Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[R_Daneel]

We hold children responsible for some things that we don’t hold adults responsible for.

An example, please. And before we go off on a tangent, when I used the word “children”, I mean it before the age of reason.

 

[R_Daneel]

If Bobby builds a tower with his blocks, it is wrong for Joe to push it over. But Bobby can push his own tower over, can’t he?

It is NOT wrong, if Joe is too young to comprehend that the blocks are Bobby’s blocks, and that pushing them over will cause Bobby grief.

 

[R_Daneel]

The proof is existence of our consciences (discrimination and empathy and sympathy) from which we have a sensitivity to others, even as children, and our intelligence with which we reason the order of nature. We also have intuitive perceptions.

Not, not everyone does, and actually no one does before a certain age.

Well actually children, retarded people and animals are sentient, however I can take that to mean those that have not developed the capacity to discriminate right from wrong yet or ever, are not culpable.

Correct. And God does not belong into thies category.

One can say that God knows good and evil (we see this in Genesis 3:22), yet God exists apart from his creation so is of a higher order, and is the creator of the laws of nature. All creatures are subject to the laws of the Creator regardless of if they consider those laws fair or not. Mankind does not judge God rather God judges mankind.

Strongly rejected as an example of “special pleading”. Reason: Catholics assert that there is an absolute, universal morality. If that is the case, then the rules apply to all beings, who can differentiate good from evil. If God is exempt, then you just denied absolute and universal morality.

 

[R_Daneel]

Again, suffering is better understood as a necessary surgery than a torturous punishment.

All you have to do is bring up a compelling and secular explanation for all possible sufferings and show how all these sufferings are necessary to bring forth some greater good, which is impossible to implement without these sufferings, and to prove that none of the sufferings was excessive (meaning that even one miniscule amount of lesser suffering would have negated that “greater good” to come true). The task is rather daunting, I would say. But the ball is in your court.

 

[davidv]

It is NOT wrong, if Joe is too young to comprehend that the blocks are Bobby’s blocks, and that pushing them over will cause Bobby grief.

It is wrong. Wrong is wrong whether your understand it or not. Wrong is wrong whether you understand the consequence or not.

If these two are anything like my children, if they do not understand the difference between mine and yours, it is the parents fault for not properly instructing them.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is wrong. Wrong is wrong whether your understand it or not. Wrong is wrong whether you understand the consequence or not.

If these two are anything like my children, if they do not understand the difference between mine and yours, it is the parents fault for not properly instructing them.

Really? How you do explain “mine” and “yours” to a 2 years old? Such a young child cannot comprehend such a complex concept.

 

[davidv]

Really? How you do explain “mine” and “yours” to a 2 years old? Such a young child cannot comprehend such a complex concept.

Maybe its not as complex as you make it out to be.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

It is NOT wrong, if Joe is too young to comprehend that the blocks are Bobby’s blocks, and that pushing them over will cause Bobby grief.

I agree that Joe’s culpability can be mitigated (or eliminated) if he doesn’t understand what he’s doing. Do you agree that Bobby is in no way culpable for pushing over his own tower?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

All you have to do is bring up a compelling and secular explanation for all possible sufferings and show how all these sufferings are necessary to bring forth some greater good, which is impossible to implement without these sufferings, and to prove that none of the sufferings was excessive (meaning that even one miniscule amount of lesser suffering would have negated that “greater good” to come true). The task is rather daunting, I would say. But the ball is in your court.

I’m not sure you’re following the argument. sinnerdexter is trying to demonstrate that the existence of what he calls unnecessary suffering is incompatible with Christian theology. I was explaining the relevant Christian theology. That’s why I’m not restricting myself to secular explanations – that would seem to be beside the point.

Unless I’m misunderstanding you. If so, please let me know.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Really? How you do explain “mine” and “yours” to a 2 years old? Such a young child cannot comprehend such a complex concept.

My two year old certainly comprehends it. A one year old probably wouldn’t.

 

[reggieM]

An example, please. And before we go off on a tangent, when I used the word “children”, I mean it before the age of reason.

Here’s your original point:

We do not hold children, retarded people or animals resposible, because they are not sentient beings, because their ability to separate right from wrong is lacking. Clearly this does not apply to God. God is superior to us, not inferior. So God must be held to an even higher standard than humans. If it is morally wrong to commit genocide for humans, then it is infinitely more wrong to commit genocide for God.

