The amount of "freedom". Too much? Too little? Just right?

[Spock]

Spock, I fee like you are making an interesting point, but you are loosing me somewhere. Maybe I have just put off my schoolwork for so long that I can no longer read, but I would appreciate some clarification…

How exactly are we limited in our freedom to act? I believe that I can do everything that is possible for me to do. Some things are impossible for me to do, like flying and lifting super heavy objects. If I could do those things, I could help a lot more people, I could do a lot more “good,” as you say. I assume this is an example of how “the laws of nature limit us.” Am I on track so far? Are you asking why are we limited in this way?

You got it perfectly.

What about the “other limiting factors?” Can we have an example or two or those? For the life of me I cannot think of any–which of course is not to say that there are none.

For example, upbringing, learning habits which are almost impossible to override. Example: I was taught as a child, that one should not steal. When a cashier happens to err in my favor, I find it impossible to quietly pocket the money.

My “brainwshing” in childhood established a behavior which I do not want to override, even though I could do it, if I really wanted to. But if I did, I would have to live with the image that I am a thief, and that is something I don’t want.

There is no physical barrier, but the psychological one is too strong.

 

[seductus_sum]

For example, upbringing, learning habits which are almost impossible to override. Example: I was taught as a child, that one should not steal. When a cashier happens to err in my favor, I find it impossible to quietly pocket the money.

My “brainwshing” in childhood established a behavior which I do not want to override, even though I could do it, if I really wanted to. But if I did, I would have to live with the image that I am a thief, and that is something I don’t want.

Very good point! I had never thought about a class of limitations on freedom like this before. I thank you for this. So, it seems to me that we are dealing with three classes of limitations on free choice (if I may be so bold as to systematize the discussion in this way–if you see a problem, let me know):

1. The kind of limitations that come from the laws of nature, or from “the way things are.” For example, I cannot fly and so cannot choose to move quickly over water to help a drowning infant. Let us call these natural limitations.
2. The kind of limitations that come from “the way things are,” but which are learned over time and are different from individual to individual. For example, I am afraid of heights. I learned this fear over time and with the experience from nature that it hurts when I fall. This limitation might cause me to think twice about scaling a cliff to rescue someone in danger, and might even cause me not to choose to do so at all. The limitation was learned, but originated in nature. Let us call these learned-natural limitations (for lack of a better term ).
3. The kind of limitations you described in your example above, that is, the limitations that are learned through one’s upbringing or which are otherwise imposed upon someone by other individuals. If a parents drills it into their child that stealing is wrong, that child will be less able to choose the steal in the future; thus, he is also, in a way, less responsible for their choice to do good and not steal. Let us call these learned limitations.

Do you think this covers it?

And where does the discussion go from here? You asked if someone could give an argument that the amount of freedom we have is optimal, that the presence of the limitations outlined above is better than their absence.

I assume you are asking (and forgive me if I am setting you up as a straw man), “If God is all good and all powerful, then why didn’t God give me the ability to fly so that I could rescue my friends who are falling from an airplane? What about all of those other things that God could let me do in order that I might do good? And why in the heck can’t I be more evil? Why can’t I see through the wall of the girl’s locker room ( just kidding) or punch over the walls of a bank? Why do I feel bad to the point that I cannot bring myself to steal? I thought that God wanted us to have freedom! What kind of freedom is this!?”

I suspect that you are assuming that the three limitations outlined above came from God, and this indeed is the source of the objection I just outlined.

This post is getting too long, and I need to give you a chance to respond and correct anything I have said.

I would begin the next part of the discussion, however, by asserting briefly that the third class of limitations, the learned limitations, do not come from God. God does not have as much influence over our culture norms as He does over the laws of nature. At least, it is an influence of a different sort: By interacting with people throughout history, God has definitely become an important part of our society, but people CHOSE to let Him influence their cultural institutions and the way in which they raise their children. God is not responsible for a mother teaching her son that stealing is wrong, even if God thinks that stealing is wrong, and even if the mother learned how God felt at her church and is teaching her son BECAUSE she is Christian. The origin of learned limitations is the primary teacher of the limitation, be it the mother or teacher or preacher, not God.

Sorry about the length of this post , but I am enjoying this line of thought .

