On the Goodness of God

[GreggAlvarez]

Of course it all hinges on that huge “IF” highlighted above. No atheist believes that, but since you believe it, we must examine this defense in greater detail. The real problem is that we do not live according this principle. When someone is in pain, we do not just shrug it off, saying that this little, temporal, finite pain will “pale” in comparison to the eternal bliss.

1. It is not a principle.
2. Ronnie’s statement does not in the least imply that we should let the sufferers continue to suffer, nor does it leave any room for that assumption. He was just reiterating the message of hope that does justify suffering in this life: “Remain faithful until death, and I will crown you with eternal life.” Many have gladly done just that by being martyred. How? I have no clue.
3. Our belief actually commands that we tend to the suffering. Fact is, none of us “know” who is and who will not be granted eternal life. This is the whole point of evangelization. If that were a principle as you think, we would skip over those suffering (which is everybody, some more than others), including the deathly ill, hungry, etc…
4. Your objection assumes (or so it seems) that we think all sufferers are granted eternal life. Fact is, we have no clue whether or not that is true. We cannot even begin to speculate. This is why we are commanded to tend to them and give them the message of hope. As I mentioned above, we must do as God has commanded if we are to remain faithful.
5. If your observation were true, why is the Bible littered with so many useless messages commanding us to charity? Especially the subtle “You did not clothe me when I was naked…” and so on…
6. As a personal conviction, you probably know by now that my beliefs are not based on “if’s”. It is not like I hope God exists and have my faith rooted in that hope. Our belief and hope is not based on “I hope this is all true.” It is a reality, a way of life. Anyway, my point is that for me, there is no “if”. I may use “if” in conversation but that is only because I do not assume God in any objective argument. The Problem of Evil is not an objective argument. It is just a problem. Evil is the part that is objective, not the problem.
7. I am in no way attacking your position. I was just defending mine, as if you would expect anything else from me.

We all act as if this pain actually mattered. The catholic church maintains hospitals to help with alleviating pain. The problem is the discrepancy between what you profess in your words, and the acts how you actually conduct your life. And acts speak louder than words, don’t they?

Indeed… This entire paragraph is answered above. There is absolutely no discrepancy here with what ronnie said and what we believe. It actually affirms it.

We act as if pain actually mattered because it does matter. Evil, pain and suffering are all objective due to objective morality.

As a side note, it is possible for someone to believe in something and fail to live up to it.

Take care buddy

 

[Spock]

Shall we get into another lingusitic discussion? I was answering this proposition: “If your final destination is eternity any trials you’ve had in this life are infinitesimal in comparison…”. Infinitesimal means neglible, insignificant, small, minute, or using more than one word: “does not matter”. That is the concept, or principle I was arguing against - precisely because pretty much everyone acts as if pain and suffering would matter. It does matter to me and you, therefore it is not “infinitesimal”. Read again the Ninth Officer’s words.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

This is the reasoning if the Ninth Officer.

“I’ll let you in on a secret,” said the ninth officer.“Moments after Ms. K. flatlined, I had her resuscitated, and flown to a tropical resort where she is now experiencing extraordinary bliss, and her ordeal is just a distant memory. I’m sure you would agree that that’s more than adequate compensation for her suffering, so the fact that I just stood there watching instead of intervening has no bearing at all on my goodness.”

Of course it all hinges on that huge “IF” highlighted above. No atheist believes that, but since you believe it, we must examine this defense in greater detail. The real problem is that we do not live according this principle. When someone is in pain, we do not just shrug it off, saying that this little, temporal, finite pain will “pale” in comparison to the eternal bliss.

We all act as if this pain actually mattered. The catholic church maintains hospitals to help with alleviating pain. The problem is the discrepancy between what you profess in your words, and the acts how you actually conduct your life. And acts speak louder than words, don’t they?

Thew reason I called this officer argument a strawman argument is because it is the very definition of strawman, i.e.; to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Your ninth officer’s “solution” is inadequate, and you probably know that and the original author of the article probably does too. In my last post I had said “But still, I can see why it isn’t necessarily a problem when you consider that we live on after death not a merely thousand years, or a million years, but forever.” The Catholic church does not say heaven consists of sitting around on a “tropical resort” drinking pina coladas on the beach, is consists of an eternity in the beatific vision, which is a bliss unmatched by anything experienced on earth.

