproach for their sin of trying to distance themselves, that is, of despair. I don't know if reproach is the best word, but maybe. In this case, it seems, the answer to an indignant, "Why am I suffering?" would be, "It's okay to suffer, it's okay." The indignance and defiance must first be helped (that is, reproached, not enabled in any way) so that a person CAN suffer and so that the immediate suffering can then be helped.
What do y'all think?
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 6/11/2008 9:43:46 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/11/2008 11:16:44 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
"if god was good, then why is there suffering" - "why is there a hell" - "why do children die" - "why doesn't god show up and fix this mess" - "i can't worship a god who claims to be love and good and determines before hand to create something intentionally to be destroyed" - etc
My answer(s): We are the ones who have disobeyed a Perfect and Holy God. We do not deserve ANYTHING. God does not owe us. We ought to be thankful for the grace that has been given to us, and not complain for the grace that has not! That is not our right. That simply proves our selfishness.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/12/2008 4:48:23 PM
|
|
|
galadriel2
Posts: 273
Joined: 6/5/2008
Status: offline
|
Well, a similar 'pat answer' is that man is sinful and we underestimate man's sin so when God reacts to our sin we feel it is unfair. It is also true that not all that we suffer is the result of sin in our lives.
I will put in this, I only read a few posts so I don't know if someone brought this up and I missed it: God has allowed suffering, etc., man to fall, etc., because in 'fixing it' the entire universe gets to learn something about God that it never would have been able to otherwise: they learn about His love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, wisdom, etc., in way that they never could if they didn't get to watch God go about saving sinful men.
....Also...all men go to hell because they choose to. God saves who He wants. That is the only reason anyone goes to heaven. It is equally true that the only reason men go to hell is because they choose to, not because God doesn't choose them. He would like all to repent. God doesn't choose all men for salvation. Men go to hell only because they choose to. That is the best I can understand it.
God bless abundantly,
Galadriel2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/18/2008 4:13:01 AM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
To answer the question about where evil and suffering originated from, the Christian usually speaks of the "Fall".
However, in answering the "why" question, in regards to the particular suffering of individuals, answers are not so forthcoming. Part of the problem is that "cause-effect" category of mind which, despite it's inapplicability to human behavior, is superimposed on particular circumstances (i.e. a particular human evil/suffering). Thence arises the problem.
Suppose that no answers are possible here. How would that "positively" affect the plausibility of skepticism/agnosticism/atheism? Is it not also true that the skeptic has the same problem on his/her hands?
I don't have more time to elaborate more right now so I will pick this thought up on another day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/19/2008 8:12:57 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
Ok. let me flesh this point out more now that I have more energy and time.
If the "problem" of evil and suffering merely came down to the theist not having an answer to particular cases of them, then it is not enough to say "well, so much the worse for theism", because this "problem" is double-edged.
It's equally incumbent on the atheist/skeptic/agnostic to offer a "reason" for particular cases of suffering as well. If the atheist doesn't feel the need to provide some response, then several things can be adduced from this:
1) The atheist is insincere or dishonest about his claim that "evil" is really a problem that needs an answer. So how could he/she stick the theist with this objection if he/she wasn't really having a "problem" with it at all.
2) The atheist is inconsistent in his/her insistence that only theism has to provide a "justification" for the reality of particular evils, and not atheism. If it's a "problem" at all, then it must be answered by both sides or no sides.
3) What possible consolation could atheism give to the actual sufferer's in this world? What hope or comfort could the atheist give the terminally ill on their deathbed other than to rest on the "foundation of unyielding despair" (to borrow Bertrand Russell's famous phrase from his essay "A Free Man's Worship")?
4) Doesn't quibbling about "God and evil" really trivialize and debase actual person's whom experience tremendous pain, loss and death? Isn't exploiting cases of the victims of evil simply callous and immoral? Isn't it absurd to spend time agonizing over this philosophical problem when there are alot of people in the world today who agonize over how they will get their next meal; and/or the meal for their children? Or person's who die of leprosy in isolation from their family and friends?
When the atheist is ready to begin explaining and justifying the presence of evil, then he/she can stand ready to inquire of the theist exactly how God and evil are compatible; otherwise, this criticism is unjust.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/20/2008 11:24:05 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 302
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
Ok. let me flesh this point out more now that I have more energy and time.
