God is indifferent

[Vera_Ljuba]

To which Bohr replied: ‘No. But apparently they work whether you believe in them or not’.

How true. It reminds me of the “power” of exorcism. It must work, since no one ever has seen a “demon”.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It appears that it needs to be pointed out that neither Vera or myself believes that God is indifferent. Because, obviously, we don’t believe that He exists.

I know that Vera is drawing a conclusion based on theoretical terms, but this still does not give him a pass to ignore relevant data. Such reasoning would be akin to having an understanding about God based only on the first 5 books of the Bible and then reasoning from that limited and incomplete perspective. This would not accurately reflect the Christian God, the God that Vera is referring to.

The point is being made, and apparently not being grasped, that if Christians insist on any single instance of divine intervention resulting in a beneficial outcome, then God, by that very fact, must be exhibiting indifference in countless other instances when no intervention has obviously ocurred.

This is a shift in position from the original argument. First it went from showing indifference in all cases to now showing indifference in some cases. Vera has clearly stated that to be neutral, God can “never” act but you defeated his point since you granted that God has acted in some cases - so his point is not as solid. Please refer to Vera’s post, post 165:
"There are only three kinds of attitudes which describe interpersonal relationships: “benevolent”, “malevolent” or “neutral” (or indifferent). A benevolent person would do away with all the gratuitous suffering - as much as he can. A malevolent person would prevent any pleasant, good things - as much as he can. **A neutral person would not interfere either way… just lets every event play its own course.

As far as we can see, God never interferes. That is all"** END QUOTE
…

What remains are some gray areas, as far as WHY did God act in one case but not in another. You assume that there’s no justifiable WHY reason. Let the speculations begin!

 

[Bradski]

How true. It reminds me of the “power” of exorcism. It must work, since no one ever has seen a “demon”.

And there is no-one better than me at killing werewolves in this area. None have been reported for as long as I have lived here.

 

[Bradski]

I know that Vera is drawing a conclusion based on theoretical terms, but this still does not give him a pass to ignore relevant data. Such reasoning would be akin to having an understanding about God based only on the first 5 books of the Bible and then reasoning from that limited and incomplete perspective. This would not accurately reflect the Christian God, the God that Vera is referring to.

This is a shift in position from the original argument. First it went from showing indifference in all cases to now showing indifference in some cases. Vera has clearly stated that to be neutral, God can “never” act but you defeated his point since you granted that God has acted in some cases - so his point is not as solid. Please refer to Vera’s post, post 165:
"There are only three kinds of attitudes which describe interpersonal relationships: “benevolent”, “malevolent” or “neutral” (or indifferent). A benevolent person would do away with all the gratuitous suffering - as much as he can. A malevolent person would prevent any pleasant, good things - as much as he can. **A neutral person would not interfere either way… just lets every event play its own course.

As far as we can see, God never** interferes. That is all" END QUOTE
…

What remains are some gray areas, as far as WHY did God act in one case but not in another. You assume that there’s no justifiable WHY reason. Let the speculations begin!

Granted that is Vera’s position. Whereas I was proposing what any given Christian might propose. That God must have/obviously did intercede on some ocassion.

Which logically means that God did not intercede on other ocassions.

Vera’s position is that God is indifferent (on the assumption that He exists). My position is that any given Christian’s claim that He is not means that He must be capricious.

 

[abucs]

Well the Christian accepts that God was incarnated into our world and suffered at the hands of men to demonstrate the evil of sin and to persuade people to take a different course.

This persuasion had the affect of creating what is now western civilisation whose success has been largely copied by most places on earth.

This cannot be seen as indifferent.

 

[minkymurph]

Which reminds me of a story told about Neils Bohr, one of the greates scientific minds of the modern era.

Someone was visiting him and noticed a horseshoe nailed to his office wall. He expressed surprise that a man as practical as Bohr without a single superstitious bone in his body would trust in a lucky horshoe and said to Bohr: ‘But you don’t believe that it will bring you luck, surely’.

To which Bohr replied: ‘No. But apparently they work whether you believe in them or not’.

The good book does say God makes the sun shine and the rain fall upon both good and wicked - or something to that effect. It’s a bit like not being a member of a union. You get all the benefits and don’t have to invest anything. In which case perhaps we believers have justification for feeling a bit miffed.

That said, it is said if you cut a fairy tree down it will bring bad luck. People In my part of the world maintain there are no such thing as fairies, yet they built a roundabout to preserve a fairy tree that was in the middle a big new carriageway because no one wanted to cut it down.

I think it is now a tourist attraction. Nothing wrong with a little superstition my friend.