And yes, we act as pain mattered, because that’s OUR job while we’re here, to care about others. Mother Teresa spent her entire life living in the slums of India caring for the dying poor because it was her job to help others. This life can be looked at as a testing ground where you can grow in holiness or grow the other way, the majority of the saints throughout history have lived lives of much suffering, yet they endured it gladly, because eternity matters.

 

[Spock]

Thew reason I called this officer argument a strawman argument is because it is the very definition of strawman, i.e.; to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

No analogy can match the original one hundred percent. That does not make it a “straw-man” as long as it is sufficiently close to the original.

Your ninth officer’s “solution” is inadequate, and you probably know that and the original author of the article probably does too. In my last post I had said “But still, I can see why it isn’t necessarily a problem when you consider that we live on after death not a merely thousand years, or a million years, but forever.” The Catholic church does not say heaven consists of sitting around on a “tropical resort” drinking pina coladas on the beach, is consists of an eternity in the beatific vision, which is a bliss unmatched by anything experienced on earth.

Well, I really don’t think that anyone can speak with authority what that “beatific vision” looks like. No one has been there and came back with a video. What you do here a variant of the Southern Bible-belt argument: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. Instead you say: “The Church said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. Sorry, that is just inadequate. The Ninth Officer’s response is sufficiently close to the “original”.

And yes, we act as pain mattered, because that’s OUR job while we’re here, to care about others. Mother Teresa spent her entire life living in the slums of India caring for the dying poor because it was her job to help others. This life can be looked at as a testing ground where you can grow in holiness or grow the other way, the majority of the saints throughout history have lived lives of much suffering, yet they endured it gladly, because eternity matters.

So, in other words, this life is NOT insignificant, it is a “testing ground”. What people experience here does matter. I said the same thing, though for a very different reason.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Well, I really don’t think that anyone can speak with authority what that “beatific vision” looks like. No one has been there and came back with a video. What you do here a variant of the Southern Bible-belt argument: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. Instead you say: “The Church said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. Sorry, that is just inadequate. The Ninth Officer’s response is sufficiently close to the “original”.

well, you’ve gone from a strawman argument to a circular argument (or perhaps Moving the goalposts). You asked me to explain how we can possibly reconcile a good God with suffering in the world, I gave you the basic Catholic explanition, and now you’re saying my explanation unprovable. You didn’t ask me to prove that people live an eternity in the beatific vision, you asked me to explain how suffering in this world could be explained.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What is there in Christianity that encourages charity?

“Love one another … do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

What is there in atheism that encourages charity?

 

[Spock]

well, you’ve gone from a strawman argument to a circular argument (or perhaps Moving the goalposts). You asked me to explain how we can possibly reconcile a good God with suffering in the world, I gave you the basic Catholic explanition, and now you’re saying my explanation unprovable. You didn’t ask me to prove that people live an eternity in the beatific vision, you asked me to explain how suffering in this world could be explained.

Ok, let me explain. The real problem is not the explanation itself, it is the rationale behind the explanation. Going to the bare bones: 1) there was a seemingly senseless act of violence. 2) God did not interfere to prevent it. 3) God lifted the victim and gave her everlasting bliss. Are we in synch so far?

My problem here is that the reward cannot be logically coupled to the event. God could have lifted her before the event happened. The reward had nothing to do with the act. Therefore the reward cannot retroactively justify the lack of interference.

Risking another “straw-man” argument. If a father would allow some bullies to beat up his kid, and later would give the kid a lollipop, it would not compensate for the non-action of the father. Yes, I know that the lollipop is not in the same ballpark as the alleged beatific vision, but the principle is the same.

 

[Spock]

What is there in Christianity that encourages charity?

“Love one another … do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

What is there in atheism that encourages charity?

Respect one another… “don’t do unto others that you would not want them do unto you” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” - depending on the circumstances.

By the way the golden rule is not an invention of christianity. Pretty much every society came up with it, even millenia before christianity rolled around.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Ok, let me explain. The real problem is not the explanation itself, it is the rationale behind the explanation. Going to the bare bones: 1) there was a seemingly senseless act of violence. 2) God did not interfere to prevent it. 3) God lifted the victim and gave her everlasting bliss. Are we in synch so far?

My problem here is that the reward cannot be logically coupled to the event. God could have lifted her before the event happened. The reward had nothing to do with the act. Therefore the reward cannot retroactively justify the lack of interference.

