God is indifferent

[minkymurph]

I have no problems with this approach, with one caveat. Humanity is not one closely collaborating group. It is not realistic to expect humans to pool our resources to solve a specific question.

Your right, we’re not - but the biggest impediment is ourselves.

One of the problems is a lack of resources. We simply do not have the wherewithal to solve big problems, even if we could all collaborate. And when we deal with insufficient resources, we must prioritize, how to allocate them. God does not have this problem.

There are also circumstances in which we have ample resources yet we choose not to utilize or distribute them as efficiently as we could. God does not have a problem with resources, but He has a problem with our cooperation in their distribution. In short - we are responsible for a lot of our own problems, As to why God does not intervene when we are not responsible …

Sure, but when they are stuck with deciphering a difficult text, you would help them with understanding. When you look at the number of women who died due to puerperal fever until Dr. Semmelweis realized that simple hygiene (washing the doctor’s / midwives hands) can prevent it, one must wonder, why isn’t there an 11th commandment: “Thou must wash your hands when delivering a baby”. Isn’t that more important than forbidding to eat meat and dairy products from the same plate? (Yes, I know it is a Jewish custom.)

To my knowledge the Jews had extensive hygiene laws, and they followed the practice of water ablutions. Someone who is Jewish would know more.

Sure we do. God is not a temporal being, who is limited by matter and energy, all he has to do is “will” something.

We are back to the cooperation factor.

Why not hide it out of sight?

Have you ever tried to hide things from children?

Especially if you would KNOW, (not just suspect) that they will succumb to the temptation. And in my example the candy was poisoned, which is a whole different ballgame.

I don’t think the ‘tree of knowledge’ was poisoned as such. The ‘poison’ aspect came from the serpent - now snake as it’s legless. Perhaps creation of serpents was the mistake?

You would not expose your loved one to a lethal dilemma, would you?

Depends what mood I’m in. ,

We seem to agree that God does not help even if we do everything within our power, which is insufficient. You said that you have no answer to the “why”. I respect you very much for this honesty.

Best wishes!

Thank you.

To be honest I’m past ‘Why did God do this, not do that, why is there evil in the world and why are we here.’ I’m past believing I have answers to questions that in reality cannot be answered adequately. I accept the world is not as we would like it to be, but sometimes that is no bad thing. I accept we don’t have answers to everything, but faith is not about having answers to everything. I believe it is God’s desire for humankind to reach the ultimate fulfillment - that of being God like and existing in a God like state in His continual presence for eternity. That is what I hope for and then I know the answers to all the questions we are currently discussing and the mystery of life. Until that time we will not, and will just have to put up with things the way they are but at the same time use our talents and abilities to make them better. That is my faith as I see it.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Anyone who says God is indifferent doesn’t know the gospel.

 

[tonyrey]

One simple question sums up the question of indifference perfectly:

intervenes?One could ask how you know He isn’t. We have, for example, eradicated polio. Was it God’s hand that guided the doctors and researchers in the work they did?

So God could quite easily, via His creation (us), cure almost all diseases. It wouldn’t be obvious (at least not to me) that it was necessarily the work of a benevolent power. So you would still be free to choose what to believe.
Since there would be no scientific explanation we would have to admit that in this world (rather than an imaginary one) there must be another explanation.

The question would then arise, of course, as to what purpose polio served in the first instance and why did He wait so long to enable us to cure it.

The assumption that every event must have a purpose is unjustified when the element of chance plays a large part in the outcome of events. As Pascal remarked:

“Cleopatra’s nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed.”

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

We NEVER know the WHOLE picture. When we see a video and see that someone affixes electrodes to the genitals of someone, we cannot KNOW whether it is to the benefit or the detriment of the person, who SEEMS to be in horrible pain. And yet, we do not hesitate to condemn the act, because it LOOKS like a torture.

God does not get a special treatment. After all he could come and explain the “why”, and he does not. We only have ONE obligation: to keep an open mind, and be ready to admit that we were mistaken, IF and ONLY IF God comes and explains his non-interference policy. So the ball is in his court.

This is called blind faith. You are welcome to practice it, but don’t expect others to follow it.

To live as if God doesn’t exist is also blind faith… It is more reasonable to be an agnostic who allows for the possibility that there is a Creator and pray in case there will be a response - as in fact many people do in desperate situations. “There are no atheists in foxholes”…

 

[tonyrey]

Vera_Ljuba

What is the rational basis of the distinction between good and evil? Or doesn’t it exist? Is it all just a matter of opinion?

