Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[Chiral]

Hmm, reminds me of the baby Albert experiments where scientists conditioned fear into an eight month old baby. Nice…

This unethical treatment of babies is of the same type of gratuitous evil inflicted on animals in the name of science. I abhor both.

Yeah, that (baby fear experiment) doesn’t surprise me. But I agree, it is terrible. Some scientists get caught up in a question and forget the moral implications to testing their hypothesis. This is why the Church, the most outstanding supporter of scientific discovery in history, also concludes that there are some questions which would better remain unanswered than going about the discovery in such a fashion… One must ask, ‘What would be the point in answering this question? Does this end justify the means? If so, how likely is the end to actually be achieved?’

AAALAC International (while not a moral authority) demands certain ethical standards be maintained in animal research, including minimization of pain and distress in the research subjects.

As for consciousness being a criteria for pain, well, that’s just nonsense. Just because some non-human animals do not have an id or ego does not lessen any pain they experience. What about feral children?..

The pain being spoke of requires consciousness of ‘self’ to connect the instances into a contiguous experience. This psychological trait (whatever you believe its origin, spiritual or material) is either lacking or severely diminished in non-human animals. ‘Feral’ children still possess it, some non-human primates possess it to an extent, so (apparently) do a few other species, which *should *give scientists pause when experimenting on such subjects…
But we’ve strayed…

Right, moral evil can plausibly be defeated by free will, I’ve said that before. But you deny the existence of natural evil. Evil being that which causes gratuitous pain/suffering. St. Augustine acknowledged the existence of natural evil, and like Plantiga, explained it as the actions of fallen angels. This neatly moves this problem back into the court of moral evil. Of course one has to assume that demons are busy shifting tectonic plates.

Yeah, I ignore ‘natural evil’ because of the open possibility of acting moral agents, and I also wonder what constitutes ‘gratuitous’. I’m getting into this with RDaneel. If God allows (or perhaps more accurately ‘cooperates in’) an event which results in pain and suffering, certain questions immediately come to mind:

1. To what extent did human choice play a role (e.g. did humans build a city below the water-line next to hurricane-prone waters, or near a massive fault line, or on an active volcano, or did they mess with weather patterns on a major scale, etc.?)
2. Is it possible there are other free agents at work?
3. On what bases do we designate the suffering ‘gratuitous’?

The notion of demons causing disasters may sound silly, it’s certainly very mystical, indeed ‘earthy’ pagans (even actual historical ones) believed this - mischievous faeries and spirits of air, earth, water, & fire… It’s possible, we have no evidence to disprove it and a wealth of mystical cultural history to support it. But I certainly wouldn’t base belief in an omnibenevolent deity on that defense alone.

 

[Chiral]

It looks like I may be bumped out of the conversation, but I’ll try another reply…

…I think that the auxiliary benefit of teaching some else (not the sufferer) a valuable lesson does not invalidate that the sufferer himself cannot be “degraded” to a mere teaching tool.

As a practical example, it would not be morally justifyable to remove someone’s kidney without their prior consent just to save someone else’s life (even though one can have a healthy life with only one kidney). Similarly, we find it unacceptable to forcfully draw blood from someone (against his protestations) in order to save someone else’s life.

:thumbsup:I totally agree with you, justice for the individual must be satisfied as well.
An interesting thought regarding the medical scenarios is, what moral culpability does the unwilling donor have? As fellow humans, we have no right to judge, but we can easily imagine that a god who is Love might interpret such protestations as a lack of love… but that is neither here nor there.

…if the “prospective” sufferer would understand the immediate and long term ramifications of his decision and still does not accept the suffering (rightly of incorrectly) then his decision is final. I suspect that you might disagree, but the “whose life is it anyway” can have only one answer: “the decision maker is in charge”. And that does not change even if that life is a “gift” from God. Once a gift is given, the giver of the gift relinquishes all control over the gift. Otherwise it is not a “gift” at all.

:thumbsup:This fits perfectly with the Catholic notion, ‘God does not really condemn us, we condemn ourselves’ (Dante’s Divine Comedy illustrates this well). If the sufferer disagrees with the objective moral authority (assuming the existence of such) over whether or not his suffering was justified, he freely condemns himself by sinning. One can imagine that such a decision would greatly sadden a god who is Love, but the gift (life with ‘free will’) was given and the sufferer was free to respond either way.
The only part we may disagree on is who has authority to determine whether or not justice has been done. Even in our own system, the victim is not given that authority.

Whatever benefit they recieved must have been the logical corollary of the “allowed” evil" - according to the stipulaton 1) we agreed upon. You must assume that without the “evil” the benefit would not have happened. I don’t think you can do that.

Actually, I do assume that the ‘benefit’ matches to the suffered ‘evil’, as does the author (based on discussions of divine justice later in the book). There is no reason not to assume it in the context of the story.
But the story is not about the family that dies (or the animals, for that matter), it’s about the man who survives. So what crimes they may have committed to deserve to be wiped out (or how they deserved a swift and painless death, if that were the case), or what glory they ascended to or depths they sank to based on how they responded to their fate, none of that is written of.

If you don’t get a chance to respond to this post, I won’t mind (but I will read it if you do). Others seem to have gathered the thread (which is fine), and I have been neglectful of my lab duties. Have a great week!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Hmmm. Then why do apologetics exist in the first place? I wish someone would have just told me not to worry about thinking about this stuff but to give up. It can’t be found through thinking but only through the gift of faith which will come… when? How?

I had in mind to ask you where faith is positioned in your philosophy. Then you wrote that. You’ve asked a series of incredibly provocative questions throughout this thread. I don’t know if they’re rhetorical or not, but you do know, don’t you, that Neitche went bonkers asking questions like those? Is it possible to think too much?