Risking another “straw-man” argument. If a father would allow some bullies to beat up his kid, and later would give the kid a lollipop, it would not compensate for the non-action of the father. Yes, I know that the lollipop is not in the same ballpark as the alleged beatific vision, but the principle is the same.

Do you really fault God for not intervening every time there’s an act of violence in the world? I explaned to you that under standard Christian theology we do live for an eternity in the beatific vision after this life, and that this life is a testing ground. That is simply the way God set up the world, he created a world of natural causes and effects, not one where every millisecond he is preforming a miraculous intervention to prevent an act of violence. It’s like a child’s complaint, God shouldn’t have done things this way, God should be this magician in the sky who rescues us everytime we get in trouble.

 

[Spock]

Do you really fault God for not intervening every time there’s an act of violence in the world?

This is the argument of the seventh officer:

“What are you complaining about?” exclaimed the seventh officer when I turned to him, his eyebrows shooting up in exasperated disbelief. “I just saved a woman from getting raped and murdered last week! Do I have to jump in every time I see something like that about to happen? I would say the fact that more women are not raped and murdered in this city is almost miraculous testimony to my goodness.”

I explaned to you that under standard Christian theology we do live for an eternity in the beatific vision after this life, and that this life is a testing ground. That is simply the way God set up the world, he created a world of natural causes and effects, not one where every millisecond he is preforming a miraculous intervention to prevent an act of violence. It’s like a child’s complaint, God shouldn’t have done things this way, God should be this magician in the sky who rescues us everytime we get in trouble.

Actually, God could have created the world where there would be absolutely to reason to interfere at all. And, yes, there would be “free will” of the significant kind. Something like the Garden of Eden, without that “tree”.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

This is the argument of the seventh officer:

You really need to stop referring to that “Officer Argument”, it’s not like it’s some great work from Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, or Dostoyevsky, it’s just some silly strawman argument written by some guy on the Internet which only appeals to atheists who already don’t believe in God. Come on, you’re a bright guy, lose that lame 12 Officers “argument” from your replies.

 

[Tonitz]

The mature individual and the superior person acts on the realization that there is a fundamental equality common to one’s sense of self and that of others. This corresponds to the internalization of the several forms of the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment. In very mature individuals this is accompanied in some degree by a deep introspection on the very nature of one’s being. Hence the foundational importance of Genesis 1:26 in our Faith. I submit that this introspection and commensurate result can happen outside the bounds of our particular faith as well as within it.

While it is greatly admirable to attribute ALL goodness to the God we worship and insist on the linkage to Divinity through Jesus the Christ, that is a dynamic that in many ways is relative to a particular stream of thought handed down from a couple of thousand years ago in the form that we think we know it. And yet, we in that stream attribute to all humans who ever were will be that attribute of being created in the image and likeness of God.

Now since God=Good and we are in That image and likeness, it follows that inherently we are essentially good, though that good is occluded to an extent by what we call original sin, the nature of which is perhaps not quite as ordinarily understood. But nevertheless, given Genesis 1:26 as distributive over ALL of mankind, we have as well to attribute God’s Love and Fatherhood to each and every one.

Now, remembering the parable of the man who hired laborers to work in the field, if we consider that God is the One Who hired us, so to speak, we have to ask if it is our duty to determine who gets what wages. And being sisters and brothers of the same Father we might have our spiritual version of “who does Father Love best?” We might easily base that on our fortunate position of being in the current state of things and our being overt members of the Church. Thus we would project our own position as being superior to anyone else’s and endeavor to make them like us.

But humans are created in the image and likeness of God, not of other humans. That “image and likeness of other humans” part goes to culture and upbringing and has behind it the momentum of eons, as does the habit of the Catholic go back some two thousand years. And yet there have been moral, just and good people even outside the scope of the Abrahamic tradition. And today, like it or not, there are those same people who do not ascribe their quite real goodness to the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God. And this is important because why? Because each one has the burden of habit to overcome, even those who are born into the Faith, and perhaps especially those!

While we as Catholics might recognize that no matter who we are, we are still bound to the duty of for working for salvation, and we feel that we have a more direct way within the Church, and even feel the need to share that happy position even by argument, it is not our business to judge who is what in the Eyes of God, even in the face of denial. Our first Pope did that, and he was right there, eh?