 

[Spock]

Very good point! I had never thought about a class of limitations on freedom like this before. I thank you for this. So, it seems to me that we are dealing with three classes of limitations on free choice (if I may be so bold as to systematize the discussion in this way–if you see a problem, let me know):

1. The kind of limitations that come from the laws of nature, or from “the way things are.” For example, I cannot fly and so cannot choose to move quickly over water to help a drowning infant. Let us call these natural limitations.
2. The kind of limitations that come from “the way things are,” but which are learned over time and are different from individual to individual. For example, I am afraid of heights. I learned this fear over time and with the experience from nature that it hurts when I fall. This limitation might cause me to think twice about scaling a cliff to rescue someone in danger, and might even cause me not to choose to do so at all. The limitation was learned, but originated in nature. Let us call these learned-natural limitations (for lack of a better term ).
3. The kind of limitations you described in your example above, that is, the limitations that are learned through one’s upbringing or which are otherwise imposed upon someone by other individuals. If a parents drills it into their child that stealing is wrong, that child will be less able to choose the steal in the future; thus, he is also, in a way, less responsible for their choice to do good and not steal. Let us call these learned limitations.

Do you think this covers it?.

Yes, I think so. At least I cannot come up with anything else. But I will think about it some more.

And where does the discussion go from here? You asked if someone could give an argument that the amount of freedom we have is optimal, that the presence of the limitations outlined above is better than their absence.

Yes, that is the question we are contemplating.

I assume you are asking (and forgive me if I am setting you up as a straw man), “If God is all good and all powerful, then why didn’t God give me the ability to fly so that I could rescue my friends who are falling from an airplane? What about all of those other things that God could let me do in order that I might do good? And why in the heck can’t I be more evil? Why can’t I see through the wall of the girl’s locker room ( just kidding) or punch over the walls of a bank? Why do I feel bad to the point that I cannot bring myself to steal? I thought that God wanted us to have freedom! What kind of freedom is this!?”

Excellent summary! Yes, we are able to do many good things, and able to do many bad things.

The interesting thing is that the world is not static. As technology and human nature changes, we are able to “stretch” the limits, which used to be insurmountable. For example we can predict natural calamities, and warn the population of an impending catastrophy (tsunamis come to mind) and thus decreasing the devastation they make. Who knows? Maybe sometime in the future we can even eliminate some of these events? Will that be a good thing? In my eyes, yes. So my conclusion is that this world is not optimal at all - and cannot be due to its dynamic nature.

I suspect that you are assuming that the three limitations outlined above came from God, and this indeed is the source of the objection I just outlined.

This post is getting too long, and I need to give you a chance to respond and correct anything I have said.

I would begin the next part of the discussion, however, by asserting briefly that the third class of limitations, the learned limitations, do not come from God. God does not have as much influence over our culture norms as He does over the laws of nature. At least, it is an influence of a different sort: By interacting with people throughout history, God has definitely become an important part of our society, but people CHOSE to let Him influence their cultural institutions and the way in which they raise their children. God is not responsible for a mother teaching her son that stealing is wrong, even if God thinks that stealing is wrong, and even if the mother learned how God felt at her church and is teaching her son BECAUSE she is Christian. The origin of learned limitations is the primary teacher of the limitation, be it the mother or teacher or preacher, not God.

Sorry about the length of this post , but I am enjoying this line of thought .

No objection at all. Please continue. I am most interested in seeing your thoughts.

 

[seductus_sum]

No objection at all. Please continue. I am most interested in seeing your thoughts.

You asked for it… and with a smile too!

So we are left with natural limitations and learned-natural limitations. What in the world is God thinking with these two? Why are they still around? Why are they there in the first place? How can this be the “optimal” situation created by the omnipotent and all-good Christian God?

There are two ways to address these concerns as a Christian, and I think both of them are convincing, that is, I think that both of them explain how a Christian can reasonably say that God is omnipotent and all-good and yet still acknowledge the reality of the limitations on our freedom that we have outlined. I do not claim to prove God’s existence with what follows but only hope to explain how a Christian can exist without being a walking contradiction in this particular area.

WAY THE FIRST ()

If we assume that both *natural limitations *and *learned-natural limitations *come from God, then I say that both kinds of limitations work for our ultimate good in ways that are not known to us, and perhaps will never be known to us. This is perfectly reasonable if God is omniscient and knows what is best for us even better than we do, something which I and the Catholic Church certainly do believe.

Let’s flash back to the 9/11 attacks. I could not help the people in those buildings because I was (and am) limited by the laws of nature: I cannot fly or lift boulders or do any number of things that would have been useful. Why? Because the evil that would have resulted from God making it possible for me to save those people ultimately would have been greater than any good that would have resulted from me saving those people. This is true even if neither I nor anyone else is able to understand why, precisely because we do not a full knowledge and understanding of everything as God does.