If the "problem" of evil and suffering merely came down to the theist not having an answer to particular cases of them, then it is not enough to say "well, so much the worse for theism", because this "problem" is double-edged.
It's equally incumbent on the atheist/skeptic/agnostic to offer a "reason" for particular cases of suffering as well. If the atheist doesn't feel the need to provide some response, then several things can be adduced from this:
It isn't equally incumbent because they don't assert a sentient (moral) agent behind it all. That's the whole reason there is such thing as a "problem of evil", so it is not a double-edged sword.
That covers your first two deductions.
quote:
3) What possible consolation could atheism give to the actual sufferer's in this world? What hope or comfort could the atheist give the terminally ill on their deathbed other than to rest on the "foundation of unyielding despair" (to borrow Bertrand Russell's famous phrase from his essay "A Free Man's Worship")?
Is this a deduction from the above? Anyway, here we do have a two-edged sword. I grew up dealing with the problem of evil/suffering by recognizing that compared to eternity the suffering endured during this time of trial is merely a blip. There would be a righting of wrongs, so to speak. Interestingly the thing that threw a wrench into it for me was Orthodox Christian doctrine. Suddenly not only did I not have my means of rationalizing much of the suffering that happens, but I had to reason with something even more terrible awaiting the sufferer in the next life!
quote:
4) Doesn't quibbling about "God and evil" really trivialize and debase actual person's whom experience tremendous pain, loss and death? Isn't exploiting cases of the victims of evil simply callous and immoral? Isn't it absurd to spend time agonizing over this philosophical problem when there are alot of people in the world today who agonize over how they will get their next meal; and/or the meal for their children? Or person's who die of leprosy in isolation from their family and friends?
For me it's absurd if ALL we do is sit around quibbling about it. Philosophy without real-world action is definitely absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 5:31:03 AM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
It isn't equally incumbent because they don't assert a sentient (moral) agent behind it all. That's the whole reason there is such thing as a "problem of evil", so it is not a double-edged sword.
In fact, the atheist does posit a sentient (moral) agent behind all the evil in the world: humans.
I guess it would be just as valid to say that because "evil" exists, that mankind, by the same logic, must not exist either.
quote:
Is this a deduction from the above? Anyway, here we do have a two-edged sword. I grew up dealing with the problem of evil/suffering by recognizing that compared to eternity the suffering endured during this time of trial is merely a blip. There would be a righting of wrongs, so to speak. Interestingly the thing that threw a wrench into it for me was Orthodox Christian doctrine. Suddenly not only did I not have my means of rationalizing much of the suffering that happens, but I had to reason with something even more terrible awaiting the sufferer in the next life!
I spent my childhood watching my mother slowly die; which occurred sometime before my 16th birthday. And even before that, I had already seen 2 grandfathers and a maternal aunt and uncle die and I lived through a harsh divorce; and an even harsher remarriage with the stereo-typical "wicked stepmother": all by the time I was 11 years old.
But the details of my rough and tumble twenty-something years I will leave out: but it was the harshest of all.
So when I hear atheists begin to decry "evil" as the reason they don't believe in God, I wonder "what actual evil have they experienced personally?"
Simply pondering hypothetical scenario's with armchair angst is hardly the sort of "evil" that I've seen and witnessed. In fact, the Super-8 reels taken during my childhood, which my family had transposed onto DVD, are so sad; especially the parts during Christmas where my Dad is trying to coax us into singing Christmas songs, while my mom and aunt sit sickly in their wheel chairs with M.S. ataxia and...my dear maternal granddad (who died of a stroke not long after this particular occasion) looking grave and listening to all the spiritless and joyless formalities of his grandkids singing.....
It would make even you cry; which is why I won't ever look at those Super-8's again.
When I ask myself, "why does that bother me so much?", as an atheist I could say, "well, that's just the way natural selection worked....to weed out my family, which was not deemed fit for biological survival" or "that's just the way that Einstein's 'god' has rolled the dice", and therefore it's foolish to be bothered by it at all.