In fact, in the UK Tort law was allegedly founded on a lie. Tort law began with Donaghue v Stephenson. Mrs Donaghue’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer. When she drank it she found a decaying snail at the bottom and felt queasy. At that time you could only sue someone under contract. As Mrs Donaghue’s friend has purchased the ginger beer she had neither a contract with the cafe owner or the manufacturer. The courts response was to develop a duty of care under which damages can be awarded in the absence of a contract. There is now a huge statue of a snail in Paisley Scotland where the case originated that tourists can visit and where Tort lawyers can worship. However, it is alleged that on her death bed Mrs Donaghue said there was no snail.

So because of her lies you can now sue people. Who said something founded on lies has no benefit? Is is true? I do not know but I would never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

 

[minkymurph]

And there is no-one better than me at killing werewolves in this area. None have been reported for as long as I have lived here.

To my knowledge it’s recognized exorcism can have a placebo effect that is beneficial in conjunction with medical or psychiatric care - but obviously it’s not something amateurs that don’t know what they are doing should play around with.

I have provided a link to a google scholar search for anyone interested. I used google scholar to locate authoritative articles on the subject.

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=exorcism+placebo+effect&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=&oq=exor

There is also evidence people with strong faith who suffer from physical illness have
significantly better health outcomes than less religious people.

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=people+with+faith+fight+illness+better&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

 

[minkymurph]

Granted that is Vera’s position. Whereas I was proposing what any given Christian might propose. That God must have/obviously did intercede on some ocassion.

Which logically means that God did not intercede on other ocassions.

Vera’s position is that God is indifferent (on the assumption that He exists). My position is that any given Christian’s claim that He is not means that He must be capricious.

I think Christian’s and in fact anyone who believes in God would say God’s interventions are unpredictable. Those who believe simply accept this on the basis they believe if God chooses not to intervene there is a reason - all be it we don’t understand it.

Catholic’s refer to this as ‘mystery’ and we humans by and large don’t like ‘mystery.’ We like certainty, problem solving and answers to questions. We dislike uncertainty, problems we cannot solve and questions we cannot answer. Such pushes us out of our comfort zone and in the worst possible scenario generates a feeling of powerlessness that is arguably the worst possible feeling. That said, it is a fact uncertainty exists and there will always be problems we cannot solve and questions we cannot answer. I would argue the realist accepts this and just gets on with life.

Faith is not about being able to answer every question that is thrown at us. It is a mistake to think we can answer every question thrown at us because we have faith, but by the same token it is unreasonable but an answer no individual could ever refute. Science cannot achieve this objective. Some believe some day science will have that capacity, but at present it does not. I also recall the words of an extremely skilled and intelligent professor of biochemistry. He said, ‘The more we learn the more we realize we don’t know.’ Thus, to me learning is infinite and for that reason I would of the opinion we will not one day reach a point where science can provide an answer to every question and explain everything. If we reach that point there is nothing more to learn.

Faith is about a way of living more than it is about being able to establish empirical evidence and answer questions. In this sense I stand by the arguments I have made. The benefit of faith is if we embrace a faith or ideology that compels us to good, we are more likely to do good more often than if we don’t. The more often we do good the more our chances of that good being returned are increased. If we believe in a benevolent God and believe we should imitate God, we are more likely to be benevolent and increase our chance of benevolence being returned. If anyone is of the opinion my reasoning is flawed and wants to refute my assertion, they are free to do so.

 

[tonyrey]

We have as much knowedge that God never intervenes as we have of the fact that the ghost of Elvis never does.

In fact, as we know that Elvis actually did exist (been to Graceland, got the T shirt), there is a greater chance that Mr. Presley does intervene in our lives to a greater extent than any given deity.

The significant difference is that throughout history and throughout the world there have been thousands of detailed accounts of scientifically inexplicable recoveries from incurable diseases by independent, trustworthy eye-witnesses including doctors, atheists and agnostics. It requires an act of faith to assert dogmatically that all those reports are false and that every event has in principle a scientific explanation:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

How would you defend materialism given that the logical positivists abandoned it when they realised the verifiability **principle **cannot be verified by sense data? Are all our decisions the result of physical processes over which we have no control? If that were the case they would be worthless and not “ours” at all because “we” wouldn’t even exist.

And if you must insist that God does occasionally intervene, then you are descibing a capricious entity that is prepared to help someone with a job application or finding their cat (why pray for these things unless you hope for divine intervention) yet will ignore the pleas of the mother whose child is dying of cancer.
Pointing to anything at all which you would like to describe as divine intervention is only going to result in someone questioning ‘why here for him and not htere for her?’.
To which the only possible answer is: ‘Who can know the mind of God’. Which is another way of saying: ‘Mate, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever’.

