Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pallas_Athene said:
. . . Could God have simply forgiven our trespasses without the sacrifice? If he could have simply forgiven us, then the sacrifice was not logically necessary. (A father can forgive the misdeeds of his children without any “sacrifice”. It is not necessary for the child to sacrifice his favorite pet or toy to be forgiven.) Why perform an act which is not necessary? On the other hand, if it was logically necessary, then what is this whole “atonement” process? How can the sacrifice of an innocent “make up” for the sins of others?

Yes, of course I get it. But it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. Just what is “justice”? How can justice be reconciled with punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free? What kind of “justice” can one expect when the guilty is not punished, but the innocent is tortured to death? Because that is the point that troubles me (and others).
Click to expand...
We are talking about reality. There is no forgetting, there is only what has happened.
Through our actions we participate in our creation. We are what we have made of ourselves, from what we have been given.
The judgement lies in who we are, as we are in reality.
God has the power to transform us from the sinners we are into Saints.
He has done that through the sacrifice of His Son who takes upon Himself our sins and dies to them.
Through Christ we are reborn into someone worthy of paradise which is the joyous eternal condition of giving all one is to what is other.

I think scripture and the church’s teachings about hell make it clear that there is justice.
 
Aloysium said:
We are talking about reality. There is no forgetting, there is only what has happened.
Through our actions we participate in our creation. We are what we have made of ourselves, from what we have been given.
The judgement lies in who we are, as we are in reality.
God has the power to transform us from the sinners we are into Saints.
He has done that through the sacrifice of His Son who takes upon Himself our sins and dies to them.
Through Christ we are reborn into someone worthy of paradise which is the joyous eternal condition of giving all one is to what is other.

I think scripture and the church’s teachings about hell make it clear that there is justice.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Let’s take it one step at a time:

**How can justice be reconciled with punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free? **This is a very simple question. Let’s concentrate on it.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Let’s take it one step at a time:

**How can justice be reconciled with punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free? **This is a very simple question. Let’s concentrate on it.
Click to expand...
The guilty who are loved as children of God do not go free so much as they are forgiven; they must repent, have a change of heart to be saved. The innocent are not punished. We crucified Christ. We inflict his wounds through our sins. He willingly gave His life, that we might all be with Him in paradise. We have to die and be reborn in Christ. He is the living way by which this happens.

It is good that you see the necessity for justice, but at it’s foundation is love. God is all merciful.

On my phone - this isn’t working out too well. Next time.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Yes, I know about that. That is how the whole conversation started. The original question was about the NECESSITY of this sacrifice. Could God have simply forgiven our trespasses without the sacrifice? If he could have simply forgiven us, then the sacrifice was not logically necessary. (A father can forgive the misdeeds of his children without any “sacrifice”. It is not necessary for the child to sacrifice his favorite pet or toy to be forgiven.) Why perform an act which is not necessary? On the other hand, if it was logically necessary, then what is this whole “atonement” process? How can the sacrifice of an innocent “make up” for the sins of others?

Yes, of course I get it. But it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. Just what is “justice”? How can justice be reconciled with punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free? What kind of “justice” can one expect when the guilty is not punished, but the innocent is tortured to death? Because that is the point that troubles me (and others).
Click to expand...
See, here’s the thing - Catholics (and actually most, if not all, Christians) believe that God’s mind can’t be fully understood.

Your question is actually at the heart of the Christian faith, and one that perplexed most non-Christians. Even St. Paul himself stated, “Yet we declare Christ crucified, a scandal to the Jews (who believed that such a death was for the cursed - and who, at the time, were looking for a military leader) and foolishness to the Gentiles (who, like you, would state that such a sacrifice would make no sense at all).” And yet, truly, though we can try to explain it, it would continue to make little to no sense to someone who does not believe in Christianity. The Muslims try to circumvent this by saying that someone else (usually Peter or Judas Iscariot) took Jesus’s place on the cross, and that His death was merely an illusion. In Jesus’s time, the Jewish leaders considered Jesus as a false prophet/messiah, and so therefore was guilty of blasphemy (today, Judaism doesn’t focus on the messiah much at all, though it did in Jesus’s time).