Yet, that doesn't explain why I'm bothered. I could then say, "well, certain neural synapses are firing at such and such location in my physical brain, which then triggers nerve responses that are channeled through my spinal cord, ending finally in the over-production of stomach acid, causing an upset stomach...meanwhile, the serotonin levels in my brain are short circuited, leaving me cycling between states of major depression and moderate anxiety, etc.
That's the purely "biological" explanation for why I might be feeling a certain way; but that's not really what I'm asking at all. Rather, I'm asking why it is I should be bothered/upset in the first place.
As a theist, I think I have a good reason: I'm bothered because those events are not "natural", in the "moral" sense. Or, if you prefer to think in terms of biological evolution, they aren't natural to "survival" (in general). So why should there be death, on this presupposition, to begin with?
Which brings me back to my point: how do you account for the presence of evil, if there's no God; in terms of both origin (how it came to be) and nature (what "it" is)?
quote:
For me it's absurd if ALL we do is sit around quibbling about it. Philosophy without real-world action is definitely absurd.
So what sort of "action" do you propose we do; like when you have a relative dying of terminal cancer, with a life-expectancy of 6-8 months? What are you going to tell them to bring them comfort? Maybe:
"Don't worry about all the misery and suffering you're going through now because you're going into an oblivion of non-existence soon" or "You're not going to make it, but don't worry, someday there will be a cure for cancer for somebody else" or "maybe science will be able to reanimate you", and the always popular "Don't worry about my anguish over losing you, because I too will forget all about you when I slip into the oblivion of non-existence".
If there is no God, then all you have is absurdity. There is no rhyme or reason to human existence. Hitler and Mother Teresa are morally equivalent because atomic particles only have positive or negative charges; in the case of neutrons, none. But atomic particles have no such qualities as "just", "good", "right" or "bad", "wrong" and "evil"; at least, that's what the latest Chemistry textbooks indicate.
Even worse, there's no point in even raising a point about the "problem with god". All questions, even scientific ones, are futile and meaningless, on the assumption of atheism.
But when the atheist is fast charging in his/her insistence of developing "medicines" and "cures" for the sick and dying, he/she has left the realm of atheism altogether, and has begun to take the first few steps towards a very religious concept: redemption.
What principle, extrapolated from the workings of the physical universe, can amount to justifying (in a non-question begging way) the idea of helping and saving others, if there is no God?
A trivial point I wanted to raise:
My last post was not a "formal" syllogistic argument. Rather, I was making individual points/arguments, that I happened to number 1, 2, 3, etc. I apologize if I'm not a good text-booky Aristotelian.
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 6/23/2008 5:37:25 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 11:04:55 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 302
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
quote:
It isn't equally incumbent because they don't assert a sentient (moral) agent behind it all. That's the whole reason there is such thing as a "problem of evil", so it is not a double-edged sword.
In fact, the atheist does posit a sentient (moral) agent behind all the evil in the world: humans.
In that case it's easy: humans are driven by a multidude of desires, some of which lead them to do bad things to others. But do you really understand the problem of evil?
I guess it would be just as valid to say that because "evil" exists, that mankind, by the same logic, must not exist either.
Not sure what you're saying here.
...
I'm sorry about the troubles you went through. But are you saying that because of bad things that happened to you, others aren't able comment on evil/suffering? I don't understand where you're coming from, I guess.
When I ask myself, "why does that bother me so much?", as an atheist I could say, "well, that's just the way natural selection worked....to weed out my family, which was not deemed fit for biological survival" or "that's just the way that Einstein's 'god' has rolled the dice", and therefore it's foolish to be bothered by it at all.
But you could also possibly deal with it better. If you're an atheist, you're not under obligation to find the dreariest way you can of explaining things.
As a theist, I think I have a good reason: I'm bothered because those events are not "natural", in the "moral" sense. Or, if you prefer to think in terms of biological evolution, they aren't natural to "survival" (in general). So why should there be death, on this presupposition, to begin with?
Again I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. Why shouldn't there be death? In some ways it would be nice if there weren't, but if births continued and deaths ceased....
Which brings me back to my point: how do you account for the presence of evil, if there's no God; in terms of both origin (how it came to be) and nature (what "it" is)?
