Night

[tonyrey]

Betterave:
Do I see my name taken in vain? It’s not really in vain because it gives me a chance to clarify:

1. You’re both right on this one, although Tony’s claim is trivial and Schn’s cuts both ways.

I can’t see how my claim is trivial in the context of a world where we knew a benevolent Power is protecting us from natural disasters. I think it’s worth repeating what I pointed out to Schn:

If earthquakes constantly occurred all over the world **except where people live **don’t you think it would be observed and questioned? Wouldn’t scientists seek an explanation in vain and have to admit it is scientifically inexplicable? How could anyone deny that something very odd is happening? Not only odd but specifically to protect us from the ravages of natural forces? That certainly would demand a supernatural explanation… of benevolence… What else?

1. You’re both wrong on this one. Tony: there is no reason for or against freely giving a free gift - to give one is not absurd.

My original statement is:
“It is absurd to expect to enjoy the gift of freedom for nothing.”
I am concerned with the recipient rather than the donor! With filial ingratitude - which is a dominant feature of our present society…

 

[Betterave]

I can’t see how my claim #3 is trivial in the context of a world where we knew a benevolent Power is protecting us from natural disasters. I think it’s worth repeating what I pointed out to Schn:

If earthquakes constantly occurred all over the world **except where people live **don’t you think it would be observed and questioned? Wouldn’t scientists seek an explanation in vain and have to admit it is scientifically inexplicable? How could anyone deny that something very odd is happening? Not only odd but specifically to protect us from the ravages of natural forces? That certainly would demand a supernatural explanation… of benevolence… What else?

Your claim:
“3. If we knew a benevolent Power is protecting us we would no longer be free to choose what to believe.”

This is a trivial claim. If we knew God was protecting us, we would no longer believe that God didn’t exist. Uh…obviously!

The point you raise is relevant to 2. Your question is: What else? We could believe that humans had some unexplained natural power of preventing earthquakes, for example. If it happened all the time, it would naturally be regarded as a natural phenomenon, would it not? Supernatural means outside the normal course of things and if earthquake suppression near large cities was part of the normal course of things, the atheists could just accuse you of a God-of-the-gaps argument for assuming supernatural agency at work for a perfectly regular phenomenon. You know how it works, right?

My original statement is:
“It is absurd to expect to enjoy the gift of freedom for nothing.”
I am concerned with the recipient rather than the donor! With filial ingratitude - which is a dominant feature of our present society…

You have a point here, although I still think ‘absurd’ is definitely the wrong word - ‘presumptuous’ might work. But even then you’re still missing the point about the intrinsic absurdity of God’s gifts to us - they are not anything we should expect, and it would be just as presumptuous, or rather, absurd, to think that we somehow ‘pay’ God for his gift of freedom to us by submitting to natural disasters. Yet it sounds as if that’s what you’re saying.

 

[Schn]

1. This is truly ironic - the people of Haiti are almost unanimously believers and the earthquake has not shaken their faith in the power of God. God remains their strength and their hope.

If they still think “there is plenty of evidence divine intervention occurs” afterwards, they are ignorant or brainwashed.

1. You’re both wrong on this one. Tony: there is no reason for or against freely giving a free gift - to give one is not absurd. Schn: your purely this-world analysis obviously ignores the broader context of justice and the rewards and healing that we hope for in the world to come.

If a god makes us jump through hoops while suffering to qualify for a better world, he is sadistic.

You are assuming that the world is “fixable”, i.e. that all the physical evil in the world is not only excessive but unnecessary. And what is that but a demand for a feasible Utopia?
You have to remember that infinite capability is dealing with a finite universe in which there is bound to be imperfection. A paradise on earth is wishful thinking. You are presuming to improve a world you could not even design. The piecemeal “improvements” of the human race have almost succeeded in making this planet uninhabitable and probably will do so in the not too distant future. So much for the ingenuity and wisdom of mankind, not to mention the folly and wickedness…

The universe is finite, god’s power is infinite. Suffering is finite, god’s power if infinite. Therefore he can fix the world.

Do sane people behave as if they don’t believe in gravity? If earthquakes constantly occurred all over the world **except **where people live don’t you think it would be observed and questioned? Wouln’t scientists would seek an explanation in vain and have to admit that it is scientifically inexplicable? How could anyone deny that something very odd is happening? And not only odd but specifically to protect us from the ravages of natural forces? That certainly would demand a supernatural explanation… of benevolence…

Gravity is evolutionarily intuited. But a handful of sane people do believe the Earth is flat, still.