You’re saying that everyone at the age of reason is held to the same level of responsibility? Children who are dependent upon their parents, have a different level of responsbility than the parents themselves have. They are responsible for different things also. A 16 year old child may have to phone parents when arriving at the football game to let them know they got there safely. An older adult doesn’t have to do that – there are different levels of responsibility.

The only example of this kind of level of responsiblity you came up with is infants and retarded persons (who also have responsibility, depending).

God has a different level and kind of responsiblity than people do. In the same way, parents have different responsiblities than children do.

A 15 year old child (in the U.S.) is doing something wrong by driving a car. An older adult is not.

An 8 year old child is not permitted to break into someone else’s property. A police officer is (in the right conditions).

A 10 year old is not permitted to light sticks of dynamite and explode buildings that do not belong to him. A man working on a demolition team is.

A human being cannot claim with certainty that a person’s death was “the best thing that could have happened to him” but God can.

God has a different level of responsiblity because He has different powers and overview of the meaning and purpose of life and death.

 

[Vico]

Per the Bible, Adam and Eve did not know what not to do, even though they were told. For example, if someone tells you in Chinese not to do something, you’ve been told what not to do but you don’t know what not to do. Anyhow, before eating the fruit Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil and so couldn’t have known that it is good to obey god and sin to disobey god. It is only after they ate the fruit that they realized that they did something “wrong”.

Suffering isn’t evil, true, but causing or allowing unnecessary suffering is evil. Think of the Golden Rule. Now, not only did God allow Adam and Eve to sin (as above, they couldn’t have even known it was a sin), but after that he cursed the whole of creation as a punishment for it, specifically going out of his way to create thorns and such. This punishment would be overly harsh (and so cruel) even for a real crime such as murder.

Ah, but the consequences were not the problem, it was God’s overreaction that was the problem. It’s the difference between warning someone that your cookies are moldy and they’d get sick if they eat them, and hunting them and their children down and torturing them for the rest of their lives for eating your cookie.

We know that Adam knew the command (Genesis 2:17) and Eve knew the command because she repeated it in Genesis 3:3. They did not need to know what good and evil were to obey God.

Disobedience to God is sin which is evil. Adam and Eve had free will. For God to prevent them from sin, he would have to remove free will, and that was not his design, for He created them in His image and likeness. Adam and Eve caused death for all mankind, so Jesus Christ came to attone for that.

 

[Vico]

Not, not everyone does, and actually no one does before a certain age.

Correct. And God does not belong into thies category.

Strongly rejected as an example of “special pleading”. Reason: Catholics assert that there is an absolute, universal morality. If that is the case, then the rules apply to all beings, who can differentiate good from evil. If God is exempt, then you just denied absolute and universal morality.

On the last item: I did not assert absolute and universal morality (moral universalism). God is not subject to his laws as the creator of them.

On the second item: sure, God knows good and evil, Genesis 3:22

“And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”

On the first item:

Vico: "You wrote: “And knowing about the crime to be committed, but failing to notify the authorities would be “aiding and abetting” that crime. There is no lack of notification, the authority is God, and God repays.”
RD: “Can you offer some actual “proof” for this, besides your faith in some ancient texts? Obviously not.”
Vico: “The proof is existence of our consciences …”
RD: “Not, not everyone does, and actually no one does before a certain age.”

In the above dialog, which seems to be off track midway, the authority is God, God knows a crime is to be committed, and does not aid and abet, rather anticipates the error by commanding Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In the last part, the focus is on the ability to discriminate. Babies are said to have only one natural fear: heights. But this is off track, because Genesis shows the command was given by God to Adam and Eve, and it was repeated as known by Eve, and Adam and Eve both gave explainations of what they did, acknowleding a prior command.

 

[sinnerdexter]

NaturalEnquirer, when you rhetorically ask, “How can we determine what amounts to unnecessary suffering from the standpoint of eternity,” you make the mistake of accepting as already proven exactly what is still in dispute, which is the existence of a Deity which permits us to treat the ‘standpoint of eternity’ as a real perspective able to create real problems for philosophical arguments. But until we have established that God exists, the ‘standpoint of eternity’ which could make it really impossible to determine whether any particular suffering was ultimately necessary or justified or not is simply not available as a context to impeach any reasoning based on ordinary, human-scale, empirical data.

So as far as we can understand the concepts of cause, effect, necessary suffering, and unnecessary suffering, the Haitian earthquake doesn’t seem necessary, redeemed by other forces, or excused by some distant good it produces by any ordinary reasoning we can apply.