 

[HelenaMT]

… Compare the above with passages where Jesus explicitly states that it is not the result of sin that anyone is born blind or that things crash down on innocents…

I have many of the same problems (though not all) you seem to with the Bible and other stuff, but I don’t recall Jesus addressing this. Can you tell me where these statements are?
Thanks

 

[sannb]

to: FERDE ROMBOLA: Very well said!

to: JINMINN
All I can say is SIGH!!! You must exhaust your poor wife! You twist and turn many things that I have said. I have a headache from all these words…

Of course God gives us Grace before we even know Him…but once we do accept the Graces with trust, His Grace continues to sustain us, and if we truly want to grow closer to Him and ultimately live entirely in His Will, the Sacraments are there to strengthen us on our journey. You are looking for hard evidence and that is just not what “faith” is about. Stop questioning everything so much and surrender - God will bring you to Himself, if you have a pure intention in your heart, and just not trying to outwit Him or challenge Him. It really is a sweet surrender, and in giving up power (which no really has on their own anyway) you actually gain power in and through God, not power as the world knows, but it’s an unexplainable mystery. (I know, you will find a way to twist this too). It’s not about “feeling good” which is what it sounds like you are searching for. We don’t necessarily “feel” anything, but your heart is at peace and a wonderful joy is present - you can’t conjure this up or get it on your own. It is a gift. At times you do “feel” the Holy Spirit as well.

Thank you for not receiving at Mass. I meant don’t try to solve the mysteries of God in order to believe, by trying to find all answers before you allow yourself to believe. As a Catholic, if you concentrate on pleasing God rather than fulfilling your “need to know”, and read the Catholic materials available to you, it may surprise you when suddenly the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, understanding and discernment will be given and a light will suddenly turn on inside - you will KNOW that you have received the Grace of Faith - no doubt. And bread & water are no longer those substances once they have been consecrated. They truly become the Body and Blood. Holy water and blessed oils, & other sacramentals, are used to help protect us from evil spirits who have an aversion to anything holy. (Please don’t say it!)

I am not proclaiming anything as my truth - it is God’s truth through Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. Once I knew that God existed and was given to understand the Truth, I freely accepted the gift. The greatest weight was lifted from my being, after confession, a weight I did not realize I was carrying until it was gone! That is a beautiful gift. Jesus was the one who gave me the clarity - Mary was the instrument of intercession, due to my grandmother’s rosary prayers for many years, and her prayers now in heaven, along with other family members in heaven and purgatory, and St. Bernadette and St. Anthony’s prayers for me, which over time I was given to know about. Also, intercession from all people who pray for the conversion of unbelievers and sinners. I experienced things I had never heard of, and then explanations came after through various words from other people, or something I would read in the Bible, or when listening to good Catholic catechesis. It all comes together when we are really open to receive the truth, and don’t try to force it.

Don’t worry, it is only a matter of time before you too will have your conversion. It could be on your deathbed, but it will happen, unless you hate God and want nothing to do with Him, but that is not the impression I am getting from you. Soon there will be a great mercy upon mankind - we will all have an “illumination of conscience” or “warning” as it is known - where everyone in the world at the same time will see our own soul as God sees it, and have a chance to repent and change. When this miraculous intervention from Heaven happens, remember that I have told you about it, and utilize it properly.

I did not say “I did not choose to believe, it just happened”, my words were “No one was involved, I was not searching”. Once I had the experience of knowing of God’s existence, I did choose to believe - I would have been a fool not to! I could never deny Him, my knowledge and understanding of His True Presence is too powerful within my being to do such a thing. I do not need tangible evidence, all I need is the supernatural evidence that has been granted me by God. I wish I did have tangible evidence to show people who are doubters like you, and my family, but apparently that is not the route that God has chosen for you. It will be so exciting and wonderful! Your happiness, no matter what is happening, will exceed your pain (hard to believe, I know, but true nonetheless).

Sorry, this is all very time consuming, and I simply can’t continue. I am definitely going to pray with the intercession of all saints and angels in heaven for you to be blessed with many heavenly gifts. You will be a great warrior for Our Lord when He comes for you (He is, after all, the “Hound of Heaven”) because you will boldly proclaim His truths, as you have boldly questioned His motives. God bless you and your family!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I have many of the same problems (though not all) you seem to with the Bible and other stuff, but I don’t recall Jesus addressing this. Can you tell me where these statements are?
Thanks

He didn’t say it in quite that way. After He cured the man born blind His disciples asked him if he was born blind because of his sin or the sin of his parents. He said, neither, but it was to let God’s works show forth in him.

jinminn will have a great time with that one.

 

[redhen]

The pain being spoke of requires consciousness of ‘self’ to connect the instances into a contiguous experience. This psychological trait (whatever you believe its origin, spiritual or material) is either lacking or severely diminished in non-human animals. ‘Feral’ children still possess it, some non-human primates possess it to an extent, so (apparently) do a few other species, which *should *give scientists pause when experimenting on such subjects…
But we’ve strayed…

Sure, the human subjective internalization of pain sensations adds to the physical pain, but getting your leg cut or bitten off is gonna hurt, no matter if you’re a homo sapiens sapiens or a homo habilis, or some more ancient pedal creature with nervous systems. The evidential argument for the problem of pain is pretty strong, assuming that macro-evolution is a live option for you.

Yeah, I ignore ‘natural evil’ because of the open possibility of acting moral agents, and I also wonder what constitutes ‘gratuitous’. I’m getting into this with RDaneel. If God allows (or perhaps more accurately ‘cooperates in’) an event which results in pain and suffering, certain questions immediately come to mind:

1. To what extent did human choice play a role (e.g. did humans build a city below the water-line next to hurricane-prone waters, or near a massive fault line, or on an active volcano, or did they mess with weather patterns on a major scale, etc.?)

