Design

[inocente]

It doesn’t.

As convoluted as the reasoning is, the post does provide us with an opportunity for further clarity in regards to the “question of evil”.

Fact is that there is enough in this world to feed everyone. The fuel driving the political systems that keep this current state of affairs going, are power, greed and fear, rooted in sin, an absence of love. As revealed in the parable of the fishes and loaves, all we need to do is come together and share in the bounty God provides for all of us, He will do the rest. It is “designed” to be so. Let’s get cracking on that.

I’m being told that for tens of thousands of years, the intelligent designer has designed famines for the greater good. So if it’s for the greater good, we ought not meddle.

Please explain why you think my reasoning is convoluted.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, but then I don’t believe in intelligent design, much less in a designer who designs famines for the greater good. And that is what I’m being told: “natural disasters, illness, mutations, etc. are willed by God …] He can and does cause material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it”.

Perhaps I’m slow on the uptake, but I just don’t get what the problem is for anyone coming from a Christian background. God willed that his own Son should die by the most agonizing from of capital punishment ever devised. He willed it: “If this cup cannot pass me by but I must drink, thy will be done.”

And then we are up in arms over the notion that we form part and parcel of the same will?

For an atheist/agnostic I understand that it makes no sense, either for Christ to die or any human being to suffer a toothache. I get it that our soft, materialistic western hedonism sees any kind of suffering as an outrage. We are supposed to be happy. There is no afterlife. Therefore we should have as pleasant and comfortable an existence as possible in the 80-odd years we live on this planet.

For a Christian however the basic premise is that this life is not paradise. The next life will be, if we have conformed ourselves to God’s plan for our redemption. Physical suffering is not necessarily a scandal but can be very beneficial - the crucifixion, remember?

I believe famines are not part of any design or any plan, they cause pointless suffering, they are purposeless. That seems blindingly obvious to me, and Jesus just like us wants to feed the hungry, not make famines for tens of thousands of years for some unknowable greater good. I do not believe that it is “very beneficial” that for tens of thousands of years people have died in famines. There is an obvious difference from the message of the cross - they did not choose to suffer as the means to the ends of the intelligent designer’s greater good. There’s a spiritual famine somewhere, and it seems to be centered on downtown Seattle, home of the Discovery Institute.

 

[inocente]

You also attributed the claim of everything being designed to the Discovery Institute. You stated this in post 695:

“That’s the logical conclusion of God designing everything, the gospel according to the Discovery Institute. Truth contradicts truth.”

The Discovery Institute clearly says that “some” features are designed.

That’s not what others tell me, why don’t you sort it out with them? As I said, I’m a Christian and have no interest in pseudo religions like the Discovery Institute.

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s go back to the aliens. If they existed and they had designed our world as it is and programmed all that happens, and then punished people for disobeying a few inconsequential rules in a manner totally out of proportion to the ‘crime’, then we would all agree that they were evil incarnate.

If you really had a grasp on how the world operates and were asked if it were the work of a benevolent deity or a sadistic adolescent alien, then I know which I would choose

Does the amount of suffering in the world outweigh the value of life?

 

[tonyrey]

… If you discovered that an alien race was actually controlling our existence, deciding who lived and who died, causing pain and anguish because it served some unknowable ‘greater good’, wouldn’t you be horrified?

Our existence is not controlled by the Creator but determined by natural laws, our decisions and the decisions of others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I had a look at the CCC, which says the problem of evil is a mystery for which there are no quick answers. The Good News from the Discovery Institute doesn’t seem to have reached the Church yet.

What Good News from the Discovery Institute?

That there appears to be an intelligent design behind the universe?

I didn’t know that the Discovery Institute had addressed the problem of evil.

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Would Newton qualify as a member of the Discovery Institute?

George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
"It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities … that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

Charles Darwin Biologist
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Would Newton, Wald, and Darwin qualify as Satanists for saying such things?

 

[tonyrey]

Would we prefer that we never existed? Never had that beautiful child? Never married that wonderful woman? Wished they never existed, as well?

