What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[PRmerger]

I think there’s a misunderstanding here of what the Problem of Evil is. You seem to think it’s the question “why is there evil?” but it’s actually the question “why is there evil when a supposedly good being could prevent it?”

My question to the atheist is the former.

You have already answered that you have no satisfactory answer.

That ought to be a big problem for you, if you are a seeker.

 

[Oreoracle]

This is a curious position to espouse.

You don’t see the beheading of a journalist as a Problem?

It’s a “problem” in the sense that it isn’t desirable, but it’s not a philosophical problem. People misbehave, and sometimes they get away with it their whole lives without punishment. For all we know, they may never be held accountable for their actions. While that’s upsetting, there is no philosophical issue here.

Your explanation to your daughter who says, “Why, Daddy*?” is “It just…is…the way the world is.”

The answer would probably be “because there are fanatical religious zealots out there” translated into something the child would understand, of course.

Oh, and you would also say, “That’s your problem, darling. You ask ‘why’. You shouldn’t ask that. That’s what Christians do. Not everything has a reason.”

I think you can play a lot of word games with “why” and “reason”. When I say there are no whys or reasons that we know of, I mean that we have no reason to suspect that African children dying of starvation serves some greater purpose. Sure there is a “reason” for it, but it’s an economical one that isn’t comforting.

*Male is the default gender I use. Sorry if I am incorrect in this assignation.

I am male, yes.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a “problem” in the sense that it isn’t desirable, but it’s not a philosophical problem. People misbehave, and sometimes they get away with it their whole lives without punishment.

Annnd that’s another problem for atheists, isn’t it?

You get to explain it to your daughter this way, “You know that man that dragged your great-grandma around by her hair when she burnt his toast?* Well, he got away with it for his entire life. And your poor great grandma simply had to say, ‘That’s just the way it is’.”

*True story, according to a co-worker.

 

[Oreoracle]

Now I’m sure you won’t judge me for finding this amusing.

Just read your above response again.

Imagine if it was written by a Believer to you.

If a believer told me that, I would agree that we have no reason to require answers that invoke more than human psychology. I’m not seeing the contradiction here, so you’ll have to spell it out.

My question to the atheist is the former.

You have already answered that you have no satisfactory answer.

That ought to be a big problem for you, if you are a seeker.

Again, you’re playing word games with “why”. Atheists can answer why the starvation of African children occurs, for example. We know it is happening for economic reasons; namely, the lack of industry in many African countries. Poor sanitation and the unwillingness to donate to charities probably aren’t doing those children any favors either. There is no difficulty in explaining “why” evil happens in this sense.

But you are wanting an explanation of “why” that requires the invocation of a divine order to things. Since this divine order hasn’t been demonstrated, atheists recognize this as a false presupposition in the question, thus we decline to answer it. It’s an ill-posed question akin to “When did you stop beating your wife?”

 

[Oreoracle]

Annnd that’s another problem for atheists, isn’t it?

You get to explain it to your daughter this way, “You know that man that dragged your great-grandma around by her hair when she burnt his toast?* Well, he got away with it for his entire life. And your poor great grandma simply had to say, ‘That’s just the way it is’.”

*True story, according to a co-worker.

Why is this a problem for atheism? Yeah, it’s not comforting to admit that life is unfair. That doesn’t make it a philosophical issue. If a doctor diagnosed one of your relatives with cancer, would you say, “Well, that’s a problem for oncology, isn’t it?”

Instead of blaming the world for being unfair, you’re blaming the people who recognize it as such.

 

[PRmerger]

If a believer told me that, I would agree that we have no reason to require answers that invoke more than human psychology. I’m not seeing the contradiction here, so you’ll have to spell it out.

You are objecting to my not finding any of the answers you’ve provided as being satisfactory. You say, “I’ve given you answers. It’s your problem that you don’t find them satisfactory.”

And yet that is exactly what we tell you. “We’ve given you answers which prove the existence of God. It’s your problem that you don’t find them satisfactory.”

Again, you’re playing word games with “why”. Atheists can answer why the starvation of African children occurs, for example. We know it is happening for economic reasons; namely, the lack of industry in many African countries. Poor sanitation and the unwillingness to donate to charities probably aren’t doing those children any favors either. There is no difficulty in explaining “why” evil happens in this sense.

You still have to answer the question as to why someone isn’t compassionate enough to give from his plate to another.

It makes sense that we see, “It helps humanity when I give food to those who have none.”

Yet we don’t do that.

What is the atheistic explanation for our selfishness?

 

[schaeffer]

Not to mention that Christianity has an answer to the Problem of Evil. And it offers justice regarding the evil that occurs to us.

Atheism’s answer is: Evil just happens. And there’s no justice for those who have suffered immeasurably at the hands of evil people.