The philosopher Peter Van Inwagen uses this in his essay, The Problem of Evil. He uses an example of people moving to an earthquake prone area for the purposes of prospecting for gold. In his example, many people are killed or injured by earthquakes. He injects a motivation for this choice “solely by a desire to get rich”, as if to add weight to his argument. His conclusion then is that earthquakes are not inherently evil, but that human actions place themselves in positions that make them vulnerable to pain and suffering. If the motivation for this choice is pure, unadulterated greed, then so much the better for his argument, as supposedly we will feel less sympathetic towards the victims.

He disagrees with philosophers like Plantinga, that natural disasters are caused by malevolent demons.

1. Is it possible there are other free agents at work?
2. On what bases do we designate the suffering ‘gratuitous’?

The notion of demons causing disasters may sound silly, it’s certainly very mystical, indeed ‘earthy’ pagans (even actual historical ones) believed this - mischievous faeries and spirits of air, earth, water, & fire… It’s possible, we have no evidence to disprove it and a wealth of mystical cultural history to support it. But I certainly wouldn’t base belief in an omnibenevolent deity on that defense alone.

A working definition of gratuitous? How 'bout wiki’s “Not called for by the circumstances; uncalled for; without reason, cause, or proof; adopted or asserted without any good ground;** unjustified**.”

I think unjustified fits for theodicy.

 

[redhen]

Wrong essay, van Inwagen, wrote *The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy.
*

 

[jinminn]

I had in mind to ask you where faith is positioned in your philosophy. Then you wrote that. You’ve asked a series of incredibly provocative questions throughout this thread. I don’t know if they’re rhetorical or not, but you do know, don’t you, that Neitche went bonkers asking questions like those? Is it possible to think too much?

Well, if you note, I wrote that statement in response to sannb, who essentially stated that asking questions and reading information is not the way to find god. I find this disheartening, even if it is true. One believer friend of mine has told me that the only way forward is to ‘have faith seeking understanding.’ I have continually asked how this is different from ‘believe that you may believe more.’ He has not answered

Hmmm. Interesting about the questions. I don’t know which ones you mean and don’t particularly want to hunt through 7 pages of posts Would you be able to even list two or three gems for me? I can’t recall a type of question like you refer to.

I would expect these answers to exist. God has ordained his one holy Catholic and apostolic Church to guide believers on earth and given us his Holy Spirit to teach us all things. I can’t get even simple answers now that I’m asking questions. The answers I do get are usually speculative (not based on any evidence I can figure but concocted as they are the only way things could work to make god coherent) or in some form of ‘we cannot know the mind of god’ or ‘well, at least we’ll know when we’re dead.’

I’m pretty much in the midst of a possible deconversion. I really do mean this: my tone is a reflection of the absolutely horrid feelings involved in looking to prove my current/former (whatever you consider it) faith to myself and failing. When you embark on an effort to seek the truth and are told that the truth (at least in this realm) can either not be found or not be conclusively proven, it’s a miserable feeling.

I have an inkling of why Nietzsche didn’t do so hot.

 

[jinminn]

All I can say is SIGH!!! You must exhaust your poor wife! You twist and turn many things that I have said. I have a headache from all these words…

Sigh. My posts follow direct quotes of yours. I do not believe I have twisted your words, but only pointed out issues i have with your statements or asked for evidence of how you assert the things you do.

Also, I don’t tend to talk about this with my wife. She absolutely knows what I’m going through, but talking specifics is generally completely unhelpful. So… I leave it alone in the marriage and try not to exhaust her

You are looking for hard evidence and that is just not what “faith” is about. Stop questioning everything so much and surrender - God will bring you to Himself, if you have a pure intention in your heart, and just not trying to outwit Him or challenge Him.

Even faith needs evidence. You have to admit to this? Your evidence was in whatever occurred in your enlightenment. Non-evidenced based faith would be for you to believe in Leprechauns at the end of the rainbow. Though possibly true, the continual push for ‘sweet surrender’ does little to differentiate Christianity from any other religious process. Someone could have having the same forum discussion on a Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, or Scientology board. They are all saying the same thing: Stop trying to prove everything and just trust us! Just surrender and it’ll all get better. That’s probably what the Heaven’s Gate fellow said as well. They surrendered and stopped trying to prove things… but I doubt they got carried off on Haley’s Comet.

We don’t necessarily “feel” anything, but your heart is at peace and a wonderful joy is present - you can’t conjure this up or get it on your own. It is a gift. At times you do “feel” the Holy Spirit as well.

I’ve been an extremely strong believer for 7 or so years. I participated in St. Paul’s Outreach all through college, and even was a missionary with them while I could take the poor pay after college and before my daughter was born. I pray charismatically, sought daily prayer, believed god spoke to me through scriptures, led praise and worship, led a high school youth group for a year and a half, made many financial sacrifices for the Lord, prayed to discern my marriage to my wife, buying a house, where to work, etc. I know all of what you describe. The point is that I am open to that being concocted by false belief. All of these things occur in all other religions that we can all point to. What you call hard evidence to me merely translates as objective facts. Without something to point to that everyone in the whole world can agree upon, the evidence is not truly objective. Pointing to feelings, powers not of this world, etc… any other religious belonging individual has just as much evidence as you present. They even have their own holy books, history, and miracles to go along with it.

When I embarked on this journey, it was because I realized I never before felt comfortable evangelizing. Please hear me: I loved the Lord. I worshipped him. I sang to him. I prayed all the day long in my mind and on my lips. I frequented the sacraments. I went to adoration every night for a month or two straight when I discerned marrying my wife. Yet I never once felt comfortable presenting evidence to others to compel them to believe in Jesus. This truly bothered me.