If I understand you right, I think you're overanalyzing. Selfishness, fear, and anger are human traits. I mean, what kind of answer are you looking for? We're too much like the regular chimp and not enough like the bonobo.
quote:
For me it's absurd if ALL we do is sit around quibbling about it. Philosophy without real-world action is definitely absurd.
So what sort of "action" do you propose we do; like when you have a relative dying of terminal cancer, with a life-expectancy of 6-8 months? What are you going to tell them to bring them comfort?
So if the quibbling ceased that would make a difference?
Maybe:
"Don't worry about all the misery and suffering you're going through now because you're going into an oblivion of non-existence soon" or "You're not going to make it, but don't worry, someday there will be a cure for cancer for somebody else" or "maybe science will be able to reanimate you", and the always popular "Don't worry about my anguish over losing you, because I too will forget all about you when I slip into the oblivion of non-existence".
Yeah that sounds about right.  What words of comfort would you give a Muslim friend dying of cancer?
If there is no God, then all you have is absurdity. There is no rhyme or reason to human existence. Hitler and Mother Teresa are morally equivalent because atomic particles only have positive or negative charges; in the case of neutrons, none. But atomic particles have no such qualities as "just", "good", "right" or "bad", "wrong" and "evil"; at least, that's what the latest Chemistry textbooks indicate.
Even worse, there's no point in even raising a point about the "problem with god". All questions, even scientific ones, are futile and meaningless, on the assumption of atheism.
Now would be a good time to point out that your entire post has had zero relevance to the truthfulness of theism. Insted it has been an emotional attempt to show how much more palatable it is. I don't discount such things out of hand, but really it just seems strange debating it.
But when the atheist is fast charging in his/her insistence of developing "medicines" and "cures" for the sick and dying, he/she has left the realm of atheism altogether, and has begun to take the first few steps towards a very religious concept: redemption.
Don't understand.
What principle, extrapolated from the workings of the physical universe, can amount to justifying (in a non-question begging way) the idea of helping and saving others, if there is no God?
What principle, extrapolated from anywhere, can justify (in a non-question-begging way) anything? How can I be sure I exist? What if I'm just a brain in a vat?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 11:30:24 AM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 557
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
I would have to believe that answering this question requires us to ask ourselves a question.
Are we trying to answer the questions by creating God in OUR image?
That in itself doesn't make the hard questions go away, nor does it make the answers we have come to understand any easier.
I do think that God gives answers to our questions, I'm just not so sure we like the answers we get.
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 11:44:21 AM
|
|
|
Leo71
Posts: 43
Joined: 6/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
seems this is a question many folks deal with both here and in our localities, so here's a thread on it.
i'm personally not over concerned with the question, or those asking the question - but maybe the reason it has to be asked, and the status-quo answers often cited.
the question is usually centered around "if god was good, then why is there suffering" - "why is there a hell" - "why do children die" - "why doesn't god show up and fix this mess" - "i can't worship a god who claims to be love and good and determines before hand to create something intentionally to be destroyed" - etc
the typical answer is normally along the lines of "god is love, and god is good, but god is also just" - "god must punish sin" - etc - however, i'm not certain that this response really answers the question.
what are your thoughts? how do you respond?
Wow! You know, I was just in Chat a few moments ago, and I was questioning certain things myself with regard to this very subject. Anyway, I'm brand new to the boards here. Hi everybody. *waves*
My main beef is the reasoning God had for creating all of us with free will, knowing far in advance what we were going to do, yet He still got angry and destroyed the Earth with a flood the first time. But Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord, and he ended up repopulating the Earth... Only once it was repopulated, we were bound to anger the Lord again! And so this time, the world will end by fire, and then the new beginning and so forth..
Well, I'd actually intended to stick around and post a little more, but it looks as though I'm out of time for now. I'll see you all a bit later, okay? Nice to meet you, by the way.
Peace~
_____________________________
What you did yesterday is your reputation.
What you do today is your future.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 1:06:30 PM
|
|
|
Leo71
Posts: 43
Joined: 6/23/2008
Status: offline
|
Alright, I'm back again for the time being. Now I can see from some of the very indepth discussions transpiring in this thread that it's hardly a simple subject to approach in the first place. Some of you are very deep indeed where this is concerned, and have endeavored to answer all or most of the commonly asked questions as succinctly as possible.