Regardless, here’s the gist - Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified so that He could save the world. Yes, it was the Father’s plan, but Jesus, in His human body, was not forced to assent to the plan (He begged the Father for another way), yet He did. Why? Because God had created humankind to be with Him forever. Yet because of our constant rebellion against God, it would be impossible for humans to enter Heaven - only the perfectly good can enter Heaven. As such, true justice dictates that we all go to Hell. Only an act of complete and total sacrifice and obedience to God could repair the breach that had occured in the beginning of humankind and the continued breach that each and every person made worse. This gets deeper and deeper, of course, but the main point is that Jesus allowed Himself to take the place that we deserved. In essence, it’s like the person who pleads guilty to a crime he/she knows was committed by his/her child/spouse/friend/etc. so that his/her child/spouse/friend/etc. doesn’t get punished. Only, in our case, it’s not a temporal prison that we’re talking about - it’s an eternal one. In other words, Jesus “plead guilty” so that we might not even be charged with a crime.
 
Bradski said:
You mean God. God made the sacrifice. John 3:16.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. If it had been Satan we wouldn’t have called it Good Friday, would we?
And every pagan example you gave (I can’t believe you are comparing this to a pagan ritual), has the wrongdoers committing the sacrifice as a penance. ‘They give something valuable’, you say.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
God gave His son. So who are the wrongdoers here? You have the whole pagan analogy completely the wrong way around.
Click to expand...
Well, God stepped up to the plate to say: you guys can never pay the ransom.
I’ll do it instead.

And, yes, ransom is the perfect word here because sin is such an awful affront to Perfect Goodness that redemption was required for those of us who sin.
‘See those people over there? They are the pits. I mean really, they sin, they fornicate, they don’t obey my laws. Do you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to send my boy over there’
Click to expand...
Yes, sir.
‘What! But they’ll probably kill him’
Click to expand...
‘Yeah, I know that. I’m not stupid.’
Click to expand...
‘So you’re doing this because…?’
Click to expand...
‘Well, to atone for their sins. Obviously.’
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously.

They can’t do it.

So I will.
Does anyone really understand the logic in that? Could someone explain it to me? Does it make any sense whatsoever?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re so indignant about.

God paid a ransom he didn’t owe because we owed a ransom we couldn’t pay.

#lovewins
 
PRmerger said:
God paid a ransom he didn’t owe because we owed a ransom we couldn’t pay.
Click to expand...
‘What happened to that tribe over there that was disobeying you’.
‘Ah, I had enough of them. I killed them all. Well, all but a few. Noah and a few relatives. They can start again. Give it another go. And this time they better get it right’.
‘Yeah! Too right! Or you’ll kill them all again!’.
‘Nah. If it happens again, they’re going to have to make a sacrifice. To show that they are sorry. Something really important’.
‘But what happens if they won’t or can’t do that? Gonna kill them again?’
‘Mmm…no. Done that already. Need something a little different’.
‘Hey, I know. If they can’t make a sacrifice, why don’t YOU make it?’
‘Me?’
‘Yeah. You can…I dunno…kill your son?’
‘That’s it! But I won’t do it. I’ll send him over there and they can kill him’.
‘Brilliant…’

Makes zero sense. Absolutely zero sense whatsoever.
 
Bradski said:
. . . Makes zero sense. Absolutely zero sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
What makes zero sense on the surface is why you are here.
You present a parody of my faith,
a faith which brings into clear focus the depths and the heights of existence,
the love that is at the Core of every moment, and
the plan for our salvation,
parading your ignorance and bad manners.
Your posts do highlight for me the graces which God has bestowed on me,
an undeserving sinner.

How can you possibly not see?!?!!
 
Aloysium said:
You present a parody of my faith…
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a parody. But I think you know it’s not meant to belittle your faith. That would be to belittle that which my parents believed. And almost all my close relatives. And some close friends.

But it’s accurate. It’s meant to be taken as all parodies are, with a raised eyebrow or a smile or pursed lips and a frown. It’s meant to accurately reflect that which someone accepts as entirely natural, but in another form. To allow another way of looking at something from the outside. Not from within your original mind set.

And I say again, it’s accurate. A parody is useless if it isn’t. If it wasn’t, you would ignore it. It wouldn’t result in those pursed lips and frowns. It’s another way of describing that which has just been explained to me.