It was after some other doubts and some research that I decided that I never wanted to be ashamed to present my religious beliefs to the outside world again. I wanted to know facts that I could stand on with my whole weight that went above and beyond personal experience. I wanted to know the truth at all costs.

To be continued…

 

[jinminn]

Continued…

if you concentrate on pleasing God rather than fulfilling your “need to know”, and read the Catholic materials available to you, it may surprise you when suddenly the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, understanding and discernment will be given and a light will suddenly turn on inside - you will KNOW that you have received the Grace of Faith - no doubt.

• I can do all the things that would fulfill ‘pleasing god’ without actually believing in him. Unless he has 90% of my ‘life final grade’ based on which of the existing deities I choose to believe (or not), he should be satisfied with a belief-lacking, fruitful life in service of my fellow human beings
• I am awaiting this sudden light openly and readily. Let it come.

It all comes together when we are really open to receive the truth, and don’t try to force it.

I don’t really understand this. I can’t figure out how to force it, or I might be certain by now. This also doesn’t work in any other areas. I can’t sit at home waiting to be enlightened regarding calculus. I need to learn the material, read the theorems and mathematical tools, and learn them through practice.

Soon there will be a great mercy upon mankind - we will all have an “illumination of conscience” or “warning” as it is known - where everyone in the world at the same time will see our own soul as God sees it, and have a chance to repent and change. When this miraculous intervention from Heaven happens, remember that I have told you about it, and utilize it properly.

I will remember if anything like the above ever happens. Care to give me a time window on ‘soon’? Is it the same soon as Jesus used when promising that some standing in front of him would not taste death until the Son of Man returned on the clouds? That ‘soon’ turned into quite a long time.

I did not say “I did not choose to believe, it just happened”, my words were “No one was involved, I was not searching”. Once I had the experience of knowing of God’s existence, I did choose to believe - I would have been a fool not to! I could never deny Him, my knowledge and understanding of His True Presence is too powerful within my being to do such a thing.

Here’s how this breaks down:

• Something you were not asking for dropped into your lap (aka mind) such that you could now ‘never deny Him’ because something is ‘too powerful within your being’ to do such a thing.
• Can you explain how this is not edging up to a description of overriding your will to at least some degree?
• I understand what you are saying, namely that you could reject him, but that the evidence you believe you have would make you a fool to do so… However isn’t that almost twisting words? That’s like saying I’m ‘free’ to deny that the sky is blue. Sure, I am, but it would be preposterous.
• Also, I would practically die for such evidence. Again, let it be so. I will gladly accept.

Sorry, this is all very time consuming, and I simply can’t continue. I am definitely going to pray with the intercession of all saints and angels in heaven for you to be blessed with many heavenly gifts. You will be a great warrior for Our Lord when He comes for you (He is, after all, the “Hound of Heaven”) because you will boldly proclaim His truths, as you have boldly questioned His motives. God bless you and your family!

No worries. I am happy to be a great warrior for the truth, whatever it may be. I want to be an evangelist. If this quest leads me to be more confident than not that no gods exist, then it will be as an evangelist for atheism/agnosticism. If I come back to belief in Jesus, than absolutely – I will be the greatest evangelist for god that I have ever been.

 

[jinminn]

He didn’t say it in quite that way. After He cured the man born blind His disciples asked him if he was born blind because of his sin or the sin of his parents. He said, neither, but it was to let God’s works show forth in him.

jinminn will have a great time with that one.

Don’t know what you mean by that… I actually mixed two passages together. They are:

John 9:2-3 – Man born blind

• Ferde gets it right. Followers ask if the man sinned or his parents such that he was born blind. Jesus, indeed, responds that it was neither.
• This still supports my usage, however. The poster I responded to claimed that god uses evil to ‘get our attention’. This does not seem to be indicated by this passage. The typical response is that at the fall sin brought all of the suffering we endure into the world from a previously perfect state. This works logically with this passage (no specific person sinned to cause the blindness, but it is a result of fallen nature and god works through it to glorify himself), but fails in some other respects. Primarily, for me, this equates to lack of evidence that the world underwent some incredible shift in the existence of natural disasters or animal/viral/bacterial threats to human life. There is no reason to suspect that the earth actually changed post-fall to become less safe. The only remaining option is that ‘Eden’ was some type of shelter. Also, we have the annoying issue of common descent to work with. There is no good reason to suspect that humans ‘popped’ into existence. Science has quite a good lineage of these things. I will stop there as I don’t want to get banned Research some of this yourself!

The passage I mixed with, which illustrates things better is here:

Luke 13:1-5:
"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Contrast that with this from sannb:

Even with the help of God’s words through His prophets, over and over, as shown in the OT, the people turned away and did their own thing, so God had to continuously reign them in, trying to show them once again, the way to Himself. Sometimes harsh methods need to be used to get our attention. In times of strife, the good of people comes out and they turn to God (ie, 911). It seems that it is the only way to get us turned around, unfortunately, and when we hear of bad things, we may be more likely to begin to pray.

In essence you have:

• Allusion to people ‘turning away and doing their own thing’, namely sinning
• God needing to ‘reign in them’ and the only way get their attention sometimes was via ‘harsh methods’
• Because of these ‘harsh methods’ we turn to god, like in 9/11
• It seems that because of these ‘harsh methods’, people turn to god and pray and this is the only way to turn us around

In the passage, however, we have an excellent analagous set of circumstances. Jesus used even better examples than the John 9 passage since blindness is a genetic condition. These are non-birth-generated sufferings of the world. Jesus explicitly states that there is nothing that has to do with sin related to this occurrences. He does, indeed, say that we need to repent to avoid perishing (assuming he is alluding to eternal perishing, though), however sannb makes a connection to ‘specific’ sin in individuals and god using ‘harsh methods’ to get those individuals to turn back to him. This is exactly what Jesus says is not the case.