For one thing the evidence for God is not “overwhelming” to the extent that people are compelled to believe. Otherwise every sane person would be a believer.
For another the absence of natural disasters would not make the world flawless. What about all the other physical evils in the world?

Fix them all.

Now you are going to the other extreme! From “overwhelming” to none!

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I never stated anywhere the evidence for god is overwhelming, if I did, I probably wouldn’t be arguing because I would then be a theist.

You are (or were) comparing the speculative theory of evolution with the incontrovertible fact of a disaster-free, accident-free world which encompasses you on every side.

A disaster-free, accident-free world could have the ‘speculative theory’ of a god to explain it. And, yeah, the evidence would be approximately equal.

This argument is as old as the hills! Pain is a necessary defence mechanism. Suffering is the result of weakness, failure, frustration, interference, competition and conflict, all of which are inevitable in an immensely complex, physical universe where there are billions of sentient beings pursuing different goals.

Which is a finite problem and if not solved by an omnipotent god is a sign of sadism.

So in effect you are demanding a paradise - for which you need to supply a feasible blueprint in order to substantiate your criticism…

Why would I? God doesn’t need my blueprints - he’s omnipotent.

You’re twisting my words to make them mean what you want them to mean. I mean exactly what I have written. You take the good things of life for granted and refuse to accept the fact that every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. In a word you want everything for nothing.
And as for “the single most downtrodden unhappy human”, who is responsible for that? His fellows couldn’t care less about whether he is alive or dead. Who controls events in human society? Who has polluted the world? Who is responsible for all the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering?

The negligence of God. If you knew millions of people were being tortured and it would take you zero effort to halt it all, then not doing so is negligence.

Not an ad hominem but a logical implication of your assertion that there is an immense amount of unnecessary, pointless and meaningless suffering in the world - which entails the belief that every single one of us is a victim of a indifferent, Godless universe in which goodness, justice, freedom and love are no more than figments of the imagination and all our hopes of happiness and fulfilment are doomed to be frustrated and destroyed by death. For you the rest is silence… nothingness… for all eternity…

Are you scared or something?

 

[tonyrey]

If a god makes us jump through hoops while suffering to qualify for a better world, he is sadistic.

So you think suffering is completely unnecessary and serves no useful purpose whatsoever? Your hedonism is based on the fallacious assumption that pleasure is the highest good…

You are assuming that the world is “fixable”, i.e. that all the physical evil in the world is not only excessive but unnecessary. And what is that but a demand for a feasible Utopia?
You have to remember that infinite capability is dealing with a finite universe in which there is bound to be imperfection. A paradise on earth is wishful thinking. You are presuming to improve a world you could not even design. The piecemeal “improvements” of the human race have almost succeeded in making this planet uninhabitable and probably will do so in the not too distant future. So much for the ingenuity and wisdom of mankind, not to mention the folly and wickedness…

The universe is finite, god’s power is infinite. Suffering is finite, god’s power if infinite. Therefore he can fix the world

You are just playing with words and ignoring the points I have made. How would you justify the statements you have made? They sound impressive but exactly what do they mean?

Do sane people behave as if they don’t believe in gravity? If earthquakes constantly occurred all over the world except where people live don’t you think it would be observed and questioned? Wouldn’t scientists would seek an explanation in vain and have to admit that it is scientifically inexplicable? How could anyone deny that something very odd is happening? And not only odd but specifically to protect us from the ravages of natural forces? That certainly would demand a supernatural explanation… of benevolence…

Gravity is evolutionarily intuited. But a handful of sane people do believe the Earth is flat, still.

You are clutching at a straw now and merely exposing the weakness of your argument. “a handful”! You know perfectly well that any normal, sane person thinks otherwise…

For one thing the evidence for God is not “overwhelming” to the extent that people are compelled to believe. Otherwise every sane person would be a believer./
For another the absence of natural disasters would not make the world flawless. What about all the other physical evils in the world?

Fix them all.

Do you think that is a rational argument? Do you have any idea of how could they be fixed?

Quote:Now you are going to the other extreme! From “overwhelming” to none!

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I never stated anywhere the evidence for god is overwhelming, if I did, I probably wouldn’t be arguing because I would then be a theist.