I’m with Wordsworth in answering these questions for those who survive loved ones:
What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind;
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.
No analogy is perfect but this life to me resembles the backyard sandbox, a place where a loving parent puts their child knowing that in that place nobody really ever gets hurt. The bullies may take your toys, Freddy may throw sand in your face, Mary may sit next to someone else to your dismay but no one in the sandbox can take your life, no one in this life can take control of your immortal soul. Henley got that right, as well (“Invictus”).

“Would we prefer that we never existed?” That is the key question the sceptic never answers!

 

[tonyrey]

You also attributed the claim of everything being designed to the Discovery Institute. You stated this in post 695:

“That’s the logical conclusion of God designing everything, the gospel according to the Discovery Institute. Truth contradicts truth.”

The Discovery Institute clearly says that “some” features are designed.

Indisputable!

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t believe that you’re addressing any correct characterization of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design does not involve everything being designed but only certain features. Morality need not apply. Clearly, there are things that are “designed” by humans and other animals. Read directly from Discovery Institute here (Q/A section about Intelligent Design).

I really find it hard to believe that all major aspects of intelligent design are false or unreasonable, although I’m aware that hype and popular media may make it seem that way. I’m open to accepting some aspects of intelligent design if there is a way to rule out time/natural selection.

Time/natural selection is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of rational beings…

 

[tonyrey]

Everyone attains nirvana eventually, though some will take longer than others. It is an error to mistake nirvana for extinction; an error commonly made by earlier Western interpreters of Buddhism. Modern interpreters are better at not making that mistake.

Yes it is a blessing. Old age is suffering. Disease is suffering. Death is suffering. You like dying? You like seeing your friends and family get ill and die? Again and again and again and again…? Avoiding that would seem to be a good thing to do.

Buddhism is too negative and one-sided in its view of this life. Old age has advantages as well as disadvantages and is far from being nothing but suffering.

As to the state of the Buddha after his final death:

• It is incorrect to say that the Buddha exists.

• It is incorrect to say that the Buddha does not exist.

• It is incorrect to say that the Buddha both exists and does not exist.

• It is incorrect to say that the Buddha neither exists nor does not exist.

Describing nirvana with words is about as useful as trying to learn to swim just by reading books without actually getting into the water.

In that case it is akin to belief in God!

The Bible seems to disagree. God directly drowned most of the population of a large area (or of the whole Earth) in the flood. He directly killed firstborn Egyptians because He Himself had made Pharaoh refuse to free the Hebrews. He directly ordered the killing of pregnant Amalekite and Midianite women.

I will grant you that Jesus did not directly kill anyone, which is not very surprising since most Buddhists consider Him to have been a Bodhisattva.

Only Fundamentalists believe every interpretation of events in the Old Testament is historical fact…

 

[tonyrey]

What Good News from the Discovery Institute?

That there appears to be an intelligent design behind the universe?

I didn’t know that the Discovery Institute had addressed the problem of evil.

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Would Newton qualify as a member of the Discovery Institute?

George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
"It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities … that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

Charles Darwin Biologist
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Would Newton, Wald, and Darwin qualify as Satanists for saying such things?

Darwin of all people!

 

[Bradski]

“Would we prefer that we never existed?” That is the key question the sceptic never answers!

I don’t know why all these people in Sudan are whinging. I mean, some of their kids got to live quite a few weeks before dying of hunger.

Some people have no gratitude.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know why all these people in Sudan are whinging. I mean, some of their kids got to live quite a few weeks before dying of hunger.

Some people have no gratitude.

It’s not as if Jesus did not feel their pain … and then some when he hung on the cross.

 

[Bradski]

It’s not as if Jesus did not feel their pain …

I’m sure it gives them so much comfort to know that.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m sure it gives them so much comfort to know that.

Given such circumstances, it most definitely is consoling to know that God is with us, that He knows of our suffering, that we do not die alone and that He will be there to welcome us in the end.

Of what worth is your pity, cynicism and anger?

 

[Aloysium]

I’m being told that for tens of thousands of years, the intelligent designer has designed famines for the greater good. So if it’s for the greater good, we ought not meddle.