This reasoning is exactly what people despise in fundamentalists like Pat Robertson who are obsessed with connecting every harmful experience to sin – Haiti, New Orleans, etc. It’s a preposterous connection to make and isn’t even supported by his holy book. All believers would be wise to drop the causal relationship between specific sins by a specific individual and specific harm/suffering/evil experienced by a specific individual.

Does anyone disagree with my interpretation?

I think it’s sound and that the only position is to take one of a ‘general fallen state’ which causes the evil/suffering we experience. I happen to disagree with that as I said, but I cannot disprove it. The reasoning used by sannb, however, is disproved by Jesus’ own words.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well, if you note, I wrote that statement in response to sannb, who essentially stated that asking questions and reading information is not the way to find god. I find this disheartening, even if it is true. One believer friend of mine has told me that the only way forward is to ‘have faith seeking understanding.’ I have continually asked how this is different from ‘believe that you may believe more.’ He has not answered

You find sannab’s statement disheartening because you seem to equate finding God with finding the answer to your calculus problem. It’s not the same thing. You know if you work hard enough the calculus problem will be solved. You THINK if you work hard enough the “God” problem SHOULD similarly be solved. God isn’t calculus.

Your interpretation of 'faith seeking understanding is a little off. You’re ignored the “seeking” part, which does not imply ‘finding.’ “Faith” itself implies NOT finding. Science must find to believe. You are employing scientific principles to answer your faith-based questions.

Hmmm. Interesting about the questions. I don’t know which ones you mean and don’t particularly want to hunt through 7 pages of posts Would you be able to even list two or three gems for me? I can’t recall a type of question like you refer to.

Here is a bunch from a single post by you:

=================================================================
**1) There have been a lot of posts pinning ‘evil’ on human actions. I do not deny that we often choose our own pains. This breaks down, however, when using an analogy of human-to-human interaction.

• Would I be culpable if I knew the future, could be at all places at all times, and had the power to prevent my spouse from getting into a car accident I knew she was going to be involved in? Why or why not?**

- What if I knew she would attempt to commit suicide? Should I seek to comfort her tangibly? Should I remove potential weapons from her immediate access to prevent her from doing something rash? Would I tell her reassuring messages about her worth and my love for her?=================================================================

These are philosophical questions best kept in the abstract because they require moral judgments which are beyond our ken. Athiests demand answers to such questions. Your similar demands are what are causing you to lose your faith. Once you’ve thrown your faith overboard, the questions will remain.

=================================================================
**

…We value the safety of each human being enough to take action, even if it thwarts their immediate actions.

Are we completely wrong to do this? Is our utilitarian-esque action in these situations considered a ‘lesser’ good since a greater good would be to turn our backs in supreme homage to the possession of free will?

1. Most responses seem also to fall back on ‘stuff just happens’, embrace love and faith and ‘redeem’ the bad stuff.

• This fails to take into account that god created the world with ALL foreknowledge. His omniscience and omnipotence were somehow in conflict, for he knew we would go astray, knew we would balk at his attempt at a coherent holy book, knew many would doubt Jesus’ resurrection, and relevant to me (being an engineer), has a strong bias against scientifically minded individuals [1].

**Without displaying how the garden existed literally or figuratively-in-some-physical-manner, there is no reason to suppose that human choice has ever affected our existence in this world with respect to ‘evil’, but that it has always been like this: one species among many in a world governed by natural laws, some of which produce effects that harm life.

I would expect these answers to exist. God has ordained his one holy Catholic and apostolic Church to guide believers on earth and given us his Holy Spirit to teach us all** things. I can’t get even simple answers now that I’m asking questions. The answers I do get are usually speculative (not based on any evidence I can figure but concocted as they are the only way things could work to make god coherent) or in some form of ‘we cannot know the mind of god’ or ‘well, at least we’ll know when we’re dead.’​

Those are some of the questions I referred to. I can’t respond to them all, but you get the picture.

I’m pretty much in the midst of a possible deconversion. I really do mean this: my tone is a reflection of the absolutely horrid feelings involved in looking to prove my current/former (whatever you consider it) faith to myself and failing. When you embark on an effort to seek the truth and are told that the truth (at least in this realm) can either not be found or not be conclusively proven, it’s a miserable feeling.

I have an inkling of why Nietzsche didn’t do so hot.

More than an inkling, I suspect and you are headed down that same road. It’s a dead end, my friend.

Truth is objective. “The Truth” is subjective in the sense that it may be true that 'The Truth" is elusive or abstract or beyond our understanding or just not available to us NOW. You want to know EVERYTHING — NOW! It’s only been 2000 years. John 16:13 doesn’t say we will be led to all truth NOW or that you and I will ever be privy to all truth in this life. You are putting God to the test and He’s not biting. You have a better chance of catching an eighty pound striped bass than getting God to take your bait. The trap you have set, you have set for yourself. Retool; rethink.

I’ll try to get to those others you posted later today. I have to work in my yard now.**

 

[Sheila77]

The post by sannb sums it up quite nicely. Thank you.

 

[jinminn]

You find sannab’s statement disheartening because you seem to equate finding God with finding the answer to your calculus problem. It’s not the same thing. You know if you work hard enough the calculus problem will be solved. You THINK if you work hard enough the “God” problem SHOULD similarly be solved. God isn’t calculus.