There is one major thing that I could see resulting from my being able to save the 9/11 victims: It would disrupt cause and effect, it would stop the consequences of an action. The terrorists slammed jets into the World Trade Center and there were consequences to their decision to do so, namely, the buildings fell and people died. This might sound obtuse, but perhaps those people dying in that way and at that time was better than them dying in another way at another time. How are we to know? But God does know such things. Furthermore, God does not typically take away the negative consequences of our actions because to do so would be to diminish the value of our free will. What kind of god would only allow good consequences to take place? What kind of god would eliminate all bad consequences of bad actions? Certainly not the God of the Old and the New Testaments. A god who would will for bad consequences to be reversed would be a god who is really a tyrant, a king of robots, or at least of people who are reduced to living a life in which their choices do not matter.

And what of learned-natural limitations? Those come from nature, too. Why are they around? Why am I afraid of heights? I suggest that these kinds of limitations are learned for our survival and are reactions in certain situations. Let’s say they come from God, since God created nature and nature instills learned-natural limitations. We can say the same thing about these limitations as we did about the *natural limitations *above, that is, God knows what’s ultimately best, and lets that happen. Also, learned-natural limitations are effective only in so far as we let them be effective. This should be obvious from personal experience: I can and have climbed something tall, I just don’t like to. The problem seems to be more with me that with anything I learned from nature. A fear of heights, for example, is reasonable and good in a way, but my particular fear of heights goes out of control at times because me, myself, and I, because I ultimately choose to let it effect my choices about what to climb or not climb.

WAY THE SECOND

But I am skeptical about whether a Christian MUST say that both *natural limitations *and *learned-natural limitations *come from God. If a Christian can say that God is not fully responsible for the way nature currently is, then he could also reasonably say that God is not responsible for any limitations of nature on our freedom to do good or evil. And indeed, Catholics believe emphatically that God originally intended for things to be quite different than they are. The problem and change for the worse was not with God but with man: Adam, Eve, and the Fall. As a result of original sin, mankind was separated from God. What this separation had to do with the laws and nature and “the way things are” now nobody can say, but it is perfectly reasonable for the Christian to say that it DID have SOME effect. Thus Catholics can believe that the limitations of nature were not in God’s original plan and so not from God at all.

I agree very much with you, Spock, that “this world is not optimal at all.” But I do not believe that God intended it to be less than optimal. I believe the world and mankind are the way they are because of man’s decision.

For more reading on both of these arguments, and especially the second, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church here: benedettoxvi.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm (part 1, section 2, chapter 1, paragraph 7). See also The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis. He does a brilliant job.

CONCLUSION: Any limitations on our freedom to do good or evil either 1) are for our greater good (way the first) or 2) are not from God (way the second).

 

[Spock]

If we assume that both *natural limitations *and *learned-natural limitations *come from God, then I say that both kinds of limitations work for our ultimate good in ways that are not known to us, and perhaps will never be known to us. This is perfectly reasonable if God is omniscient and knows what is best for us even better than we do, something which I and the Catholic Church certainly do believe.

I don’t doubt that, but it is hardly convincing for me.

Let’s flash back to the 9/11 attacks. I could not help the people in those buildings because I was (and am) limited by the laws of nature: I cannot fly or lift boulders or do any number of things that would have been useful. Why? Because the evil that would have resulted from God making it possible for me to save those people ultimately would have been greater than any good that would have resulted from me saving those people.

How can you know that? That is precisely the knowledge that we all lack. It all boils down to the idea, that one must trust God. Again, I don’t argue that it is convincing for you, but it is not convincing for me.

The syllogism is this:

1. God is benevolent.
2. There seem to be instances when this benevolence is in doubt, due to all sorts of factors.
3. But this contradicts assumption 1), therefore we must conclude that our limited view is incorrect, in other words, what we see as lack of benevolence, is merely a “measurement error”.

Of course this not a sound reasoning. One cannot invoke the premise 1) and also use it as a validating argument. God’s benevolence must be established without appealing to our lack of knowledge.

There is one major thing that I could see resulting from my being able to save the 9/11 victims: It would disrupt cause and effect, it would stop the consequences of an action.

Correct. But this is the way we always act, if and when we have the knowledge and power to prevent something. Preventing a crime is vastly superior to mitigate the results of it, even if such mitigation is possible.

And what of learned-natural limitations? Those come from nature, too. Why are they around? Why am I afraid of heights? I suggest that these kinds of limitations are learned for our survival and are reactions in certain situations. Let’s say they come from God, since God created nature and nature instills learned-natural limitations. We can say the same thing about these limitations as we did about the *natural limitations *above, that is, God knows what’s ultimately best, and lets that happen.

Again you appeal to faith and trust. Unfortunately these I don’t have.