Now, please don’t mistake this post as saying, “Because Christianity offers an answer to the Problem of Evil it’s therefore true.”

I am simply proposing that Christianity is better than atheism because, at the very least, we have a better answer to the woman whose husband is slain by a terrorist.

The atheist can only say, “I’m so very sorry. There is nothing more that I can offer. He is gone and the people who did this may get away with it. There may be no justice for you. Ever.”

Having an answer that makes a person feel better, unfortunately doesn’t make it true.

My daughter in law recently shared a story about being told her rabbit was given away and was not living happily on a farm. It made her happy as a child to believe that. Years later she found out that not only had her bunny been moved to a farm, he had been butchered and served at dinner.

The initial story comforted her, but it was not true.

 

[PRmerger]

Having an answer that makes a person feel better, unfortunately doesn’t make it true.

My daughter in law recently shared a story about being told her rabbit was given away and was not living happily on a farm. It made her happy as a child to believe that. Years later she found out that not only had her bunny been moved to a farm, he had been butchered and served at dinner.

The initial story comforted her, but it was not true.

I am with you 100%. We ought to believe things because they are true, not because they are comforting.

But this thought ought to rankle atheists just a bit: atheism has no answer to this particular question: why is there evil?

Clearly when we look at the world we see: we should not be this way! We should not be enjoying a feast while a beggar is at the end of the table in want of some nourishment.

And yet we do.

Why?

 

[PRmerger]

Instead of blaming the world for being unfair, you’re blaming the people who recognize it as such.

Firstly, I am puzzled by the repeated implication that we ought not question “why”.

This is a curious sentiment you are proposing.

It appears that you countenance the scientific inquiry, and admit that there are answers to physical evils.

“Daddy, why is the car making that weird noise?”
“I don’t know, honey, let’s check under the hood to see if we can find the source of that problem!”

Yet! This scenario:
“Daddy, why is that man beating his wife?”
results in this response:
“Sweetheart, you shouldn’t be questioning ‘why’. It just is.”

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

Secondly, how is it that I should “blame the world”. Does the world have sentience?

No?

Then how can there be an assignation of blame to a thing which has no responsibility?

That, too “doesn’t make any sense”.

 

[schaeffer]

I am with you 100%. We ought to believe things because they are true, not because they are comforting.

But this thought ought to rankle atheists just a bit: atheism has no answer to this particular question: why is there evil?

Clearly when we look at the world we see: we should not be this way! We should not be enjoying a feast while a beggar is at the end of the table in want of some nourishment.

And yet we do.

Why?

Many atheists DO feel they have an answer for that question. And many people don’t accept that answer as satisfactory.

Many theists feel they have an answer for that questions. And many people don’t accept that answer as satisfactory.

It is not true that no atheist has an answer, but it might be true that none has an answer that is satisfactory to you.

No matter where one falls on the theism scale, there is not “default” answer that can be considered ultimately true.

I don’t see anything better or more true in telling one’s daughter that a journalist was beheaded because there is a God. Nor is it more comforting.

If we come back round to being able to use God to supply comfort by saying that in the end the evil will be punished, that may bring comfort to one who believes it, but again, there is no proof that compels one to believe it.

I am not arguing FOR atheism. I am pointing out that weak arguments for either side get us nowhere.

The idea that one should believe because they might get a chance to say “told you so” in the afterlife, is an insulting and ridiculous argument for faith.

The deepest desire for some sort of ultimate justice is noble, but even that desire is not proof that such justice, or the God who might meet it out is real.

In the end they are dressed up versions of the age old arguement that the Universe could not have created itself…therefore…God.

And the response that God could not have created himself…therefore…question remains unanswered.

And people with what they feel is AN answer claiming by default they win because someone else is willing to honestly say “I don’t know”.

Trying to corner one’s opponent into saying “I don’t know” doesn’t automatically make the one with what they consider an answer correct.

Likewise, telling an opponent that any answer they supply is unsatisfactory, doesn’t make their answer incorrect or mean they must keep trying to provide answers that will make everyone happy.

You are intelligent, and you know all this.

It is my opinion that many arguments and discussions like this one are insulting and do disservice to any notion of God or faith.

I learn more about faith, and a person’s understanding of God when they share it with me, rather than try to use arguments to convince me why I should believe the same.

Several months ago there was a discussion where someone put forth the example of shark rape as proof for God. I know that such arguments and “lines of reasoning” have given the impression to many that believers are fools and unworthy of respect or intelligent discourse and that if indeed they are properly representing their God, that he is likewise a fool and unworthy of respect.

Unfortunately people (and deities) are often judged by the company they keep.