The problem is, not many Christians step outside their faith and look at what they believe with a critical eye. I have that luxury. I can question everything I believe. I actually enjoy it. I will argue someone else’s point against mine just for the hell of it. To see where it leads.

I could have worded what I wrote above a lot differently and yet still kept it accurate. I could have posted it in a few weeks in a different thread in such a way that anyone reading it would think it was a ridiculous story. it would make no sense. I could tell the story in the pub tomorrow night and everyone, and I mean literally everyone, would think it was nonsensical. ‘Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent’.

Two of the friends I mentioned earlier, staunch Catholics both, would think it risible. Unless I tell them who that father and son are meant to be. Then their attitude would change. ‘Oh, no. If that is meant to be God, then it’s perfectly reasonable’.

Go figure.
 
Bradski said:
‘What happened to that tribe over there that was disobeying you’.
‘Ah, I had enough of them. I killed them all. Well, all but a few. Noah and a few relatives. They can start again. Give it another go. And this time they better get it right’.
‘Yeah! Too right! Or you’ll kill them all again!’.
‘Nah. If it happens again, they’re going to have to make a sacrifice. To show that they are sorry. Something really important’.
‘But what happens if they won’t or can’t do that? Gonna kill them again?’
‘Mmm…no. Done that already. Need something a little different’.
‘Hey, I know. If they can’t make a sacrifice, why don’t YOU make it?’
‘Me?’
‘Yeah. You can…I dunno…kill your son?’
‘That’s it! But I won’t do it. I’ll send him over there and they can kill him’.
‘Brilliant…’

Makes zero sense. Absolutely zero sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Let’s not make caricatures of our positions, 'kay?

So I’m not going to present your position like this:

http://iwonder-all-categories.3025048.n2.nabble.com/file/n3693070/athe.jpg

Better to actually present the actual position, and then refute it, than create caricatures, yeah?
 
Bradski said:
What I presented IS your position. If not, then quote anything I said which misrepresents it.
Click to expand...
One cannot translate the sacred into the profane.
What this means for those who cannot imagine what is holy:
If you are scientifically minded, it is like trying to reduce a four dimensional representation into one dimension.
To the artistic, it is attempting to portray the colour green in black and white.

I understand Catholics are not for sola scriptura, but I am surprised by the tolerance demonstrated in these dialogues towards individuals who disparage the sacred word of God, and make every effort to not understand what is being said to them, while giving no indication that they are willing even to try in the slightest.
 
Bradski said:
You mean God. God made the sacrifice. John 3:16. And every pagan example you gave (I can’t believe you are comparing this to a pagan ritual), has the wrongdoers committing the sacrifice as a penance. ‘They give something valuable’, you say.

God gave His son. So who are the wrongdoers here? You have the whole pagan analogy completely the wrong way around.

‘See those people over there? They are the pits. I mean really, they sin, they fornicate, they don’t obey my laws. Do you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to send my boy over there’

‘What! But they’ll probably kill him’

‘Yeah, I know that. I’m not stupid.’

‘So you’re doing this because…?’

‘Well, to atone for their sins. Obviously.’

Does anyone really understand the logic in that? Could someone explain it to me? Does it make any sense whatsoever?
Click to expand...
Why does anyone (seriously, pick anyone) “go over there” to help someone else.
If I am starving because I have not provided well for myself due to alcohol abuse, don’t I simply “deserve” to die? Why would the good Friars of the Renewal tend to my sores and give me food and shelter? \

Why would a soldier fall on a grenade to save the dumazz next to him who gave away their position? Shouldn’t he just run the other way?

Why would Mother Teresa give up her life and willingly risk disease and poverty
to tend people who are someone else’s responsibility?

Before you respond with the “foolishness of atonement” reflex, let me suggest that you don’t understand atonement.
At-one-ment is not doing something stupid for someone else who did something stupid in order to balance the scales of justice.
At-one-ment is becoming one with the suffering of others, to share their burdens and free them from them. At-one-ment does not count the stupidity and foolishness of others, it values the relationship over the scales of justice.
At-one-ment frees us from paying the unpayable. So, a life which was about paying your price (and doing it logically!!!) becomes a life lived in the freedom of love. It becomes about responding, not paying.