And indeed, Catholics believe emphatically that God originally intended for things to be quite different than they are. The problem and change for the worse was not with God but with man: Adam, Eve, and the Fall.As a result of original sin, mankind was separated from God. What this separation had to do with the laws and nature and “the way things are” now nobody can say, but it is perfectly reasonable for the Christian to say that it DID have SOME effect.

If you take the story literally, then I can tell you what the result was: God became angry, and cursed his creation. The deterioration of the world was not of “natural” causes, rather the deliberate action of God.

CONCLUSION: Any limitations on our freedom to do good or evil either 1) are for our greater good (way the first) or 2) are not from God (way the second).

I must disagree with you. We cannot know if these limitations are “good for us”, it is a matter of trust. And God actually destroyed his creation, by putting a curse on it.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please don’t stray into biblical interpretation in the Philosohpy forum. Any discussions about biblical passages/expressions, etc. should be taken to the Sacred Scripture forum where those who have this kind of expertise will no doubt enter into the discussion. Thank you all.

 

[seductus_sum]

Spock, your intellect is clearly very strong, and you did a great job of distilling my post down. However, I fear you err in your analysis of my points.

I don’t doubt that, but it is hardly convincing for me.

I know. I tried to sound the alarm in my earlier post as well, that my arguments that followed were not meant to convince you of their truth but only to show that Christians are not “walking contradictions.” My approach to these limitations are going to be totally different than yours because I believe that the Christian God created man and the universe. You asked for a Christian’s reason why things were the way they were in this regard and I gave my best shot. It will only be convincing to someone who believes in God, but this does not make belief in God irrational or untrue.

How can you know that? That is precisely the knowledge that we all lack. It all boils down to the idea, that one must trust God. Again, I don’t argue that it is convincing for you, but it is not convincing for me.

The syllogism is this:

1. God is benevolent.
2. There seem to be instances when this benevolence is in doubt, due to all sorts of factors.
3. But this contradicts assumption 1), therefore we must conclude that our limited view is incorrect, in other words, what we see as lack of benevolence, is merely a “measurement error”.

Of course this not a sound reasoning. One cannot invoke the premise 1) and also use it as a validating argument. God’s benevolence must be established without appealing to our lack of knowledge.

If Christians believed in the goodness of God only because of our lack of knowledge, your objection would be valid. However, you forget that the Christian trusts God and believes that God is benevolent for reasons that go far beyond our lack of knowledge. On the contrary, my personal belief in those qualities is based on a vast amount of historical evidence (especially the Gospels and the witnesses of the early martyrs) and my own experience (which I understand is weak evidence, but still a piece of the puzzle). In fact, the evidence of God’s goodness and trustworthiness is so strong (especially the evidence of the Crucifixion) that I believe God’s love is perfect.

So, if God’s love is perfect, the syllogism is thus:

1. God loves mankind perfectly (again, as based on historical and personal evidence).
2. There are many cases in which God’s love seem questionable.
3. Since God’s love is perfect, these cases must be a result of a “measurement error.”

I fail to see how this is not sound reasoning.

Correct. But this is the way we always act, if and when we have the knowledge and power to prevent something. Preventing a crime is vastly superior to mitigate the results of it, even if such mitigation is possible.

So the question becomes, “Why doesn’t God act like us?” My answer: because God is God and we are not.

Do I believe that God does stop some evil actions from occurring? Yes, by means of miracles (ooh do I smell another thread? ). But again, if God chooses not to stop every evil, then there must be a reason since God’s love is perfect. It is reasonable for a Christian to trust God because God has made his perfect trustworthiness clear. But I do not expect you to buy into that, and you don’t have to. I only hope I and other Christians do not appear to you to embrace a contradiction.

If you take the story literally, then I can tell you what the result was: God became angry, and cursed his creation. The deterioration of the world was not of “natural” causes, rather the deliberate action of God.

You say “curse” (which for me stirs up all kinds of devilish, Wicken, Voodoo connotations), but I would say “punish” (which seems to retain the paternal quality common in the Judeao-Christian concept of God). And so another question: Did mankind deserve to be punished for their actions? I would say yes, since God told them bluntly not to eat the fruit. But I suppose this is a topic for another board as our brave moderator has informed us . I just wanted to say that evil actions justly have consequences, so God’s punishment of mankind can reasonable be called just. We therefore deserved our punishment and can be said to have been the cause of it. (Again, I doubt this will be a point to convince you of God’s existence, and indeed the problem of evil is one of the biggest challenges to Christianity, but I hope it frees me from contradiction.)

So, why are there these limitations? From my point of view as a Christian, they are either given to us by God for our greater good (a fact guaranteed independently by God’s manifest perfect love) or they are the result of God’s just punishment.