 

[Bradski]

Sorry for jumping in - I know this post wasn’t directed to me personally but the comment, ‘What did Christopher Hitchens do for lepers in Calcutta’ came from me. Thus I feel obligated to clarify.

I wrote this comment simply to demonstrate there are circumstances in which humanity has the capacity to solve what is wrong in the world and chooses not to. If we ourselves choose not intervene for the benefit of others when we could, it is somewhat arbitrary to point the finger at others who make the same choice.

But it wasn’t the case that Hitchens had an opportunity to help India’s poor. Well, no more than any of us does. Short of simply sending money, he didn’t really have a set of skills that he could have employed. And as to giving to charities, he seemed to be a generous man – certainly in the time he was willing to give to various causes, so we have no reason to think that he wasn’t equally generous with his money as well.

His skill was in writing. And whether you agreed with what he wrote or not – I often didn’t – he was difficult to ignore and he always made you think. So if he could shine a light on someone or something that he thought was worth investigating, then I think that’s worth it.

It’s not much of an argument to blithely suggest the he wasn’t doing anything directly and that therefore he had no right to cast doubt on what Mother Theresa was doing. If that argument held, then any opinion piece ever written could be ignored on that basis.

 

[goout]

What is the rational basis of the distinction between good and evil? Or doesn’t it exist? Is it all just a matter of opinion?

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.

 

[minkymurph]

But it wasn’t the case that Hitchens had an opportunity to help India’s poor. Well, no more than any of us does. Short of simply sending money, he didn’t really have a set of skills that he could have employed. And as to giving to charities, he seemed to be a generous man – certainly in the time he was willing to give to various causes, so we have no reason to think that he wasn’t equally generous with his money as well.

I don’t know whether he was generous with his money or not, but to my knowledge he did not use his wealth to establish a medical centre in Calcutta, a school, or provide funding for treatment of leprosy and improving living conditions. Maybe he did and if so, I’ll be happy to stand corrected and retract anything I said.

His skill was in writing. And whether you agreed with what he wrote or not – I often didn’t – he was difficult to ignore and he always made you think. So if he could shine a light on someone or something that he thought was worth investigating, then I think that’s worth it.

It’s not much of an argument to blithely suggest the he wasn’t doing anything directly and that therefore he had no right to cast doubt on what Mother Theresa was doing. If that argument held, then any opinion piece ever written could be ignored on that basis.

With respect I think you have taken what I wrote out of context. It was not my intention to argue Christopher Hitchen’s had no right to cast doubt on what Mother Theresa was doing if he was not doing anything directly. Neither was it my intention to suggest we should ignore his opinions if he wasn’t doing anything, but I think it would be naive not to question the motive behind his opinions.

If one professes concern for the poor in Calcutta, has the financial capacity to improve their living conditions, healthcare and education though funding but chooses not to do so, can it not legitimately be stated they are equally as wanting as those engaged in working with the poor in Calcutta they critique on the ground they are doing a bad job of it?

The topic of this thread is God is indifferent. It has been highlighted by the OP discussions of this nature is going off the topic of the thread so I will attempt to establish a link between this post and the OP’s question. The OP said based upon this observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God. If those who work with the poor in Calcutta are not benefiting people, how come Hitchen’s and others with similar views and the financial capacity have not stepped into the void? If they did and provided greater relief to their suffering and create a better environment, working on the assumption they can, would this not demonstrate irrevocably there is as much if greater benefit in not believing in God? I would argue the reason they don’t is belief in God produces benefits on a collective level non-belief can’t compete with. It may do on an individual level, but not a collective level. I am of course open to counter-arguments.

 

[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.

Precisely. If only matter exists nothing matters! Good and evil become human conventions that can be safely ignored by sophisticated criminals - especially those in the upper echelons of society who have power and wealth. Rampant corruption is the root of most of the needless misery, injustice and suffering in the world…

 

[tonyrey]

But it wasn’t the case that Hitchens had an opportunity to help India’s poor. Well, no more than any of us does. Short of simply sending money, he didn’t really have a set of skills that he could have employed. And as to giving to charities, he seemed to be a generous man – certainly in the time he was willing to give to various causes, so we have no reason to think that he wasn’t equally generous with his money as well.

His skill was in writing. And whether you agreed with what he wrote or not – I often didn’t – he was difficult to ignore and he always made you think. So if he could shine a light on someone or something that he thought was worth investigating, then I think that’s worth it.

It’s not much of an argument to blithely suggest the he wasn’t doing anything directly and that therefore he had no right to cast doubt on what Mother Theresa was doing. If that argument held, then any opinion piece ever written could be ignored on that basis.