**Constant **intervention would reveal the indisputable existence of a benevolent force unknown to science…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I know that Vera is drawing a conclusion based on theoretical terms, but this still does not give him a pass to ignore relevant data. Such reasoning would be akin to having an understanding about God based only on the first 5 books of the Bible and then reasoning from that limited and incomplete perspective. This would not accurately reflect the Christian God, the God that Vera is referring to.

The starting premise did not specify ALL the alleged characteristics of God. It only presumed that God exists, and is assumed to be “OMNI-benevolent”.

**A neutral person would not interfere either way… just lets every event play its own course.

As far as we can see, God never** interferes. That is all"

Maybe you overlooked the all-important “As far as we can see…” qualifier. If you have an example where God came down in all his glory, surrounded by angels, amid some celestial music and moved some mountains to free some miners trapped underground… let us know and I will conceded that God - in this particular case - was NOT indifferent. Or any other event, where God’s interference would be visible and undeniable even for unbelievers. No one can deny the existence of a hammer, when it hits you on the head!

 

[tonyrey]

I think Christian’s and in fact anyone who believes in God would say God’s interventions are unpredictable. Those who believe simply accept this on the basis they believe if God chooses not to intervene there is a reason - all be it we don’t understand it.

Catholic’s refer to this as ‘mystery’ and we humans by and large don’t like ‘mystery.’ We like certainty, problem solving and answers to questions. We dislike uncertainty, problems we cannot solve and questions we cannot answer. Such pushes us out of our comfort zone and in the worst possible scenario generates a feeling of powerlessness that is arguably the worst possible feeling. That said, it is a fact uncertainty exists and there will always be problems we cannot solve and questions we cannot answer. I would argue the realist accepts this and just gets on with life.

Faith is not about being able to answer every question that is thrown at us. It is a mistake to think we can answer every question thrown at us because we have faith, but by the same token it is unreasonable but an answer no individual could ever refute. Science cannot achieve this objective. Some believe some day science will have that capacity, but at present it does not. I also recall the words of an extremely skilled and intelligent professor of biochemistry. He said, ‘The more we learn the more we realize we don’t know.’ Thus, to me learning is infinite and for that reason I would of the opinion we will not one day reach a point where science can provide an answer to every question and explain everything. If we reach that point there is nothing more to learn.

Faith is about a way of living more than it is about being able to establish empirical evidence and answer questions. In this sense I stand by the arguments I have made. The benefit of faith is if we embrace a faith or ideology that compels us to good, we are more likely to do good more often than if we don’t. The more often we do good the more our chances of that good being returned are increased. If we believe in a benevolent God and believe we should imitate God, we are more likely to be benevolent and increase our chance of benevolence being returned. If anyone is of the opinion my reasoning is flawed and wants to refute my assertion, they are free to do so.

Conversely if we believe we exist by chance for no reason or purpose whatsoever there is no reason why we shouldn’t reject the principles of **universal **liberty, quality and fraternity and be far more likely to live for ourselves, family and friends at the expense of everyone else. The colossal amount of corruption, injustice and needless suffering in the world is overwhelming evidence that human conventions are ignored with impunity. The fact that people claim to have a religion doesn’t imply that they necessarily live according to its teaching…

 

[tonyrey]

It appears that it needs to be pointed out that neither Vera or myself believes that God is indifferent. Because, obviously, we don’t believe that He exists.

The point is being made, and apparently not being grasped, that if Christians insist on any single instance of divine intervention resulting in a beneficial outcome, then God, by that very fact, must be exhibiting indifference in countless other instances when no intervention has obviously ocurred.

If you are going to insist that God can help you find your cat or even save your child, then you are going to have to admit that He specifically chose not to save others.

I have pointed out many times that **constant **intervention would reveal the indisputable existence of a benevolent force unknown to science…

 

[tonyrey]

And who is accountable for it all, good/indifferent/evil?
Seems arbitrary to hold God accountable God for all the evil, but take the good and run with it.
The indifferent is simply a lack of the good, and so not much different than evil.

When you’re a victim of evil you recognise the difference!

 

[tonyrey]

The starting premise did not specify ALL the alleged characteristics of God. It only presumed that God exists, and is assumed to be “OMNI-benevolent”.

Maybe you overlooked the all-important “As far as we can see…” qualifier. If you have an example where God came down in all his glory, surrounded by angels, amid some celestial music and moved some mountains to free some miners trapped underground… let us know and I will conceded that God - in this particular case - was NOT indifferent. Or any other event, where God’s interference would be visible and undeniable even for unbelievers. No one can deny the existence of a hammer, when it hits you on the head!