And you asked why the situation is not “optimal.” This can easily be expanded to form an even bigger problem for Christianity: Why is the state of the whole universe not “optimal?” I would respond by agreeing that the whole state of the universe is not optimal, and by asserting emphatically that the Catholic Christian does not at all need to believe it is. We long for Heaven for a reason, precisely because we messed things up here in our universe.

 

[tobias]

This reminds me of an old conversation when I asked why does God always allow the will of the strong attacker to override the will of the weak defender, namely why can the will of the rapist override the will of the woman being raped. The answer was: “her free will is not restricted at all, her freedom to wish to get away is not impaired, only her actual ability to carry it out”. What you say exactly corresponds to this view.

Always?
In the midst of this some will sream, or cry, or try to inflict harm on the attacker, or go silent. Then of course is the aftermath. Some will choose to ingress, some will become activists for greater awareness of the problem, some will choose to trust no man again, some may choose to forgive, and some may choose to never forgive- man and/or God.
It is an imposition of one will over another, not an overriding. Overriding would be brainwashing.

Now what does “free will” mean in the absence of ability to actually doing what you intend to do? What kind of ,meaning do you associate with the word “to choose”? How can anyone “chooe” to do something that cannot be carried out - for whatever reason?

You seem to be stuck on choices as exterior manifestations. Is not inaction a choice? And wouldn’t unlimited ability to carry out your will make you God? Or since you don’t believe, it would make you immortal and all powerful, and omniscient, and perfect (complete). I think that’s what your’e really after; why can’t we be like God?
The limits on our abilities makes us mortal, imperfect.

That does not follow at all.

It follows exactly, if your line of reasoning is valid.
You assert that:
1- Person A may will to fly
2- A, no matter how he may choose, physically cannot fly
3- therefore A is unable to act out his will
4- therefore A has restrictions on his will

Yet history does not bear this out. If a will is truly restricted then it would not be possible for B to come along and invent a machine by which a man may fly. B would in fact be in the same position as A, unable to carry out this will. Unless of course one asserts that some can will what others may not. It would be more accutrate to say that B has the recources and determination to carry out his will, and A does not. A then is restricted by resource and/or determination, not by restriction on the will.
So let’s adjust things:

1-A may will to fly
2- A, no matter how he may chose, physically cannot fly
3- therefore A is unable to act out his will perfectly
4-therefore A must make something to fly him, since he physically cannot, allowing A to act out his will. or A may accept that he physically cannot fly.

On another note, you are in no way restricted by your upbringing. I know few sibling sets that all follow the direction and dictate of thier upbringing. In fact, for some, it pains them to follow their upbringing. This goes both ways; those that cannot abide the strictness of parental teaching, and those that cannot abide the selfishness of parental relativism.

 

[Spock]

My apologies to all… I don’t have a long enough access to a comp to answer the posts. Hopefully sooon I will.

Spock

 

[Spock]

Because otherwise your hypothesis lacks substance.

How would our choices be limited in your hypothetical world?

How we would have more options to do good?

By having more options to help others, having more ability to protect against assault, and miriads of different ways…

You could choose to love God by expressing gratitude for everything you are and possess, doing what you believe is right and loving His creatures. “If you love me keep my commandments.”

In that case, I am home scot-free. I was told many times that I lead my life according to the standards of good Christians, but of course, I was also told that “works alone do not lead to salvation”… so which one is it?

The commandment was directed at believers…

I would like to believe you, but I don’t think so.

 

[Spock]

If Christians believed in the goodness of God only because of our lack of knowledge, your objection would be valid. However, you forget that the Christian trusts God and believes that God is benevolent for reasons that go far beyond our lack of knowledge. On the contrary, my personal belief in those qualities is based on a vast amount of historical evidence (especially the Gospels and the witnesses of the early martyrs) and my own experience (which I understand is weak evidence, but still a piece of the puzzle). In fact, the evidence of God’s goodness and trustworthiness is so strong (especially the evidence of the Crucifixion) that I believe God’s love is perfect.

So, if God’s love is perfect, the syllogism is thus:

1. God loves mankind perfectly (again, as based on historical and personal evidence).
2. There are many cases in which God’s love seem questionable.
3. Since God’s love is perfect, these cases must be a result of a “measurement error.”

I fail to see how this is not sound reasoning.

For the same reason as above: you assume God’s prefect love as a premise, and then you also use it as a substantiating argument.

To distill it down to essentials, let’s use a formal language:

1. propostion “A” is assumed to be true.
2. circumstance “B” does not support it.
3. since this contradicts the assumption 1), therefore 2) must be false.

Do you see the problem?

So the question becomes, “Why doesn’t God act like us?” My answer: because God is God and we are not.