Indisputable. The worst feature of his attack is his absurd assertion that “even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed”, implying that what she did was evil… Hitchens was obviously motivated by his hatred of religion like Dawkins who calls religious education “child abuse”.

 

[minkymurph]

Indisputable. The worst feature of his attack is his absurd assertion that “even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed”, implying that what she did was evil… Hitchens was obviously motivated by his hatred of religion like Dawkins who calls religious education “child abuse”.

I had actually never heard of Christopher Hitchens until a couple of months ago when an acquaintance sent me a link to one of his articles on facebook. I asked him, ‘What did Christopher Hichens do for the poor in Calcutta?’ His reply was, ‘Absolutely nothing, he was a self serving individual who couldn’t care less about the poor in Calcutta.’ My acquaintance is atheist - I would describe him as a radical atheist though he would reject that - but openly admits he hates religion - at least he’s honest - and agrees with Dawkins in that religious education is ‘child abuse.’

The point being if an individual who is firmly on the side of Hitchens failed to be persuaded his motive was to help the poor in Calcutta, and was of the opinion his motive was to attack religion. Being someone who embraces the ethos, ‘I may not agree with what you say but I would defend your right to say it,’ Hitchens, Dawkins and everyone else are free to write and say whatever they choose, but let’s not delude ourselves is out of compassion for human suffering. To his credit at least my atheist acquaintance is honest about this.

In my next post I will link this argument to the OP’s question.

 

[minkymurph]

In short, the OP concludes only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists He all due to the fact bad things happen to good people and there is no evidence for an afterlife.

The OP is correct. Bad things do happen to good people. When we witness bad things happening to good people one can understand how the conclusion God is indifferent. It can also be argued there is no evidence of an afterlife. Thus, what is the point in believing in God and following a religious tenet? It is this question I will attempt to address.

I will assume there is no evidence for an after life and thus focus only on the here and now. It can be visibly demonstrated a collective legal and moral code is the backbone of every society. Our legal code maintains the Rule of Law and our moral code regulates relationships in our dealings with others in the public, business, and on an individual level. Many examples can be provided as to how a collective legal and moral code enables society to function more efficiently and create an environment in which all members of society can thrive.

Modern democracies are melting pots of competing agendas. For this reason they struggle to establish an agreed collective moral code in society. We compensate by making a distinction between the public and the private, but we still butt heads in the public. In the absence of an agreed collective moral code we look to Law to regulate our dealings with others in the public, business and on an individual level, but the Law is ill-suited to this task. The Law in itself cannot be our conscience and courts are not moral guardians - and rightly so. Thus, something else is needed and modern democracies look to the family, schools and religious institutions to provide what is beneficial to society that the Rule of Law law cannot - but - modern democracies are melting pots of competing agendas, so we have a problem.

It could legitimately be asked why we need a collective moral code? I have referred to this in the previous paragraph but will expand. My atheist acquaintance envisages a society or in fact a world devoid of religion. Religion provides a collective moral code. It is true there is considerable theological discord, but there principles for living are by and large synonymous. Even those who profess to be atheists to not disagree many of these principles. The humanist manifesto is in my view synonymous with the beatitudes. It can legitimately be argued this demonstrates there is no need to believe in God, but such principles are difficult to maintain and enforce through the Rule of Law. Their application therefore requires a conscience and belief in God gives us a conscience.

That is not to say atheists have no conscience. If they come up with a humanist manifesto they obviously do, but application of those principles are solely dependent on the individual conscience and in terms of individual conscience modern democracies are melting pots of competing agendas pulling in different directions. Thus, while the principle may be agreed there is no consensus as to how and in what circumstances they should be applied.

There is also an issue in that those who live by their faith do so out of a desire to be God like in this world. Yes, they believe through living those principles they will dwell in the presence of God for eternity and this is there ultimate goal, but we are assuming there is no after life. A desire to be God like in my view instills in us a higher sense of conscience and fulfillment than that that can be achieved in the absence of belief in God. Of course atheist’s can argue this is not the case. On an individual level they may have a point in terms of those that have lost their faith yet don’t become ‘worse’ people or do less good, but my counter-argument to that is that on a collective level is it can be observed on a collective level those who believe in God are more pro-active in living by certain principles in terms of deeds. Hence my Christopher Hitchens argument.

 

[tonyrey]

:clapping:

In short, the OP concludes only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists He all due to the fact bad things happen to good people and there is no evidence for an afterlife.