It is justice to respond to a gift. It is -not- justice to continue under the yoke of repayment. That is simply wasting the gift of at-one-ment.
Every child is taught this: to say thank you for a gift. The child who just the day before threw a tantrum is given a new gift, undeservedly perhaps. The proper thing is not to throw it back and ask for continuing punishment, the proper response is be grateful, and live in the joy of the gift.
The Giver who seems like a fool, and the gifted who is undeserving, nonetheless live in the freedom of the gift.
 
PRmerger said:
This is very Catholic. 👍

#apologetics
Click to expand...
When people say they question their beliefs, they can mean very different things.

Many may come to this forum to grow in faith.
Growing in faith entails an expansion of one’s mind,
gaining a greater appreciation of what is and what lies beyond the limits of one’s knowledge,
and a deepening of the relationship one has with God.
Meanings become richer as various layers become apparent.

That is the fartherest one can get from skepticism, which is what some use as their preferred, even sole method of questioning their beliefs.
It is a destructive process of doubt and a lack of faith, totally useless outside of its limited practical application as a starting point.
To certain posters, were they true skeptics, they would have realized that there is sufficient evidence to question their beliefs and begin a journey towards God. But they aren’t.

I also wanted to add that some of what is being written is not food for thought and discussion, but is merely an “antiprayer”, the opposite of “Hallowed be thy name.” It is offensive.
 
Aloysium said:
When people say they question their beliefs, they can mean very different things.

Many may come to this forum to grow in faith.
Growing in faith entails an expansion of one’s mind,
gaining a greater appreciation of what is and what lies beyond the limits of one’s knowledge,
and a deepening of the relationship one has with God.
Meanings become richer as various layers become apparent.

That is the fartherest one can get from skepticism, which is what some use as their preferred, even sole method of questioning their beliefs.
It is a destructive process of doubt and a lack of faith, totally useless outside of its limited practical application as a starting point.
To certain posters, were they true skeptics, they would have realized that there is sufficient evidence to question their beliefs and begin a journey towards God. But they aren’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I agree. I am a skeptic.

And I am a woman of faith.

These are not mutually exclusive.
 
PRmerger said:
Better to actually present the actual position, and then refute it, than create caricatures, yeah?
Click to expand...
The problem with the presented caricature is that it is incorrect. To take someone’s position and stretch it to the extreme is a good caricature. To bring up something that the other party does not say nor implies is simply an error.

Let’s correct your misunderstanding: “Atheism is the lack of belief that a god or gods exist”. Or, if you prefer to say it differently: “Atheism is the stance that the physical universe is an existential primary”. Or you can say: “Atheism states that the concepts of space, time, causation cannot be defined for the universe, they can only be defined within the universe”. These would good summaries.

A good caricature for an atheist is the sign on his grave: “Here lies an atheist, all dressed up and nowhere to go”. That perfectly describes the atheist.
But none of this matters right now. The problem is very simple and this presentation is not a caricature:

Humanity amassed a lot of sins, for which the punishment is hell. (I disagree with this, but for the sake of discussion I will stipulate it).
This debt cannot be repaid. (Why not? The sin is just a disobedience.)
Therefore Jesus steps up and says: “I will take the punishment out of love”.

Now comes the problem.

In you interpretation God accepts this substitution. Effectively God says: “I don’t care if the guilty is the one which pays the debt, or an innocent one. As long as there is blood flowing, as long as there is suffering my sense of justice is fulfilled.”

In my world God’s answer would be: “What kind of nonsense is that? I am not a bloodthirsty tyrant who only cares about “someone” suffering. That is not justice. Kind of you to offer, but I will not accept it. They will have to be punished according to their deeds. Since I am merciful, I will let them pay their dues in the purgatory. No finite deed merits an infinite punishment.”

Now tell me what is wrong with this analysis?
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t think I agree. I am a skeptic.

And I am a woman of faith.

These are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
If I weren’t a skeptic, I would not have come to see the illusory was of what the world offers.
Skepticism, it seems to me, asks questions, but provides no answers.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
The problem with the presented caricature is that it is incorrect. To take someone’s position and stretch it to the extreme is a good caricature. To bring up something that the other party does not say nor implies is simply an error.
Click to expand...
Yep. Egg-zactly.

Caricatures deserve no refutation.

Thanks for making our point. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top