Unfortunately this is just a different form of pleading ignorance. If a human does not help someone else, even though he could do it (and not even inconveniece himself in the process) then we would not call that person “perfectly loving”. What you say is just another form of “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”, and I reject that concept. If we use a set of criteria to decide if a human is “good or not”, then the same set of criteria must be used to decide if “God is good or not”. There are no two different scale to measure. “Mene, tekel, ufarsin” applies to all.

You say “curse” (which for me stirs up all kinds of devilish, Wicken, Voodoo connotations), but I would say “punish” (which seems to retain the paternal quality common in the Judeao-Christian concept of God).

I merely quoted Genesis 3:17 withount the intent to give some special meaning to the word. But since this is counteradvised, I will not go into it any further.

 

[tonyrey]

By having more options to help others, having more ability to protect against assault, and myriads of different ways…

This is still hypothetical because we have to take the social, personal and physical context into account. Changes cannot be made in isolation from other people’s behaviour, our own personality and our environment.

In that case, I am home scot-free. I was told many times that I lead my life according to the standards of good Christians, but of course, I was also told that “works alone do not lead to salvation”… so which one is it?

Congratulations!If you lead a good life and sincerely believe faith in God is misguided then you have nothing to worry about. The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

I would like to believe you, but I don’t think so.

You seem rather pessimistic. Your ultimate authority is not the Bible or the Church. If you choose to love others you love God even if you are unaware of the fact. How we live shows what we really believe, don’t you think?

 

[seductus_sum]

1. proposition “A” is assumed to be true.

No, proposition A is not merely “assumed” to be true. Rather, it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on historical and personal evidence. And as an independent conclusion it may be used as the basis of other arguments. Moreover, it is a very very strong conclusion that stands at the heart of the Christian religion, and again, is based on a lot of historical evidence and an abundance of recorded personal experiences. It would therefore take a great deal to refute it–if your “circumstance B” was going to do so, it would need to be some great big circumstance or collection of circumstances, it would need to show conclusively that God was not good.

But how can this be done to everyone’s satisfaction? I suggest that it cannot be done using only empirical, scientific evidence, that is, an atheist cannot merely list off what he perceives to be contradictions to God’s goodness and then go on his way. Each circumstance, each objection deserves a fair look as the theist might have a reasonable response to each, something the atheist has not considered.

I believe I have offered at least a reasonable response in this thread to why our being limited with regard to our freedom to do certain things does not contradict God’s goodness. First, our knowledge is limited and so we might not know why God would give us such a limitation. Second, the limitations are a result of God’s just punishment, and I would add now that they are therefore an expression of his goodness.

I imagine these two points could also be used to respond to some other apparent contradictions to God’s goodness. However, so we are not dealing in generalities, what, Spock, are your top objections? What are the main elements that comprise your “2) circumstance ‘B’ does not support it”? (We might also want to start another thread about the problem of evil at this point…)

Oh, and consider science. If someone came forward with a theory that evolution was untrue while claiming that the theory was based on a set of evidence, then the scientific community would have the to right to remain skeptical until it had considered each and every piece of evidence (wait… this is sounding familiar…). Evolution is to modern science and God’s goodness is to the Christan, both are fundamental, huge deals.

Unfortunately this is just a different form of pleading ignorance.

This is something to Christian has no problem doing. If God knows everything, then he knows things we do not. It is not that “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi,” but rather “quod licet Iovi, non necessarie licet bovi.” We have the ability to understand the depths of God’s plans, but we are not guaranteed to do so–we are limited in our perception and knowledge and therefore in our reason.

If a human does not help someone else, even though he could do it (and not even inconvenience himself in the process) then we would not call that person “perfectly loving”.

We do it all the time, especially in the case of superiors over their dependents. A father is perfectly justified in not helping his son do everything–indeed, if he did help in every case he would raise a very helpless son. And a teacher is trained (trust me, I know) to challenge their students and let them figure things our on their own. One can easily use those cases as an analogy for God, who is the loving Father and Teacher.

 

[seductus_sum]

It is not that “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi,” but rather “quod licet Iovi, non necessarie licet bovi.”

This was a poor attempt to be clever, and the voice in my head would not let it alone.

EDIT: What I should have said was: “It is not that quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, but rather quod licet Iovi, non licere bovi videatur.” A translation of the latter clause (so you can check me): “That which is right for God might not seem right to an ox.” Or: “That which is right for God might seem not to be right to an ox” (and I might like this one better).

I hope this makes my point clearer. In a Christian worldview, what is right for God is actually right; however, as limited creatures we might not always agree. I apologize for any confusion and admit my embarrassment.