What I propose to some of the questions, as well as my own, however, is that we all as believers in Christ actually sit still for a moment and listen to that quiet voice within our own beings. That voice, I believe, is the Spirit of God talking to us. That being the case, I feel that God is telling us a great many things about these problematic scenarios:
1.) He will never leave us nor forsake us.
2.) We can do all things through Christ Who strengthens us.
3.) In His name, we can do all of His works and greater, because He has gone to the right hand of the throne of God.
All of that brings up a question of our personal faith. Now we all agree with the Scripture that tells us that even the faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. But how seriously do we take that? Are we TRULY believing in God's word, or simply professing a faith that we don't actually have?
Jesus came and died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and has promised to return to end the curse. Since He was considered to be the Second Adam, that tells me that the dominion over all the Earth which the first Adam failed to uphold is now available again... through Christ Jesus! That means every last thing that Jesus did on Earth while He was here in the flesh can now be demonstrated by us in His name, as long as we truly believe and have accepted Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, thereby opening ourselves up to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Who is also an essential part of the Godhead (or Trinity, as some of us prefer).
So we are now responsible to go and be a blessing to all. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. WE can heal the sick, through the fervent prayers of the righteous (that being us, if we maintain a "right" relationship with God); WE can cast out demons in His name; WE can raise the dead in His name; WE can restore sight to the blind and many other things demonstrated by Christ on Earth... all in His name. Yet too many of us are guilty of not incorporating or accessing this divine authority on Earth, which makes us the same as our original ancestor, the first Adam.
We are too easily beset by our own troubles, and subject to despair because of the tribulations we see and hear about in the world. I, too, am not exempt from questioning the Creator of the universe, as all of you have already witnessed from my original post prior to this one. I am wrong for being upset with God for creating us in the first place, knowing that we would disappoint Him time and time again. Because NOW we have an opportunity to reclaim dominion over the Earth as believers in Christ Jesus!
Jesus has bridged the gap between Man and God, which was broken because of sin. That is the whole reason behind what Jesus said in the Gospels, I believe: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." This is something to keep in mind at all times, of course. I myself am guilty of not doing that, because I've allowed myself to fall back into sin on too many occasions, and as a result have neglected my prayer life. My personal relationship with God through His only begotten Son has recently diminished.
Now I'm looking to reestablish that precious link. Have to get self out of the way first, though. As John the Baptist once said, "He must increase. But I must decrease." In order to stem the flow of troubles and suffering on every side, we are called to take up our crosses and follow Jesus. For the battle is not ours; it's the Lord's.
Amen.
< Message edited by Leo71 -- 6/23/2008 1:16:10 PM >
_____________________________
What you did yesterday is your reputation.
What you do today is your future.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 1:07:57 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
In that case it's easy: humans are driven by a multidude of desires, some of which lead them to do bad things to others. But do you really understand the problem of evil?
I think I understand it much better than you; both philosophically and existentially.
The problem with atheism is it's inability to render "evil" as a "problem" at all; because if the entire universe just "is" (fact), where do you get the idea of superimposing the notion of "ought to be" (value) onto it? Or how can you pull (i.e. extrapolate) a non-physical notion (i.e. value) from the varied combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons? Or a strong/weak nuclear force? Or gravitational attraction? Or magnetic repulsion?
Atheism rests on the metaphysical foundation of "naturalism" or "physicalism". This foundation does not support, rationally speaking, non-physical categories. At best, seemingly "non-physical" realities can be thought to be reduced down to some "physical" or "natural" state/disposition; but then, the claim of "valuation" of the "physical" leaves you with just brute fact (i.e. only what "is"). Therefore, there really cannot be a distinction between "good" and "evil", on the assumption of atheism; and therefore no objection at all.
quote:
But you could also possibly deal with it better. If you're an atheist, you're not under obligation to find the dreariest way you can of explaining things.
And atheists have the most glowing remarks about theism/Christianity? So atheists, like Fox News Channel, really are "fair and balanced"? I'm sure atheists love to think of themselves as such, but....
quote:
Not sure what you're saying here.
Again I'm not sure what exactly you're saying.