Please explain why you think my reasoning is convoluted.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, but then I don’t believe in intelligent design, much less in a designer who designs famines for the greater good. And that is what I’m being told: “natural disasters, illness, mutations, etc. are willed by God …] He can and does cause material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it”…

I agree with you that God does not “design famines for the greater good”.
I understand that you have heard some say this absurdity, but I never have, anywhere actually.
What is claimed is that God transforms our suffering, the outcome of our damaged relationship with Him, into joy. Through His grace, we can find our eternal home in Him.

From the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-10):
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

John 16:19-22 - Aware that they wanted to ask Him, Jesus said to them, “Are you asking one another why I said, ‘In a little while you will not see Me, and then after a little while you will see Me’? Truly, truly, I tell you, you will weep and wail while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman has pain in childbirth because her time has come; but when she brings forth her child, she forgets her anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.

The reasoning is convoluted in that:

• it muddies the meaning of design as it is being used by posters on this thread
• it exhibits a misunderstanding and is a misrepresention of what people are trying to assert.
• by referencing ID and the Discovery Institute it turns the argument into a strawman
• God’s being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolvent does not imply that famines are good or that He wills “material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it.” It is only you who has expressed this from what I have been reading. If this is incorrect, please link the post where this is said.

 

[Bradski]

Given such circumstances, it most definitely is consoling to know that God is with us, that He knows of our suffering, that we do not die alone and that He will be there to welcome us in the end.

Of what worth is your pity, cynicism and anger?

If I had the power to help them yet did nothing and came out with a few facile platitudes like ‘But hey, I feel their pain’, then cynicism might be the appropriate response.

If I’d actually caused the famine to happen in the first place, then anger might be more appropriate.

Don’t you think, Al?

 

[rossum]

Only Fundamentalists believe every interpretation of events in the Old Testament is historical fact…

Then “Acts of God” are not actually acts of God, but are natural occurrences with no divine intervention.

The ancient Israelites were guilty of horrible crimes when they slaughtered whole tribes and cities on the supposed orders of their God (who actually ordered no such thing).

For the first 1700 years, Christians were guilty of crimes in the killing of witches, again on the supposed orders of their God (who actually ordered no such thing).

Your version of the Christian God sounds a bit like the Deist God, who starts the whole thing going but does not intervene after that.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Then “Acts of God” are not actually acts of God, but are natural occurrences with no divine intervention.

The ancient Israelites were guilty of horrible crimes when they slaughtered whole tribes and cities on the supposed orders of their God (who actually ordered no such thing).

For the first 1700 years, Christians were guilty of crimes in the killing of witches, again on the supposed orders of their God (who actually ordered no such thing).

Your version of the God sounds a bit like the Deist God, who starts the whole thing going but does not intervene after that.

The misinterpretation and misuse of religion does not imply religion is false. Christians, Hindus, Jews and Moslems believe God answers prayers.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you that God does not “design famines for the greater good”.
I understand that you have heard some say this absurdity, but I never have, anywhere actually.
What is claimed is that God transforms our suffering, the outcome of our damaged relationship with Him, into joy. Through His grace, we can find our eternal home in Him.

From the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-10):
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

John 16:19-22 - Aware that they wanted to ask Him, Jesus said to them, “Are you asking one another why I said, ‘In a little while you will not see Me, and then after a little while you will see Me’? Truly, truly, I tell you, you will weep and wail while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman has pain in childbirth because her time has come; but when she brings forth her child, she forgets her anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.

The reasoning is convoluted in that:

• it muddies the meaning of design as it is being used by posters on this thread
• it exhibits a misunderstanding and is a misrepresention of what people are trying to assert.
• by referencing ID and the Discovery Institute it turns the argument into a strawman
• God’s being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolvent does not imply that famines are good or that He wills “material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it.” It is only you who has expressed this from what I have been reading. If this is incorrect, please link the post where this is said.

To reject Design implies God creates the universe for no reason or purpose!

 

[tonyrey]

Given such circumstances, it most definitely is consoling to know that God is with us, that He knows of our suffering, that we do not die alone and that He will be there to welcome us in the end.

Of what worth is your pity, cynicism and anger?

Scepticism amounts to pessimism, cynicism and defeatism which often cause people to commit suicide especially when they get older or beome afflicted with an incurable disease…