 

[Spock]

No, proposition A is not merely “assumed” to be true. Rather, it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on historical and personal evidence. And as an independent conclusion it may be used as the basis of other arguments. Moreover, it is a very very strong conclusion that stands at the heart of the Christian religion, and again, is based on a lot of historical evidence and an abundance of recorded personal experiences. It would therefore take a great deal to refute it–if your “circumstance B” was going to do so, it would need to be some great big circumstance or collection of circumstances, it would need to show conclusively that God was not good.

Well, a few remarks. One is that I don’t know about any convincing historical evidence, properly corroborated by several sources. What do you have in mind? Two is that personal experiences cannot be proven. Three, and this is the most important one, historical evidence is only useful if the event is only in the past. God is supposed to be loving and caring today. Why aren’t there modern, verifyable instances of expressing that love?

To use another old story: “Someone was bragging that he jumped very high a while ago on the island of Rhodos. He was told: Hic Rhodos, hic salta!”. I am sure you see my point. Or to quote a nice commercial from the near past: “Where is the beef?”.

But how can this be done to everyone’s satisfaction? I suggest that it cannot be done using only empirical, scientific evidence, that is, an atheist cannot merely list off what he perceives to be contradictions to God’s goodness and then go on his way. Each circumstance, each objection deserves a fair look as the theist might have a reasonable response to each, something the atheist has not considered.

I agree in principle. Now what is the answer of allowing the Holocaust? The genocides? The uncountable murders, rapes and tortures? The lack of rain, which dooms thousands to die of hunger? The lack of medicine which results in painful deaths?God could alleviate all them just by “wishing” them away, at no personal inconvenience. I will not say that God is evil, but at best he seems to be totally indifferent.

I imagine these two points could also be used to respond to some other apparent contradictions to God’s goodness. However, so we are not dealing in generalities, what, Spock, are your top objections? What are the main elements that comprise your “2) circumstance ‘B’ does not support it”? (We might also want to start another thread about the problem of evil at this point…)

I enumearated a few above.

We do it all the time, especially in the case of superiors over their dependents. A father is perfectly justified in not helping his son do everything–indeed, if he did help in every case he would raise a very helpless son. And a teacher is trained (trust me, I know) to challenge their students and let them figure things our on their own. One can easily use those cases as an analogy for God, who is the loving Father and Teacher.

Well, teaching someone cannot be compared to seeing someone about to die of hunger and not giving him food. It cannot be compared to allowing torture and rape to happen. What can one “learn” from starving to death? And, please, don’t say that others might learn from it. To use humans as a “teaching material” deprives them of their dignity.

 

[seductus_sum]

Well, a few remarks. One is that I don’t know about any convincing historical evidence, properly corroborated by several sources. What do you have in mind? Two is that personal experiences cannot be proven. Three, and this is the most important one, historical evidence is only useful if the event is only in the past. God is supposed to be loving and caring today. Why aren’t there modern, verifyable instances of expressing that love?

A number for each of yours:

1. I am sure we know of the same historical evidence. However, it is convincing for me and not for you. I speak of course of the evidence of Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for us and the evidence of the early Christian Church. Contemporary and near-contemporary evidence is certainly in abundance, and I believe that it gives a coherent picture of a person who claimed to be the Son of God and who died for us in order to save us. Thus there is a solid historical record of God’s perfect love for humanity.

Moreover, given the actions of his nearest followers, also a matter of historical record, I can say for sure that they were quite impressed with him, so much so that they all accepted martyrdom for his sake. They at least must have believed in him, all 12 ( 13 ) and of different sorts. More evidence that he was who he said he was.

Again, I understand this is not convincing for you. But it is for me, and I do not think I am being unreasonable in considering these events historical. The evidence is at least on par with other evidence about ancient history, evidence which scholars accept as fact.

Therefore my belief that God is good does not simply come from nowhere, out of thin air. It is supported by historical evidence.

1. I know that personal evidence cannot be verified. This is a huge difference between science and religion. In the end, scientists cannot understand some of the evidence offered by religious. This simply is the way it is because of the nature of science, and I fear we must leave it alone. But it is a piece of the puzzle, of my puzzle at least.
2. Why does God not provide verifiable evidence nowadays that he is all powerful and that he does indeed love us? I do not know. But, again, this does not mean that God is not real. For my part, I can come up with one reason why he may be standing back: Any evidence nowadays would make belief by faith (one of those things God seems to be interested in) null and void because of mass media. Or maybe he is not standing back at all, but the way he is working his love is not verifiable by science. Science is not all powerful.