What I’m saying is that goodness as such is inherent in the human as it’s basic blueprint, if you will. That can, of course be obscured to different degrees in different ways. But while all Catholics are created in the image and likeness of God, all those created in the image and likeness of God are not going to be Catholic, else Jesus would have met with Adam and Eve and the first Man would have been first Pope as well. Didn’t happen. So in the Goodness of God something else is afoot and we cannot afford the arrogance of thinking that we are privy to the one and only Way and the few exceptions we see as allowable. So while the Church is the wonderful home it is for so many who are functionally fortunate and more who are just here, it may not be the one and only way that God has in store for ALL of humanity, despite the Great Commission and Paul.

(continued)

 

[Tonitz]

(continued)

And here is an analogy that might help in that matter, as it looks to distribute over all of us. My sister is of another faith and her son, my nephew, became a missionary of that faith. On his return from a particular missionary experience he and his fellow missionaries gave a presentation about their experience. My conclusion from that presentation is that the missionary experience blessed him far more than it did his converts, most of whom, btw were Catholic. When he returned, he was a far more mature and self confident individual, having exercised his body, mind, and faith, and was elevated in several respects due to his difficulties and trials while on foreign soil. He duly attributed all his improvements to the Father and gave great and sincere thanks to God for the salvation of those souls who, in HIS mind, had been in the clutches of the Roman Church.

Now to us, that is shocking and a supreme misfortune and we might see my nephew as an agent of the devil. But he was, in all sincerity, doing what according to his lights is the work of God. He was, and is, in his mind and heart, as far as I can tell, doing God’s holy work, and nothing will dissuade him. In his mind set, in fact, any conversation regarding the possibility of error in his ways serves only as a further entrenching of his conviction of being a servant of God.

So is his fate a matter of our judgment, or of Gods? We might be competent to say what consequence we ourselves might suffer if we by our own lights did what he did as a matter of deliberate contradiction to our Faith. But he is acting in all sincerity, by any measure, according to the highest good he sees, namely the salvation of souls in the name of Jesus, whether they be heathen or Catholic or Jew or Muslim.

All that I am advocating here is that God is far more competent in the matters of Divinity than are we, even under the auspices of Revelation and tradition. And that while we may have answers that are sufficient to us, we may not be the best judge of the position of those who labor under the momentum of another way.

If that way excludes the worship of God, we may argue on behalf of God as we worship. But similarly to my nephew, that usually serves to strengthen the resolve of our “opponent” as our resolve is strengthened by their allegations. That is simply the dynamic of arguments at that level of involvement. Actual conversion require a disruption of the mental status quo save in rare instances. The ordinary arguments we engage in are attempts to solve the problem from within itself, and that is rarely successful. That is why many institutions, from the military to the religious, often will put a person through a rigorous training, part of which is designed to break down resistance by habit to a new order of thought and perception.

But the main assumption is that the essence of the individual is good. Does not God, making us in His image and likeness, know that fact far better than we? And would God not be the final arbiter of the value and actual meaning of one’s life no matter what opinions we of our faith might have? Our faith is ours because we accept it. It is our yardstick, or rod, for our own conscience. And while we may use it to measure others to our best perception, our perception is not Gods. So while we may very well parse hairs about what is right and wrong for ourselves and others, who finally is the decider?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock
*
Respect one another… “don’t do unto others that you would not want them do unto you” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” - depending on the circumstances.

By the way the golden rule is not an invention of christianity. Pretty much every society came up with it, even millenia before christianity rolled around. *

You didn’t answer the question. I asked what there is in atheism that promotes charity comparable to the Christian God’s “Love one another.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tonitz
*
But the main assumption is that the essence of the individual is good. Does not God, making us in His image and likeness, know that fact far better than we? And would God not be the final arbiter of the value and actual meaning of one’s life no matter what opinions we of our faith might have? Our faith is ours because we accept it. It is our yardstick, or rod, for our own conscience. And while we may use it to measure others to our best perception, our perception is not Gods. So while we may very well parse hairs about what is right and wrong for ourselves and others, who finally is the decider? *

The final decider is Jesus.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

 

[Tonitz]

Praise the Lord! That wasn’t so hard, was it?

 

[Spock]

You didn’t answer the question. I asked what there is in atheism that promotes charity comparable to the Christian God’s “Love one another.”

First, the quote is imprecise. It says: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Atheism does not promote this idea. And it does not promote this idea, because that idea is not sensible. If “love” would mean an emotional attachment, it would be impossible to have that attachment toward “everyone else”.