I’m sure you don’t know what you’re talking about! You’re tying yourself up in knots

You are (or were) comparing the speculative theory of evolution with the incontrovertible fact of a disaster-free, accident-free world which encompasses you on every side.

A disaster-free, accident-free world could have the ‘speculative theory’ of a god to explain it. And, yeah, the evidence would be approximately equal.

How would you explain it? By sheer chance? Or do you take refuge in obscurity? You would no longer have evil to fall back on… BTW How do you determine what is evil? By whether it meets your personal tastes and requirements?

Pain is a necessary defence mechanism. Suffering is the result of weakness, failure, frustration, interference, competition and conflict, all of which are inevitable in an immensely complex, physical universe where there are billions of sentient beings pursuing different goals.

Which is a finite problem and if not solved by an omnipotent god is a sign of sadism.

You think the word “finite” creates an insoluble problem for theists! Do you believe omnipotence entails the power to eliminate all weakness, failure, frustration, interference, competition and conflict in an immensely complex, physical universe where there are billions of sentient beings pursuing different goals? If so please explain can how it could be done? Otherwise your appeal to omnipotence is no more than a magic wand you wave to justify your favourite allegation of "sadism"on the part of God.

God doesn’t need my blueprints - he’s omnipotent.

God doesn’t but we do! Otherwise you are living in a fool’s paradise… demanding the impossible due to a misconception of the nature of omnipotence.

If you knew millions of people were being tortured and it would take you zero effort to halt it all, then not doing so is negligence.

You have no insight into the extent to which God intervenes, the extent to which human beings are responsible, the extent to which their suffering is self-inflicted and the extent to which their suffering is inevitable… You are obviously unaware that most philosophers, including atheists, agree that a certain amount of suffering is inevitable…

Not an ad hominem but a logical implication of your assertion that there is an immense amount of unnecessary, pointless and meaningless suffering in the world - which entails the belief that every single one of us is a victim of a indifferent, Godless universe in which goodness, justice, freedom and love are no more than figments of the imagination and all our hopes of happiness and fulfilment are doomed to be frustrated and destroyed by death. For you the rest is silence… nothingness… … for all eternity… …

Are you scared or something?

No, just realistic! I am simply pointing out the full implications of your position - which you have not even attempted to refute or deny

 

[Betterave]

If they still think “there is plenty of evidence divine intervention occurs” afterwards, they are ignorant or brainwashed…

… or they know more than you and *you *are ignorant and brainwashed. At least we have some evidence for the latter:

Tony: There is plenty of evidence that divine intervention occurs.
You: Tell that to someone who lost their relatives in Haiti.
Me: This is truly ironic - the people of Haiti are almost unanimously believers and the earthquake has not shaken their faith in the power of God. God remains their strength and their hope.

Your comment is clearly ignorant and gives us evidence that you are brainwashed.

If a god makes us jump through hoops while suffering to qualify for a better world, he is sadistic.

If a coach makes an athlete jump through hoops in order to become a great athlete, he is sadistic. (Good one.)

 

[AntiTheist]

I have to applaud the OP for making a refreshingly honest evaluation of his beliefs. A few thoughts that your post stirred up:

After dying the most horrific of deaths in the gas chamber at Auschwitz, are we to believe that Wiesel’s mother, say, was not sent to eternal reward and peace but rather to Hell or Purgatory to continue her suffering, simply because she was born into a Jewish family? I can’t accept that idea, but to reject it seems to reject whatever special grace that we are taught to believe comes with being a faithful Christian. Extending the idea further, what about otherwise good people who are born into agnostic or atheistic families, and live their lives adhering to those beliefs; should they be blamed and punished because they never felt the compulsion to pray or attend church, etc?

I’ll do you one better. What about otherwise good people who have exercised their rational faculty and come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that any gods of any kind exist? Should they be punished merely because they are properly using the gift of their reason? I know plenty of good people who have affirmed their disbelief in all deities of all kinds for the simple reason that there is no evidence.

As you suggest, if all good people get to go to heaven regardless of what they believe, then this religion stuff is pretty pointless, utterly invalidating missionary work and all attempts to spread the “glad word.”

Of course, if “good” is defined as “the moral system of the Catholic Church”…

To be a Jew in Romania in 1944, or a street urchin in Haiti in 2010, or a 10 year old with incurable bone cancer anytime, is to live a life of incomparable suffering when contrasted with the lives of most of the rest of us. This isn’t fair. Why should some suffer and some be blessed?

