Reply to JonW

[mschrank]

To avoid derailing the other thread…

You said you thought the problem of evil was not a big one, I can only say at least for the people I have known it has been a big one and the only one that seems convincing to me. I guess we are just different, as to me abstract philosophical arguments are not as convincing as experience.

What I mean by the “science” arguments is basically the canards we get from Dawkins and his like, militant atheists who claim that (a strawman, generic) “religion” was just a primitive attempt to understand what are ultimately scientific questions and jump from there to posit that evolution precludes the existence of God.

You asked what I meant by a God that is not nice. Well, it just seems like He isn’t very nice and His plans can be pretty brutal from a here-and-now standpoint. Just look at what happened to Jesus. Padre Pio once said it’s like a little kid looking up at his mother’s embroidery, from the bottom, it just looks like a ugly mess. Then when it was finished, the mother lifted the child up and showed him the beautiful pattern that she had actually been forming on the other side, but which required what had looked “ugly” from the wrong perspective. God loves us, which means he wants what is best for us- but it doesn’t mean he’s going to do it in a pleasant way.

 

[JonW]

Thanks very much for your response mschrank. Your explanation of the problem of evil via experience vs. abstraction was very helpful for me. I guess I see why so many find the problem so compelling. There certainly is a lot of evil in the world, and attempting to assimilate it from experience can probably lead many to despair. My guess is that coming out of that despair is the real eye-opener though. Just an opinion.

I completely aree with our positin on the militant atheists. As I’ve said before, they have really contributed nothing new to either sideof the argument. It’s political and idiological. My guess (from having spoken with Daniel Dennett as a fellow atheist at the time, and hearing Dawkins on several occassions) is that their outlook comes from an honest frustration at what they perceive to be the mass credulity of millions when it comes to religion. It’s not an objective stance, and in that way, it is not honest, but I think they really believe that they are trying to help. I can only say that Dan Dennett is a very nice guy, and a pretty good thinker at times too. Anyay, my atheism was not of the militant stripe, but of the philosophical, and I think and hope I was being honest about it most of the time. Incidentally, that probably helped immensely in my conversion.

Regarding God’s “niceness”, yes His actions can seem somewhat ruthless, but that’s a part of Justice I think. I don’t think that disqualifies Him from being nice, or pleasant to be around, in our terminology. I’m not sure Jesus’ Passion is a great example here, since Christ is God, and what happened to Him was for us, and happening to God/His Son. If anything, in my mind, the Passion shows God’s unending mercy towards us, and His depth of Love for us. His niceness, if you will. I like to think that, since beer in moderation is a good thing, if I get to Heaven, I’ll be able to share a beer with God and the Saints, and discuss philosophy. Maybe this is just me though.

God Bless

Jon