If “love” means to place the well-being of everyone else over and above your own (agape), then it is dumb. Why should I value someone else’s well-being above my own, while expecting that she places my well-being above her own? From a strictly practical point of view, it is a nonsensical idea. She cannot know my needs as well as I know my own, and I cannot know her needs as she knows her own. We would keep on interfering with each other’s life on the pretext of “love”.

Respect, on the other hand can be mutual. I trust her to do better in her self-interest, and she would trust me. This is why the “negative” golden rule is superior to the “positive” one. The negative rule says: “leave the others alone, because they are in charge of their life”, and don’t try to push your agenda onto them. The positive rule says: “go and interfere”, push your view onto them, even if they do not want it.

Respect means that we both treat each other as responsible adult beings. The “love” you talk about means that you treat the other one as inferior, who needs to be guided, according to your value system.

The atheist attitude does not preclude to aid and assist others. It just does not issue a “command” to do it. If she would ask for assitance, I would give it, but not because I sumbit to a “command”, but because I understand that I might get into the position when I need her assitance. What goes around, comes around. To spread good will and respect will come back - and there is no need for a “command” to enforce it.

 

[Spock]

You really need to stop referring to that “Officer Argument”, it’s not like it’s some great work from Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, or Dostoyevsky, it’s just some silly strawman argument written by some guy on the Internet which only appeals to atheists who already don’t believe in God. Come on, you’re a bright guy, lose that lame 12 Officers “argument” from your replies.

I think it is pretty good, but if you wish, I can drop it, when I reply to you. How is that for trying to accommodate your wish? Going back to your question:

Do you really fault God for not intervening every time there’s an act of violence in the world?

The answer is: “No, I do not”. However (assuming that I would believe in God) I do fault God for creating an inferior world, when he could have created a much better one. One, where there are no natural disasters, where people simply do not “want” to commit atrocities. They would be capable of worshipping God, or not to, but they would feel “disinclined” to commit rapes and tortures and genocides. Yes, it may sound as another utopia, but there is nothing wrong with a utopia.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I think it is pretty good, but if you wish, I can drop it, when I reply to you. How is that for trying to accommodate your wish? Going back to your question:

The answer is: “No, I do not”. However (assuming that I would believe in God) I do fault God for creating an inferior world, when he could have created a much better one. One, where there are no natural disasters, where people simply do not “want” to commit atrocities. They would be capable of worshipping God, or not to, but they would feel “disinclined” to commit rapes and tortures and genocides. Yes, it may sound as another utopia, but there is nothing wrong with a utopia.

Now we’re getting somewhere. According to the standard theology, the plan was for the world to be as you wish it were, but mankind sinned and nature itself got corrupted. It’s hard to understand HOW that happened, but I suspect we’re talking about Spiritual realities here, not something that can be fully grasped with a merely scientific historical view of our world. Since God stands outside of time, he saw the fall of man at the same time as he saw the first moment of the Big Bang, the same moment as he saw this thread being discussed, he didn’t have “foreknowledge” of The Fall at the creation, He saw The Fall at the creation. Some of us may not like that he would still go ahead and pull the trigger on creating a world like that, but He thought it worth it, maybe God is a novelist and felt a good verses evil world was still worth creating.

 

[Spock]

Now we’re getting somewhere.

I sincerely wish we could.

According to the standard theology, the plan was for the world to be as you wish it were, but mankind sinned and nature itself got corrupted.

And this is why I don’t think we are making progress. Please, understand that referring to “standard theology” leaves me unimpressed. I don’t care about theology as an argument. However, I do appreciate it as a clarification of your stance. If you quote theology as a clarification, all is well. But you cannot quote theology as an argument. You still use “euphemisms” like “nature itself got corrupted”. Not according to Genesis. God became angry at the disobedience and actively cursed the creation. Nature did not get corrupted, it was cursed by God.

The world I am referring to is the one where God did not place that “tree” into the Garden, where there was no “original sin”, where there was no “fall”. Where everyone would be free to worship God, or not. But where nature was “perfect”, and there are no natural disasters, and no human atrocities. This world is far superior to the existing one, and still retains that “free will” that is held in such high regard.

…maybe God is a novelist and felt a good verses evil world was still worth creating.

Why create an inferior world, when there could be a superior one? That is the point here. It simply does not make sense.