Don't understand.
Is it really the case that you didn't understand my remarks? Or is it the case that you don't have an answer to them?
quote:
Now would be a good time to point out that your entire post has had zero relevance to the truthfulness of theism. Insted it has been an emotional attempt to show how much more palatable it is. I don't discount such things out of hand, but really it just seems strange debating it.
On the contrary, my responses do indeed have relevance to the truthfulness of theism, in this regard: the bankruptcy of atheism makes some type of theism necessary, de re.
And if you really thought that my post had "zero relevance to the truthfulness of theism", then why did you bother to respond at all? What I think is that your comment has "zero truthfulness".
quote:
What principle, extrapolated from anywhere, can justify (in a non-question-begging way) anything? How can I be sure I exist? What if I'm just a brain in a vat?
Wait a minute.....are you, or are you not, a "skeptic"?
Secondly, you want to take us on a trip to see the beautiful "red herrings" at Lake Confusion. If you don't feel the need to "justify" any of your beliefs, then how dare you ask the theist to give more than you yourself are willing to?
If you really feel that no beliefs (or all beliefs) are equally valid/invalid, because of the arbitrary nature of adopting epistemic first-principles, then how could you possibly think that you or I could reason about anything?
Finally, I still wonder whether you, or any atheist, really know anything personally about "evil" that would have any weight, in terms of sincerely felt personal "injustices", in really making your belief in God hard to accept. It seems to me that you, and your philosophical ilk, can only reason about an abstracted "evil"; and even when you talk about horrendous "evil", it's always in the third person. My biographical sketch, as well as my comments that aimed at challenging the sincerity of the atheist, were only intended to point out that I, above most or all atheists, have really seen some ugly stuff in life (i.e. evil). Yet, I fail to see how "evil" scandalizes my belief in God.
But you, as a person detached from personal suffering, want to exploit the "real" sufferings of people in order to build a philosophical case against God. Shame on you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 8:26:16 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 302
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
quote:
In that case it's easy: humans are driven by a multidude of desires, some of which lead them to do bad things to others. But do you really understand the problem of evil?
I think I understand it much better than you; both philosophically and existentially.
"The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God, a force for infinite good." So where, then, is the double-edged sword?
The problem with atheism is it's inability to render "evil" as a "problem" at all; because if the entire universe just "is" (fact), where do you get the idea of superimposing the notion of "ought to be" (value) onto it? Or how can you pull (i.e. extrapolate) a non-physical notion (i.e. value) from the varied combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons? Or a strong/weak nuclear force? Or gravitational attraction? Or magnetic repulsion?
Really now. So if a man is raping an atheist, she's in no position to protest? If an atheist sees it happening, he's in no position to intervene, because neither of them has a certain belief? People who don't share your belief in God aren't able to make value judgements? I've seen this kind of rubbish quite a bit and I can never understand how intelligent people can make claims like this.
Atheism rests on the metaphysical foundation of "naturalism" or "physicalism". This foundation does not support, rationally speaking, non-physical categories. At best, seemingly "non-physical" realities can be thought to be reduced down to some "physical" or "natural" state/disposition; but then, the claim of "valuation" of the "physical" leaves you with just brute fact (i.e. only what "is"). Therefore, there really cannot be a distinction between "good" and "evil", on the assumption of atheism; and therefore no objection at all.
More over-analyzed, overly reductionist rubbish. Be sure to get out in the real world now and then.
quote:
But you could also possibly deal with it better. If you're an atheist, you're not under obligation to find the dreariest way you can of explaining things.
And atheists have the most glowing remarks about theism/Christianity? So atheists, like Fox News Channel, really are "fair and balanced"? I'm sure atheists love to think of themselves as such, but....
Not what I meant. I meant that if you were, in fact, an atheist, you wouldn't be under obligation to look at your own situation in the dreariest possible terms.
quote:
Not sure what you're saying here.
Again I'm not sure what exactly you're saying.
Don't understand.
Is it really the case that you didn't understand my remarks? Or is it the case that you don't have an answer to them?
No I really didn't follow.
quote:
Now would be a good time to point out that your entire post has had zero relevance to the truthfulness of theism. Insted it has been an emotional attempt to show how much more palatable it is. I don't discount such things out of hand, but really it just seems strange debating it.