Coercive evidence would deprive you of your freedom to choose what to believe and how to live. We would be slaves constantly watched by Big Brother and incapable of living independently - a fate worse than death…

 

[minkymurph]

Conversely if we believe we exist by chance for no reason or purpose whatsoever there is no reason why we shouldn’t reject the principles of **universal **liberty, quality and fraternity and be far more likely to live for ourselves, family and friends at the expense of everyone else. The colossal amount of corruption, injustice and needless suffering in the world is overwhelming evidence that human conventions are ignored with impunity. The fact that people claim to have a religion doesn’t imply that they necessarily live according to its teaching…

No it doesn’t - and many don’t yet the argument being presented here would appear to be they are no worse of it which may not justify the fact they don’t live by it, but at least implies there is no real reason why they should.

The fact that there is a colossal amount of corruption, injustice and needless suffering in the world, and the overwhelming evidence that human conventions are ignored with impunity to me demonstrates society needs to establish core principles and a mechanism to ensure and promote adherence to those principles. Religion provides that. It it can be provided by other means I am willing to give serious consideration to arguments it can.

Personally I think the colossal amount of corruption, injustice and needless suffering in the world, and overwhelming evidence that human conventions are ignored is the result of turning away from faith. It cannot be said turning away from faith is the only reason, but it can reasonably be asserted it is one reason. It can also reasonably be said if more lived by faith there is at least a possibility there would be less corruption, injustice, needless suffering and ignoring of conventions that are beneficial.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The starting premise did not specify ALL the alleged characteristics of God. It only presumed that God exists, and is assumed to be “OMNI-benevolent”.

It does not specify all of God’s characteristics but my point is that it should in order to represent a fair and accurate picture of the Christian god.

Maybe you overlooked the all-important “As far as we can see…” qualifier. If you have an example where God came down in all his glory, surrounded by angels, amid some celestial music and moved some mountains to free some miners trapped underground… let us know and I will conceded that God - in this particular case - was NOT indifferent. Or any other event, where God’s interference would be visible and undeniable even for unbelievers. No one can deny the existence of a hammer, when it hits you on the head!

Your argument:
Premise 1: Good and evil exists
Premise 2: God never acts
Conclusion: Therefore God is in indifferent

Premise 2 is unproven and therefore your conclusion lacks support. Qualifying your statement with “as far as we can see” is vague and basically says that we lack evidence. To others, God has helped them “as far as they can see”. At least, that’s what the biblical writers reported. Either way, lack of evidence does not prove that something never occurs or that it does occur.

 

[Bradski]

I have pointed out many times that **constant **intervention would reveal the indisputable existence of a benevolent force unknown to science…

So you claim that God capriciously limits his intervention to help those in strife to avoid giving people the idea that He actually exists. He needs to keep that doubt in people’s mind. He doesn’t want to show His hand as it were.

Yet you will point to ‘thousands of detailed accounts’ which you say prove that he intervenes.

It’s fascinating that you can hold two diametrically opposed views at the same time.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s fascinating that you can hold two diametrically opposed views at the same time.

It is called “doublethink”. When I first read about it in Orwell’s 1984, I thought that the author was wrong, that no sane person can hold two contradictory ideas, and believe both of them. Looks like I was mistaken.

 

[tonyrey]

So you claim that God capriciously limits his intervention to help those in strife to avoid giving people the idea that He actually exists. He needs to keep that doubt in people’s mind. He doesn’t want to show His hand as it were.

The derogatory term “capriciously” overlooks divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured. It is understandable that atheists underestimate God’s wisdom because their scepticism is usually linked with cynicism which is evident in their sarcasm and inability to discuss the subject objectively…

Yet you will point to ‘thousands of detailed accounts’ which you say prove that he intervenes. It’s fascinating that you can hold two diametrically opposed views at the same time.

You are losing sight of the possibility that the thousands of known miraculous cures are still a small minority because it would not ultimately benefit the others or society. We are limited by our ignorance of the full consequences of even one miracle, let alone probably hundreds of thousands. It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone nor does He limit the number explicitly to conceal His existence. There would be no point in creating the laws of nature if they are going to be constantly suspended and make life unpredictable. Already we complain about Big Brother observing everything we do in public. It would be far worse if we knew for certain we never have any privacy wherever we are. **Constant **intervention would indeed reveal God’s existence but there are other reasons why we are left in the dark, the main one being that we would no longer be independent - and that is an objection atheists have raised on this forum. It is disconcerting to know there is a higher authority whose laws we have to obey from the moment we are born until the moment we die. The lust for power is not something we can ignore in our understanding of human nature - or reactions to the question of whether there is a “Great Dictator”…

 

[tonyrey]

It is called “doublethink”. When I first read about it in Orwell’s 1984, I thought that the author was wrong, that no sane person can hold two contradictory ideas, and believe both of them. Looks like I was mistaken.

It certainly applies to those who accept the principles of liberty, equality and, in particular, fraternity yet reject their rational foundation. Fraternity implies that we are all brothers and sisters who have one Father. An accident of birth is certainly a hopelessly inadequate explanation.