Perhaps, yet you equate knowledge of god with the certainty of these calculus problems. One can back it’s claims for us to rest on… and indeed we do in many cases: travel to the moon and back, stress calculations involved in building bridges and the like, and even the propellant required to decelerate your head with an air bag. The other case requests the same certainty, yet does not back that request with the facts, nor does it have any predictive power like calculus, which delivers time and time again.

So, I suppose I would take either 1) facts or 2) predictive power of the god hypothesis.

Your interpretation of 'faith seeking understanding is a little off. You’re ignored the “seeking” part, which does not imply ‘finding.’ “Faith” itself implies NOT finding. Science must find to believe. You are employing scientific principles to answer your faith-based questions.

Agreed… however I want to be certain. Thomas Dubay agrees that we require certainty. Faith being confused with certainty leads to some poor behavior. Inquisitions, Aquinas rationally and logically concluding that the execution of heretics was legitimate, and the like. When one is absolutely convinced of truth yet does not have either of what I mentioned above (evidence or proof via predictive means), it leads to false assumptions and error. The Church has seen a lot of error in its days in ways that cannot be simply tossed aside as ‘humanness.’ These were logical, approved beliefs and practices in their day, given authority because they carried the weight of divine ordinance.

Here is a bunch from a single post by you
.
.
.
These are philosophical questions best kept in the abstract because they require moral judgments which are beyond our ken. Athiests demand answers to such questions. Your similar demands are what are causing you to lose your faith. Once you’ve thrown your faith overboard, the questions will remain.

Yet, again, all I’ve asked is how we can tangibly equate god’s characteristics with how they should be manifest in the real world. I don’t see the characteristics we suppose played out. You prefer lacking evidence to remain as an ‘unknowable mystery’ and supposed that our moral sense, called natural law, to be accurate in every sense when applying to humans, but somehow completely off when applying god’s behavior toward us to our behavior toward one another.

All I’ve done is to look at omnipotence and omniscience and ask how they work. I’ve taken the knowledge that god should have of me, applied it to my wife, and asked how things look if I do not provide what I know she needs from me.

To be continued…

 

[jinminn]

Continued…

.
.
.
Those are some of the questions I referred to. I can’t respond to them all, but you get the picture.

I do get the picture, and I think they are wonderful. It’s the risk/benefit Christianity gets over intangible religions like Scientology or Hinduism with few/no claims on history or the natural world. Christianity make some assertions about why things are they way they are. Some of these assertions have to do with:

• intangible minds, which I consider to have extremely poor evidence in support of them. We can track how physical areas of the brain affect belief, personality, cognizance of reality, recognition of familiar people/objects, and even political tastes. The intangible mind is apparently powerless to function without the brain. Does this disprove it? No, but it doesn’t help the case. A person with damage to the brain in the language center who continued talking perfectly would support the mind beautifully.
• a fall of some sort: I don’t think this has to be Adam and Eve, but like every other area of knowledge, one can’t simply make an assumption and provide no evidence whatsoever. We should have answers to these questions. For god to have revealed these tidbits, it would be supremely easy to also reveal some specifics of how they came about. Unfortunately, we have a literal Adam/Eve story but are sure there was no literal Adam and Eve. Yet Paul bases his theology of the fall/redemption on a literal Adam (one man) scenario… and thus is flawed.

More than an inkling, I suspect and you are headed down that same road. It’s a dead end, my friend.

Eh, I doubt from a few posts that you know me or my mental health that well All I want is as much certainty as I can, my friend. And never to feel ashamed or ill-equipped for evangelization one way or another again. Heck, if I begin to evangelize for atheism, perhaps I’ll get struck down in blinding light like Paul or have something else happen to me. I’m game for learning the hard way. I just want to learn. Most theists I discuss with seem content with discrepancies, lack of explanatory power for most of life’s puzzling situations, poor answers for why their god does not deliver but nothing but pure attribution to him for what inexplicable good things do occur, and are absolutely convinced that their religion is true and that there is nothing the rest of the religious (or irreligious) world can offer them. I call this the beginnings of delusion and probably the most divisive force on the planet.

Truth is objective. “The Truth” is subjective in the sense that it may be true that 'The Truth" is elusive or abstract or beyond our understanding or just not available to us NOW. You want to know EVERYTHING — NOW! It’s only been 2000 years. John 16:13 doesn’t say we will be led to all truth NOW or that you and I will ever be privy to all truth in this life. You are putting God to the test and He’s not biting. You have a better chance of catching an eighty pound striped bass than getting God to take your bait. The trap you have set, you have set for yourself. Retool; rethink.

Well, perhaps… though:

• apply the same ‘waiting period’ to science. Theists criticize science for not having the answers to life’s origins, how consciousness evolved, where thoughts originate in a purely physical brain, etc. How about waiting 2000 years to see where we’ll be on science’s grounds?! Would you even propose comparing new knowledge/insight/answers provided by Christianity compared to the advances made by science in the last 200 years? One list would be quite short, I can tell you that.
• Agreed about the test. Setting a trap for a non-existent being is, indeed, the same as setting a trap for one that does not bite. If the bass won’t bite, though, what am I freezing my butt off in an ice shack waiting for?
• Retool? I’m using standard toolsets: science, reason, philosophy… the same tools the Church supports the use of. Unfortunately they seem to come up empty handed quite often. It’s also striking that about 90% of National Academy of Science members are atheists and a recent study (2009) of Philosophers came up with ~72% as atheists. What’s god got against thinkers? In the philosopher’s case, these are exactly the types of guys who come up with proofs of god’s existence!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Even faith needs evidence. You have to admit to this?