On the contrary, my responses do indeed have relevance to the truthfulness of theism, in this regard: the bankruptcy of atheism makes some type of theism necessary, de re.
You're saying that the dreariness of athiesm proves that there must be a God?
And if you really thought that my post had "zero relevance to the truthfulness of theism", then why did you bother to respond at all? What I think is that your comment has "zero truthfulness".
An exploration of which belief set provides the greatest comfort and meaning is not an exploration of truthfulness. As I said before I don't dismiss this kind of thing out of hand, but let's call it what it is.
The only question I really care if you answer is this: What words of comfort would you give a Muslim friend dying of cancer?
Secondly, you want to take us on a trip to see the beautiful "red herrings" at Lake Confusion. If you don't feel the need to "justify" any of your beliefs, then how dare you ask the theist to give more than you yourself are willing to?
Which beliefs are you talking about now?
If you really feel that no beliefs (or all beliefs) are equally valid/invalid, because of the arbitrary nature of adopting epistemic first-principles, then how could you possibly think that you or I could reason about anything?
Did I say that? Well anyway, it's through reasoning--alone and with others, that beliefs are formed/strengthened/challenged. So what's wrong with what we're doing?
Finally, I still wonder whether you, or any atheist, really know anything personally about "evil" that would have any weight, in terms of sincerely felt personal "injustices", in really making your belief in God hard to accept. It seems to me that you, and your philosophical ilk, can only reason about an abstracted "evil"; and even when you talk about horrendous "evil", it's always in the third person. My biographical sketch, as well as my comments that aimed at challenging the sincerity of the atheist, were only intended to point out that I, above most or all atheists, have really seen some ugly stuff in life (i.e. evil). Yet, I fail to see how "evil" scandalizes my belief in God.
But you, as a person detached from personal suffering, want to exploit the "real" sufferings of people in order to build a philosophical case against God. Shame on you.
Get off your high horse. Why in the world would you call me "a person detached from personal suffering"?
< Message edited by abraxas -- 6/23/2008 8:38:50 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/23/2008 8:34:33 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only question I really care if you answer is this: What words of comfort would you give a Muslim friend dying of cancer?
I would say this:
"God bless and keep you, friend, as you enter into the beauty of His presence".
But that's exactly what I would say to you too....or anyone, for that matter.
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 6/23/2008 8:40:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/24/2008 12:35:21 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 302
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
If you can withhold some details of your belief, I suppose an atheist could to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/24/2008 12:06:08 PM
|
|
|
blue1914
Posts: 407
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
the question is usually centered around "if god was good, then why is there suffering" - "why is there a hell" - "why do children die" - "why doesn't god show up and fix this mess" - "i can't worship a god who claims to be love and good and determines before hand to create something intentionally to be destroyed" - etc
the typical answer is normally along the lines of "god is love, and god is good, but god is also just" - "god must punish sin" - etc - however, i'm not certain that this response really answers the question.
what are your thoughts? how do you respond?
I think I'm glad that He does not "show up to clean up the mess" as a "clean slate" would not go well for humans, and here's what I mean.
God gave very clear instructions from day one-this one thing is sin, do sin and you will die-period. When Adam and Eve chose to sin, they condemned themselves to death-period. INSTEAD of the PHYSICAL death that they very much deserved, God instead chose to allow them only spiritual death and separation from Him-in other words, another chance (though physical death also entered the world in this manner as well). Unfortunately, since they did sin, there was a consequence-that was the curse that God pronounced-and we've been living under it ever since.
Now if God were truly to set everything right, He would come down and wipe everything and everyone out-we messed up and now we deserve to pay the price. Since He did not, this world remains again that second chance that we all now get.
The problem with a lot of folks is that we concentrate on the parts of the "Story" that appear unfair-the suffering, etc. etc. We rarely stack that up against the real deal-the fact that for ETERNITY (a very long time) we will live as God intended-ALL because He gave us a second chance.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/25/2008 3:54:20 AM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
But now I will address the complete foolishness of what people believe the so-called "problem of evil" can actually prove.
The argument, classically stated, goes:
If God is all-powerful, then He could prevent evil.