An example of an empirically testable instance in which an evil, say the pain of a vaccination, would be justified by the ultimate good caused by it, say immunity against some much worse infection, shows what could count as a real reason for excusing evil. But to posit that if we could somehow see all the intricate interconnections of the causal strands of the universe we would realize that the world would be a much worse place if Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated on November 22, 1963 just amounts to supporting one fantasy, the existence of a magical being, God, by another fantasy, our ability to know that a causal network we cannot comprehend can somehow provide a sufficient support for a miraculous being like God.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

That doesn’t make any sense. You put forth an argument that the hypothetical entity in dispute is self-contradictory, hence non-existent. I rebutted that argument based on the agreed-upon attributes of the hypothetical entity. I’m not presenting a positive proof, I’m defending against your claim of self-contradiction.

You: If Superman were real, he wouldn’t be able to fly because earthlings can’t fly.
Me: But he’s not an earthling, he’s a Kryptonian.
You: But you’re assuming he exists!

No. I’m discussing the entity in question, according to his proposed attributes. One of Superman’s attributes is Kryptonian origin, which carries a plethory of benefits. One of God’s attributes is his eternal nature, which allows him to judge the entirety of time instead of tiny snapshots.

 

[R_Daneel]

Maybe its not as complex as you make it out to be.

If so, why don’t you share the explanation or argument you use for a 2-years old? A slap on the hand when he touches something that does not belong to him is not an explanation or and argument…

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If so, why don’t you share the explanation or argument you use for a 2-years old? A slap on the hand when he touches something that does not belong to him is not an explanation or and argument…

“That’s not yours, that’s his. Leave it alone.”
“I want it!”
“That’s not yours, it’s his. Leave it alone or go to time out.”

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not sure you’re following the argument. sinnerdexter is trying to demonstrate that the existence of what he calls unnecessary suffering is incompatible with Christian theology. I was explaining the relevant Christian theology. That’s why I’m not restricting myself to secular explanations – that would seem to be beside the point.

Unless I’m misunderstanding you. If so, please let me know.

Yes, there is a misunderstanding. Christian theology is at odds with secular understanding. Since you wish to explain the theology to a non-Christian, there is the problem, that your explanation is not founded on a common ground. That is why it is advisable to use fully secular arguments. If you can do that, your argument will be compelling to an atheist. When you use Christian arguments, your explanation can be understood as a clarification of your stance, but it has no convincing power. Do you see my point?

Specifically, you said that any and all suffering should be viewed a necessary surgery, and not as a cruel punishment. That is a great starting point for concinvicing the atheist. The atheist understands the concept on of a necessary, but painful intrusion so a greater good (healing) will be achieved. If you can now show just what the surgery aims to achieve (case by case), how does the surgery work in every case, and how the surgery does not exceed the amount of suffering that is necessary, then you are home scot-free, and you have a convinced atheist. As is, all you presented your assertion, and no supporting data.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Yes, there is a misunderstanding. Christian theology is at odds with secular understanding. Since you wish to explain the theology to a non-Christian, there is the problem, that your explanation is not founded on a common ground. That is why it is advisable to use fully secular arguments. If you can do that, your argument will be compelling to an atheist. When you use Christian arguments, your explanation can be understood as a clarification of your stance, but it has no convincing power. Do you see my point?

Sure. But as I have said a number of times now, I’m playing defense here. sinnerdexter is claiming a contradiction where none exists, and I’m refuting that point and that point only.

Specifically, you said that any and all suffering should be viewed a necessary surgery, and not as a cruel punishment. That is a great starting point for concinvicing the atheist. The atheist understands the concept on of a necessary, but painful intrusion so a greater good (healing) will be achieved. If you can now show just what the surgery aims to achieve (case by case), how does the surgery work in every case, and how the surgery does not exceed the amount of suffering that is necessary, then you are home scot-free, and you have a convinced atheist. As is, all you presented your assertion, and no supporting data.

Yes, that would be the ideal situation. Sadly, God has not granted me full knowledge of the workings of the universe. The data you’re requesting is not available to us in this life. What is available to us is the teaching of the church, and the church says that suffering has a redemptive purpose that we don’t fully understand. Unless that can be disproved by the attacker, God’s omnibenevolence is secure.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Yes, Epicurus has the same unsupported assumption that you do. Namely that the temporary existence of evil is malevolent. Without supporting that assertion, the argument has no teeth.

Oh, how deliciously rich. Double standards, much? The guy here arguing in favor of god is giving me a hard time for making an unsupported assumption with no teeth. Oh, the sweet sweet delicious irony…