Notice that “the problem of evil” – which has long been a theological problem – is only a “problem” if you assume that there is a good god running the show.

If you don’t make the assumption that there is a god – and there’s no evidence to suggest that there is one – then there’s nothing to explain. You still might not like the unfairness of life, and that in itself might make you want to do something about it, but the unfairness wouldn’t be some cosmic problem that we’d have to account for.

I know that the answer to the “why did Auschwitz happen” question has something to do with free will and the presence of evil in the world, and that the horrible Nazis chose to do evil things, with the implication that the rest of us, good people, would have chosen to do the good and right thing.

Heh, nicely said. One of the reasons that people like judging the “moral culpability” of others is to make themselves feel superior by comparison.

In reality though, if I had been born in Bavaria in 1918 - probably as a Catholic- and influenced growing up by the anti-semitism and Nazi propraganda rampant at the time, I can imagine myself enlisting with pride in the SS and being sent to guard at Auschwitz and doing my very best to be the top guard there, entirely indifferent to the suffering of the Jews underfoot.

Exactly right. What you call “you” is due, in large part, to your circumstances, and these circumstances inform your personality, which in turn informs your decisions.

How should we view moral culpability, then?

Well, this is a diffcult question, and I have argued for the rather unpopular view that “morality” doesn’t really exist – “morality” is simply a term for things that we like or don’t like according to our values. Obviously, most people in a given culture are going to share similar values, so when we say that something is “good” or “bad” within a cultural context, we have a fairly “objective” (relatively speaking) standard for making that judgment. But as you say, it’s not hard to imagine a society where actions that we would consider “bad” would be considered “good” and vice versa.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting post. I’ll stick around to discuss some things if you’d like, but otherwise, good luck to you.

 

[Betterave]

I’ll do you one better. What about otherwise good people who have exercised their rational faculty and come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that any gods of any kind exist? Should they be punished merely because they are properly using the gift of their reason? I know plenty of good people who have affirmed their disbelief in all deities of all kinds for the simple reason that there is no evidence.

As you suggest, if all good people get to go to heaven regardless of what they believe, then this religion stuff is pretty pointless, utterly invalidating missionary work and all attempts to spread the “glad word.”

Of course, if “good” is defined as “the moral system of the Catholic Church”…

Actually missionary work is a response to God’s command. It is one thing to not understand that God is offering you a gift - the ‘good’ atheist might be excused for that (you seem never to have heard of the concept of ‘invincible ignorance’). But for one who understands this, he cannot continue to call himself ‘good’ if he ignores God’s gift and the requirements it entails. Cf. St. Paul: “If I preach the gospel, this is no reason for me to boast, for an obligation has been imposed on me, and woe to me if I do not preach it!” (I Cor 9: 16).

This reminds me of Chesterton’s quip (roughly): Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been tried and found difficult.

Notice that “the problem of evil” – which has long been a theological problem – is only a “problem” if you assume that there is a good god running the show.

If you don’t make the assumption that there is a god – and there’s no evidence to suggest that there is one – then there’s nothing to explain. You still might not like the unfairness of life, and that in itself might make you want to do something about it, but the unfairness wouldn’t be some cosmic problem that we’d have to account for.

Correction:
“Notice that “the problem of evil” – which has long been a theological problem – is only a **soluble **“problem” if you assume that there is a good god running the show.” If not, it is still a problem, but one without a solution. Therefore, the atheist’s ‘problem of evil’ is a much bigger problem than the believer’s, because the atheist’s problem is not just theoretical, and it has no solution.

Heh, nicely said. One of the reasons that people like judging the “moral culpability” of others is to make themselves feel superior by comparison.

Lame point. People can use *any *belief as a means of feeling superior to others who don’t share that belief. So what?

Exactly right. What you call “you” is due, in large part, to your circumstances, and these circumstances inform your personality, which in turn informs your decisions.

…which is exactly what ‘the moral system of the Catholic Church’ teaches.

Well, this is a diffcult question, and I have argued for the rather unpopular view that “morality” doesn’t really exist – “morality” is simply a term for things that we like or don’t like according to our values. Obviously, most people in a given culture are going to share similar values, so when we say that something is “good” or “bad” within a cultural context, we have a fairly “objective” (relatively speaking) standard for making that judgment. But as you say, it’s not hard to imagine a society where actions that we would consider “bad” would be considered “good” and vice versa.

Certainly you’ve ‘argued’ - without much success!