If God is all-good, then He would prevent evil.
But evil exists.
Therefore, either God is not omnipotent or He is not omnibenevolent.
All other "arguments" based on the "problem of evil" are mere recitations and footnotes to the Euthyphro dilemma; taken from Plato's dialogue of the same name.
But what does this really "prove".
At best, it may mean that a "traditional" concept of God needs to be abandoned. But notice what it cannot do: abandon the concept of God altogether; which is what it supposedly does.
Ok, so we have an "evil god" or an "impotent god"; but to get to the conclusion of "no god", you will have to look elsewhere. Perhaps a magicians hat?
Alvin Plantinga has done a great service in refuting the "deductive problem of evil" in his God, Freedom and Evil; such that many atheists have abandoned this approach, opting for the "inductive problem of evil".
And with a "probablistic" type refutation...well, it lacks any formal validity, of course. At best, this argument has "force", depending on your emotional state. In other words, based upon a severely limited observation of the world, the existence of God doesn't feel right, given my limited observations of these particular evils (whatever they might be). Therefore, probably God doesn't exist?!
Does this sound silly? Even if we dressed this argument up in more "serious" clothing, the bruise of absurdity doesn't vanish.
Going back to my original point:
Abraxas cannot even begin to give us some definition of what "evil" is, let alone how he can derive values from the physical states of the material world, given his "naturalist" point of view.
In other words, Abraxas is not a philosopher so much as he is a philodoxer. He opines to no end and can't/won't begin to answer some hard questions regarding his own world-view. His thinking is merely parasitic. So, when asked to "be the man" and give us an account of how the world can be as he say it is, his wallet is empty. Which is what I already noted: the bankruptcy of atheism.
But Abraxas still wants free lunches.
In fact, he even goes so far as to boldly withhold his answers from us, with "if you could withhold some of the details of your belief, I suppose an atheist could too"
Compared to me, you're silent Sam. I haven't withheld "details". And I even answered your question, at your behest.
You, on the other hand, haven't even begun to answer my prior posts. In fact, I'm not sure you really understood the subtlety of my points; which you didn't even respond adequately to.
I won't rehash what I said, except this:
Is chopping a tree in half and chopping a human in half, morally equivalent situations, given the fact that trees and humans are comprised (basically) of the same material "stuff"? Whether you answer is "yes" or "no", I want to know why you think so.
I acquiesced to your question. Now, I expect that you will be honorable and grant the same to my question.
Otherwise, it is really starting to look like you take your atheism on "faith"!!
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 6/25/2008 4:03:51 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: the problem with god - 6/25/2008 10:10:49 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 302
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Compare your comments on what an atheist might say to a dying friend:
"Don't worry about all the misery and suffering you're going through now because you're going into an oblivion of non-existence soon" or "You're not going to make it, but don't worry, someday there will be a cure for cancer for somebody else" or "maybe science will be able to reanimate you", and the always popular "Don't worry about my anguish over losing you, because I too will forget all about you when I slip into the oblivion of non-existence".
With what you say you would say to a dying Muslim or atheist friend:
"God bless and keep you, friend, as you enter into the beauty of His presence".
A nice thing to say, really. Much kinder than what you expect the atheist to say. No mention of eternal Hell, which I hate to assume but what exactly are your thoughts about the fate of a Muslim or an atheist in the next life? I'm aware of a certain lack of wiggle room where Christian doctrine is concerned. Why must the atheist take off the gloves with his dying friend, when you don’t need to? As far as I can tell, you’re either a Universalist or you’re being very hypocritical here.
As for a definition of evil, please feel free to present one that is air-tight. In the meantime, go back and reconsider my questions regarding the person being raped. Is she, or the person observing her, in some kind of metaphysical quandary? NO! Does a Christian observe the act, refer mentally to his scriptures before deciding what value to place on what he’s seeing? NO! Really the whole notion is just dumb and you as a believer do NOT have a stronger hold on concepts of good and evil simply because you believe there is an absolute moral standard. If you can’t objectively demonstrate this moral standard all you have is what is available to anyone—one’s own personal opinion.
Okay, carry on.
Oh, and I don't take my atheism on faith, I take my agnosticism on faith. 
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