The OP is correct. Bad things do happen to good people. When we witness bad things happening to good people one can understand how the conclusion God is indifferent. It can also be argued there is no evidence of an afterlife. Thus, what is the point in believing in God and following a religious tenet? It is this question I will attempt to address.

I will assume there is no evidence for an after life and thus focus only on the here and now. It can be visibly demonstrated a collective legal and moral code is the backbone of every society. Our legal code maintains the Rule of Law and our moral code regulates relationships in our dealings with others in the public, business, and on an individual level. Many examples can be provided as to how a collective legal and moral code enables society to function more efficiently and create an environment in which all members of society can thrive.

Modern democracies are melting pots of competing agendas. For this reason they struggle to establish an agreed collective moral code in society. We compensate by making a distinction between the public and the private, but we still butt heads in the public. In the absence of an agreed collective moral code we look to Law to regulate our dealings with others in the public, business and on an individual level, but the Law is ill-suited to this task. The Law in itself cannot be our conscience and courts are not moral guardians - and rightly so. Thus, something else is needed and modern democracies look to the family, schools and religious institutions to provide what is beneficial to society that the Rule of Law law cannot - but - modern democracies are melting pots of competing agendas, so we have a problem.

It could legitimately be asked why we need a collective moral code? I have referred to this in the previous paragraph but will expand. My atheist acquaintance envisages a society or in fact a world devoid of religion. Religion provides a collective moral code. It is true there is considerable theological discord, but there principles for living are by and large synonymous. Even those who profess to be atheists to not disagree many of these principles. The humanist manifesto is in my view synonymous with the beatitudes. It can legitimately be argued this demonstrates there is no need to believe in God, but such principles are difficult to maintain and enforce through the Rule of Law. Their application therefore requires a conscience and belief in God gives us a conscience.

That is not to say atheists have no conscience. If they come up with a humanist manifesto they obviously do, but application of those principles are solely dependent on the individual conscience and in terms of individual conscience modern democracies are melting pots of competing agendas pulling in different directions. Thus, while the principle may be agreed there is no consensus as to how and in what circumstances they should be applied.

There is also an issue in that those who live by their faith do so out of a desire to be God like in this world. Yes, they believe through living those principles they will dwell in the presence of God for eternity and this is there ultimate goal, but we are assuming there is no after life. A desire to be God like in my view instills in us a higher sense of conscience and fulfillment than that that can be achieved in the absence of belief in God. Of course atheist’s can argue this is not the case. On an individual level they may have a point in terms of those that have lost their faith yet don’t become ‘worse’ people or do less good, but my counter-argument to that is that on a collective level is it can be observed on a collective level those who believe in God are more pro-active in living by certain principles in terms of deeds. Hence my Christopher Hitchens argument.

:clapping:There are many good atheists who accept and live according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity but they don’t realise those principles have no rational foundation in a Godless universe. Both Camus and Sartre became humanists after realising that their doctrine of absurdity is untenable when it comes to the question of how we should live. They inherited the Christian tradition that we are **all **brothers and sisters - which doesn’t make sense if we are related solely by an accident of birth. It isn’t God who is indifferent but people like Hitchens who believe Mother Teresa was doing more harm than good and fail to follow the teaching of Jesus that we should love others even though we are despised and persecuted for doing so. Long after he is forgotten she will be remembered and venerated as a saint for all that she did in Calcutta as the result of her self-sacrifice and devotion to the poor. Not for nothing is it called the City Of Joy…

 

[minkymurph]

I present this argument as some who profess to be atheists have asserted they do not collectively establish charities, schools and medical centres as it is already being done. If conclude even if God exists He is indifferent, those who believe in God would be entitled to also be indifferent. In which case all religious activity in terms of doing good in the world may cease. If this were the case who would step into the void and why?

Many atheists argue we should do good for good’s sake. They have a point. many of them do on an individual basis, but doing good for good’s sake in my view cannot act as a catalyst to collective action on a level synonymous with that of those who do good to out of a desire to be God like and reach the fulfillment of faith in this life for the benefits it brings in this life in self of self fulfillment and fulfilling others. More than one atheist had said to they do not have a collective identity nor common values and principles and percieve this as a good thing in that they can think for themselves and make up their own minds. Thus, based on what they have said it can be argues atheism is individualistic and for this reason they are going to have difficulty with collective action. By contrast belief binds people together in a common objective.