No we don’t. In its purest form, faith is blind. But I’ll cut you some slack. The intelligent person ought to have something to go on, so evidence is a fair request. What kind of evidence do you require? Do you want the crucified Lord to appear before you and suggest you put your finger into His hand and your hand into His side? Or would the universe suffice? The evidence is all around you and you know what it is. You just ignore it, demanding other more conclusive evidence you have not yet encountered. I’m luckier than you. I have encountered it; at least twice involving my guardian angel, once involving Our Blessed Mother Mary and once involving Saint Joseph. I’ll discuss one instance.

It was winter. I was walking up a granite stairway leading to the sacristy of my parish church. The stairs were covered wtih ice and snow. My pastor had asked us not to use that stairway for obvious reasons, but I don’t generally listen to advice like that, so I started up the stairs. Three steps from the top I slipped on the ice and started to fall backwards. I had competely lost my balance and was definitely on the way down. I remember thinking to myself, “This is going to hurt.” At that point I felt myself lifted up, from the back, by my shoulders and put back on my feet. There is no question in my mind this was a supernatural event which saved me from serious injury. That’s MY evidence. I attribute it to my guardian angel, who, BTW, has saved my bacon on many occasions.

An athiest, working from no information, will tell me I was hallucinating or call me a liar. I couldn’t care less. I was there and I know what happened to me and, from that and other reasons, I know there is a God. Specifically the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The God of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ Himself, about whom there is abundant evidence and you know all about it.

Your evidence was in whatever occurred in your enlightenment. Non-evidenced based faith would be for you to believe in Leprechauns at the end of the rainbow. Though possibly true, the continual push for ‘sweet surrender’ does little to differentiate Christianity from any other religious process. Someone could have having the same forum discussion on a Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, or Scientology board. They are all saying the same thing: Stop trying to prove everything and just trust us! Just surrender and it’ll all get better.

That’s glib and can even be made to sound plausible, but it needs closer examination. Eliminate ‘Jewish’ from your list, add Buddhism and they are all based on pure speculation. The Buddha was a man who had some specific ideas about how to reach nirvana, his concept of heaven, I guess. As far as I know he made no claim to be a deity or to have contacted a deity. There is no evidence the Hindu deities, much like the Roman and Greek deities, even exist. Scientology could be called silly if it weren’t a dangerous cult.

Athism, a similarly silly ‘religion,’ has carved out a very comfortable position for itself. The athiest says, ‘There’s no god and I dare you to prove one exists. And, BTW, I don’t have to prove god doesn’t exist because I don’t have to prove a negative.’ even though the athiest knows his statement, ‘There is no god.’ is a positive assertion. I’ve always thought athiests were smart people. Then I looked at your milk bottle story. It really thinks it’s up to something. It’s not. It’s absurd beyond words. You think Catholicism’s claims are doubtful and you come up with that??!

To be continued…

 

[jinminn]

No we don’t. In its purest form, faith is blind. But I’ll cut you some slack. Or would the universe suffice? The evidence is all around you and you know what it is. You just ignore it, demanding other more conclusive evidence you have not yet encountered. I’m luckier than you. I have encountered it; at least twice involving my guardian angel, once involving Our Blessed Mother Mary and once involving Saint Joseph. I’ll discuss one instance.

• if faith is blind, you should have no problem being converted by the next religious individual who walks by with some pamphlets proclaiming the truth.
• the origins of the universe are in no way connected to Jesus of Nazareth via any sort of conclusive means. I’m open to a deity. I’m not going to assume that any derived religions made by man have the slightest idea what that deity is/was, though.
• you equate your evidence with luck. Does luck exist under the realm of god’s providence? It seems he favors you more than me.

It was winter…

something. You have that something for me and you sharing it provides insight into what lets you hold your belief quite strongly. I’m open to the possibility of distrusting my senses for the few occasions I’ve had like you describe. We are quite prone to misinterpreting the evidence around us… constantly.

Specifically the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The God of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ Himself, about whom there is abundant evidence and you know all about it.

Other than a book full of immoral commands and stories that are beginning to be proven wrong by archeology (the flood, Jericho was well gone before the trumpet blasts, no evidence whatsoever of a 40 year sojourn in the desert, etc.), you have absolutely nothing to prove the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I’ve read about the evidence for Jesus and am not convinced. I would be thoroughly convinced by non-gospel/non-Christian historians who said any detail whatsoever about Jesus powers, miracles, specifics of his birth, etc. Historians at the time felt no need whatsoever to note any of the special attributes of Jesus but instead only note that he died, that there were reports of having seen him, and that he had followers (Tacitus even calls it a ‘mischievous superstition’). I don’t consider this conclusive.

I would also consider conclusive if anyone could deliver on any form whatsoever of ‘ask anything in my name and I will provide it.’ Perhaps in this post someone suggested that this is silly since we know it can’t mean anything since someone could ask for evil. I don’t doubt that, but will simply add:

• Jesus didn’t specify. We take all of this other promises at their word. Not that this is a deal breaker, just sayin’
• What about assembling any group you want to, having them pray for anything you believe might align with god’s will, and testing the outcome? I have no comprehension of why god will change what he does just because people are watching…

Is that a ridiculous idea? I’m not heaving out some wet bales of hay here and asking god to prove himself compared to Baal. He apparently was willing to do that. Can I put out a fleece and see if it’s wet or dry compared to the grass and use that?

To be continued…

 

[jinminn]

Continued…

That’s glib and can even be made to sound plausible, but it needs closer examination. Eliminate ‘Jewish’ from your list, add Buddhism and they are all based on pure speculation… There is no evidence the Hindu deities, much like the Roman and Greek deities, even exist.