I agree in principle. Now what is the answer of allowing the Holocaust? The genocides? The uncountable murders, rapes and tortures? The lack of rain, which dooms thousands to die of hunger? The lack of medicine which results in painful deaths?God could alleviate all them just by “wishing” them away, at no personal inconvenience. I will not say that God is evil, but at best he seems to be totally indifferent.

Why are people allowed to do evil to one another (e.g., the Holocaust, genocides, murders, rapes, and tortures)? Maybe now is the time to refer to the other thread that includes some back and forth between you and I, “Let’s go into a hypothetical future,” begun by you. There I argue that God allows people to choose to do evil so that their free will may be more complete than if he did not allow them to do so. Moreover, I argue that God normally allows the consequences of these evil actions to take place, again so that our free will retains its dignity. Hence the Holocaust, genocides, murders, rapes, and tortures.

Natural circumstances. These could be “wished away by God,” but then why are we living on earth at all? Why are we not living in Heaven? Why doesn’t God just make everything perfect? I believe I also address something like this in “Let’s go into a hypothetical future.” We hear in the Bible that things used to be different than they are now, that man used to be perfectly happy and intimately close to God. The state of man and the world is the result of man’s choice to separate himself from God. At least this is my interpretation/opinion–and I do not want to digress into scriptural interpretation. Suffice it to say that Christians do have an answer to objections like the one you raise and that their response is reasonable *within their worldview/I].

But who is to say that a place not getting rain for a while is an evil, anyways? How can we say that for sure? Does it just “feel” that way? If God does sent a famine, I trust that his judgment it is right is greater than our “feeling” it is bad. Again… he is God.

The lack of medicine in certain regions sounds more like a fault of man than of God. Why should God send medicine from the sky when we could easily provide medicines to those in need if we actually got behind the idea? Indeed, if you are a Christian, then you believe that such a thing is your responsibility, not God’s. I know that you are not a Christian, but to repeat myself, within the Christian worldview this objection holds no weight.*

 

[seductus_sum]

Well, teaching someone cannot be compared to seeing someone about to die of hunger and not giving him food. It cannot be compared to allowing torture and rape to happen. What can one “learn” from starving to death? And, please, don’t say that others might learn from it. To use humans as a “teaching material” deprives them of their dignity.

One can learn how to starve to death from starving to death. I refuse to follow you down the road of “death is the ultimate evil.” It most assuredly is not. God willing, death is our gateway to eternal life and so in a sense is our ultimate good. The suffering of starvation can also be considered a good if we consider the suffering of Jesus on the Cross. Again, again, again, I understand you don’t believe this. But I do, and I can only provide you with my worldview as a Christian. In the end, I can only hope not to be contradictory or unreasonable.

And why does having someone teach others through suffering deprive them of their dignity? Remember that I believe Jesus was the perfect and loving Teacher on Cross.

P.S. The problem of evil is one of the hardest challenges to Christianity and is not the way many, if any, people come to believe in God. I do expect you to be convinced that God is real by my arguments here. I merely hope that I and therefore Christianity do not come across as logically fallacious, contradictory, or unreasonable.

 

[Shlomo]

The biggest limitation of our free will is that we neither decide to enter this world nor to stay in it.

The biggest liberation from this limit is our freedom to be born again and enter the eternal Kingdom.

Here are the details:

sites.google.com/site/vinishsky/OneGodTwoWorlds

God bless all reading this!

 

[Spock]

One can learn how to starve to death from starving to death. I refuse to follow you down the road of “death is the ultimate evil.” It most assuredly is not. God willing, death is our gateway to eternal life and so in a sense is our ultimate good.

Except that some will “gain” eternal torture…

The suffering of starvation can also be considered a good if we consider the suffering of Jesus on the Cross.

Only if the person in question volitionally chooses to starve to death, with the aim of giving glory to Jesus. I have this suspicion that most people do not. They simply suffer and die for no good reason.

Again, again, again, I understand you don’t believe this. But I do, and I can only provide you with my worldview as a Christian. In the end, I can only hope not to be contradictory or unreasonable.

I don’t consider your worldview internally contradictiory. The “ex falso quodlibet” can be without internal contradiction. As for being unreasonable… well that is a subjective assessment.

 

[davidv]

Except that some will “gain” eternal torture…

You say “gain”, I say loss. Why give up something good for something not good?

Only if the person in question volitionally chooses to starve to death, with the aim of giving glory to Jesus. I have this suspicion that most people do not. They simply suffer and die for no good reason.

What if the starvation is inflicted on them from external sources?

I don’t consider your worldview internally contradictiory. The “ex falso quodlibet” can be without internal contradiction. As for being unreasonable… well that is a subjective assessment.

None of us created our own ability to reason. I believe it came from God. If it did, using it to find and follow Him would be highly reasonable.