On a final note let’s say atheists are right. There is no God and everything we do is founded on a mistaken or misguided belief that has no foundation. Where is the evidence we would all be better off if we ceased to believe in God? Many an atheist has said to me in response to this, ‘I’m better off and I feel I’m a better person.’ I have no doubt they believe what they say, but where is the evidence everyone who rejects the existence of God would be better off, feel they are a better person and the world would be a better place? Before rejecting the existence of God I would need to be persuaded of that.

The atheist can of course justifiably say they would need there is some benefit in believing in God before they would accept it. I have attempted to address that in my posts. I could expand on my posts but I think what I written is enough for now. I would conclude by saying there are atheists that whilst they do not personally believe there is a God see the value of belief in God and religion. Three I could mention are; Paul Merton, Daire O’Brien and Hugh Dennis. I don’t know if anyone on the forums here are familiar with these individuals, but they don’t feel the need to persuade others there is no God and have produced some really good documentaries about religion. I’m sure they are available online.

 

[fisherman_carl]

It doesn’t follow that because both good things and bad things happen therefore God is both good and bad or that he is indifferent. To assume God is good and bad is to assume pantheism. To assume God is indifferent is to assume Deism. Christianity assumes none of these things. God is Transcendent, yet he is immanent. He is not of this world, yet he is in the world. And He was in this world most immanently born as a little homeless child born in a cave full of animals, rather than in a palace full of kings. And in doing so he declared all men equal.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

This is bad logic because you’re inconsistently applying your own standards. You claim that we can’t take into account things that aren’t evidenced, like the afterlife, but then you’re willing to grant the existence of God when it fits your conclusion. So your terms are faulty.

Secondly, we need to consider the type of “conclusion” that we are drawing here. There is no ‘scientific’ evidence for an afterlife, but the lack of ‘scientific’ evidence does not mean that something is fake or false or that it can’t be considered theoretically even if done on non-scientific terms. For example, I have no ‘scientific’ evidence that my wife loves me but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t consider it or believe it based on non-scientific evidence.

Personally, in terms of the afterlife I only see 3 rational positions:

• Scientists are limited in dealing with or proving such matters
• Scientists have not proven it yet
• Scientists have not disproven it yet

 

[NM505StKate]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world. The sun shines both on the righteous and the wicked. The believers and the atheists both have their share of good and the bad. Worshipping God does you no good in this world. Not worshipping God does you no “bad” in this world. There is no correlation (and correlation generally does not imply causation) between the faith / behavior of the people and their “fortune” in this world. Good things happen to good people and to bad people. Bad things happen to good people and to bad people.

Of course some people will say that skeptics disregard the “continued” existence in some “afterlife” and to draw conclusion based upon this limited existence is unwarranted. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for some “afterlife”, so it is irrational to take it into account. We can only draw conclusions based upon we experience.

Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

What can I say you make very good points. I would say that if God exists, according to the book it “inspired”, God is malevolent. Because if God has the power to do what it wants why create suffering? I believe this is called “The Problem of Evil”.

 

[tonyrey]

This is bad logic because you’re inconsistently applying your own standards. You claim that we can’t take into account things that aren’t evidenced, like the afterlife, but then you’re willing to grant the existence of God when it fits your conclusion. So your terms are faulty.

Secondly, we need to consider the type of “conclusion” that we are drawing here. There is no ‘scientific’ evidence for an afterlife, but the lack of ‘scientific’ evidence does not mean that something is fake or false or that it can’t be considered theoretically even if done on non-scientific terms. For example, I have no ‘scientific’ evidence that my wife loves me but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t consider it or believe it based on non-scientific evidence.

Personally, in terms of the afterlife I only see 3 rational positions:

• Scientists are limited in dealing with or proving such matters
• Scientists have not proven it yet
• Scientists have not disproven it yet

Irrefutable. Anyone who doubts the reality of love hasn´t experienced the most important aspect of life.

 

[minkymurph]

Irrefutable. Anyone who doubts the reality of love hasn´t experienced the most important aspect of life.

I have also heard it said one day science will be able to explain everything. Will we then be living in a world where nothing needs explaining? I am trying to imagine what a world where nothing needs explaining would be like. Will there be nothing left to question, find out or problems to solve? Is such a world ‘atheist heaven?’

 

[NM505StKate]

I have also heard it said one day science will be able to explain everything. Will we then be living in a world where nothing needs explaining? I am trying to imagine what a world where nothing needs explaining would be like. Will there be nothing left to question, find out or problems to solve? Is such a world ‘atheist heaven?’

I doubt we will ever be out of questions to solve, exciting isn’t it? Also atheist heaven, no such thing.