I didn’t put Buddhism in there because, essentially, it’s simply an approach to suffering in the world. It has no claims about intervening gods. Islam is historically based. Why should I eliminate Judaism? They keep all of the ‘bad’ and apparently do just fine even though the have no ‘NT lens’ through which to interpret the OT. It’s also interesting that the people who Christ came to save remain so unconvinced that he was the messiah.

You judge Roman and Greek mythology through hindsight, which is 20/20. It is quite possible that the same will happen to many other world religions. As science answers more and more questions, it makes it harder and harder to find places for god to remain. Evolution is an accepted theory and I believe it makes it nearly impossible for ‘the fall’ to work out at all. Anyway, my point is that if you were a Greek/Roman in their era, you’d believe their deities and probably be criticizing the Egyptians or some other pagans for their ‘pure speculative’ beliefs.

The athiest says, ‘There’s no god and I dare you to prove one exists. And, BTW, I don’t have to prove god doesn’t exist because I don’t have to prove a negative.’ even though the athiest knows his statement, ‘There is no god.’ is a positive assertion. I’ve always thought athiests were smart people. Then I looked at your milk bottle story…

• Atheism simply means ‘non-theistic’. Why this equates to a religion is beyond me. I never knew that ‘not believing’ something required so much proof. It’s you who wants to convince me of a being who exists of unfathomable power and knowledge, but the one book he’s left is riddled with errors and won’t tangible interact with the world based on my request so that I can believe in him, love him, and hope for heaven.
• The default is for the one making positive truth claims to prove them. I realize that you can’t prove a negative. Without being able to prove a positive, however, you’re left standing on air
• I make only the positive assertion that matter and energy are all that exists and that science has shown this to be an extremely reasonable a priori starting point. God is ‘edged’ out of the picture based on that, but it doesn’t force me to deal with it head on. The mathematician, Laplace, when asked about belief in god by Napoleon simply replied, ‘Your highness, I have no need of that hypothesis.’
• I simply hold that there is a likely natural explanation for everything. Given how well this has proved out so far, I see no reason to jump to a supernatural force that intervenes
• I have no idea what your milk bottle story is.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I didn’t put Buddhism in there because, essentially, it’s simply an approach to suffering in the world. It has no claims about intervening gods. Islam is historically based.

As what? Certanly not a religion based on the God I worship, as it claims. Its history as a maurading race of murderers who destroyed Catholic communities throughout the eastern arc of the Mediterranian and spread it’s ‘faith’ by threats and intimidation, as it does to this day, is well known. Its ‘book’ is so tied to truth its adherents refuse to defend it on the grounds it’s too ‘sacred’ to discuss while expecting us to believe them.

Why should I eliminate Judaism? They keep all of the ‘bad’ and apparently do just fine even though the have no ‘NT lens’ through which to interpret the OT. It’s also interesting that the people who Christ came to save remain so unconvinced that he was the messiah.

Not ‘interesting,’ ironic. And it’s predicted in their writings (The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…). Also, Jesus is alluded to in numerous places in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in Isaiah. There’s plenty of time left for them to come to the truth, as many of them are doing.

They should be eliminated [from your list of bogus religions] because they are the people to whom God first revealed Himself. They are the Chosen. I don’t know what criteria you’re using to conclude they’re doing just fine, but the conclusion is debateable.

You judge Roman and Greek mythology through hindsight, which is 20/20. It is quite possible that the same will happen to many other world religions.

It’s not only possible, it’s certain. With the exception of Christianity, of course.

As science answers more and more questions, it makes it harder and harder to find places for god to remain.

Evolution is an accepted theory and I believe it makes it nearly impossible for ‘the fall’ to work out at all. Anyway, my point is that if you were a Greek/Roman in their era, you’d believe their deities and probably be criticizing the Egyptians or some other pagans for their ‘pure speculative’ beliefs.
That’s a purely speculative belief.

The creation of the universe by God does not rule out evolution. The athiest theory of rock begets rock begets life rules out evolution.

Atheism simply means ‘non-theistic’. Why this equates to a religion is beyond me.

Because it is accepted and believed on faith, not facts. Athiesm has NO facts. Just denial.

I never knew that ‘not believing’ something required so much proof. It’s you who wants to convince me of a being who exists of unfathomable power and knowledge, but the one book he’s left is riddled with errors and won’t tangible interact with the world based on my request so that I can believe in him, love him, and hope for heaven.

That’s a little garbled and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say or what your ‘request’ is.

By definition believing in God requires faith. You insist on proof; absolute, unassailable proof. I can tell you it exists in many places and at many times theoughout the history of the Church, but you will find an excuse to reject all of them, so what’s the point?

The default is for the one making positive truth claims to prove them. I realize that you can’t prove a negative. Without being able to prove a positive, however, you’re left standing on air.

Not me. YOU’RE left standing on air because you’ve abandoned common sense in favor of an absolut athiest position that is more dogmatic than systematic.

I make only the positive assertion that matter and energy are all that exists

Prove it.

and that science has shown this to be an extremely reasonable a priori starting point.

Science has shown nothing of the kind. There’s a guy at Boston University who says he intends to create life in his lab. He hasn’t told us where he’s getting his chemicals.

God is ‘edged’ out of the picture based on that, but it doesn’t force me to deal with it head on…I simply hold that there is a likely natural explanation for everything. Given how well this has proved out so far, I see no reason to jump to a supernatural force that intervenes

You can start by explaining – and proving – your first cause. You say it’s proved out well so far, but you have proven nothing. You’ve just made an entirely unsupported faith-based statement.

The fact is neither science nor faith can prove a first cause. That God created the universe is far more likely and makes far more sense than rock begets rock begets life.

I have no idea what your milk bottle story is.

YOUR milk bottle story. You posted a link to a silly video where a guy asks us to pray to a milk bottle and compares it to praying to God. Silly squared.