Both theists and atheists get painted with a broad brush based on some of their loudest examples, not necessarily by their best or most representative ones.

 

[Oreoracle]

You are objecting to my not finding any of the answers you’ve provided as being satisfactory. You say, “I’ve given you answers. It’s your problem that you don’t find them satisfactory.”

And yet that is exactly what we tell you. “We’ve given you answers which prove the existence of God. It’s your problem that you don’t find them satisfactory.”

I suppose they sound similar if you ignore the motivations for our objections. I object to your answer on an evidential basis. You object to mine on a sentimental basis.

You still have to answer the question as to why someone isn’t compassionate enough to give from his plate to another.

Again, you’ve shown you won’t accept answers unless they invoke something greater than human preferences. If you don’t accept explanations of human behavior in terms of human psychology, then I’m afraid there’s nothing to be done.

What is the atheistic explanation for our selfishness?

Basically it’s biologically advantageous to be a little selfish, which is why we evolved a somewhat selfish psychology. Greedy humans were more likely to hold on to their resources and reproduce. That being said, humans are not extremely selfish on average, for much the same reason; it wouldn’t be advantageous if no one were cooperative.

Firstly, I am puzzled by the repeated implication that we ought not question “why”.

It’s not that you can’t ask the question, you just have to justify that it’s a sensible question first. Otherwise, it’s like asking a stranger if they’ve stopped beating their wife. The question is based on the possibly false presupposition that the man beat his wife in the past. If you can’t justify the premise that the question assumes, you shouldn’t be asking the question.

 

[PRmerger]

Many atheists DO feel they have an answer for that question. And many people don’t accept that answer as satisfactory.

Fair enough.

What is your answer to this question?

Incidentally, I have often wondered, esp after I have typed a typo, what the atheist answer to “why aren’t we perfect?” is?

Surely, with all the billions of people in the world, for millenia, there ought to have been a perfect individual? Someone who never made even one single typo*?

What is the atheistic answer to this failure of any perfect human?

*typo, here, is a metaphor.

It is not true that no atheist has an answer, but it might be true that none has an answer that is satisfactory to you.

'Tis true that none is satisfactory.

I actually haven’t heard any answers other than, “It’s just the way it is.”

No matter where one falls on the theism scale, there is not “default” answer that can be considered ultimately true.

This is absolutely not correct.

Perhaps what you mean is: if one is an atheist, then one cannot have a default answer that can “be considered ultimately true”.

But if one does indeed fall somewhere on the theism scale, on the Christian side–the Catholic side, to be specific–then there is indeed a default answer that can be considered ultimately true. It’s found in the Book of Genesis.

I don’t see anything better or more true in telling one’s daughter that a journalist was beheaded because there is a God. Nor is it more comforting.

Well, that wouldn’t be the Catholic answer to our children.

Trying to corner one’s opponent into saying “I don’t know” doesn’t automatically make the one with what they consider an answer correct.

I don’t disagree with you here.

I am simply offering a little whisper that the atheist who questions the Believer with some “gotcha!” question ought to be aware that he, too, can be questioned in a manner that may, indeed, be a “gotcha!” moment for the Believer as well.

IOW: “I don’t know” ought to be a respected answer on both sides, no?

Incidentally, when one has an “I don’t know” to an answer, but still believes in a particular concept, would that not be construed as believing based on Faith?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you’ve shown you won’t accept answers unless they invoke something greater than human preferences. If you don’t accept explanations of human behavior in terms of human psychology, then I’m afraid there’s nothing to be done.

Atheist. Kettle. Black.

 

[Oreoracle]

Atheist. Kettle. Black.

Our objections are not on equal ground. I object to your position on an evidential basis. You object to mine on a sentimental basis. There is no universe in which the latter carries as much weight as the former. In fact, for those who are concerned with truth, the latter should carry no weight at all.

 

[PRmerger]

Our objections are not on equal ground. I object to your position on an evidential basis. You object to mine on a sentimental basis. There is no universe in which the latter carries as much weight as the former. In fact, for those who are concerned with truth, the latter should carry no weight at all.

Let’s talk about your demand for belief on an “evidential basis”.

I propose that you don’t even follow this demand for evidence. In fact, you live your life very much based on faith.

It is only when we talk about God that suddenly your demand for “evidence” becomes supremely high.

Despite the multitude of arguments and proof that have made belief in God so eminently reasonable.

To prove my point: have you ever flown in an aircraft with a pilot that you haven’t examined her credentials?

Yes?

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

The idea that one should believe because they might get a chance to say “told you so” in the afterlife, is an insulting and ridiculous argument for faith.

Indeed.

The impetus for believing in something is because it is true.

 

[Oreoracle]

Let’s talk about your demand for belief on an “evidential basis”.

I propose that you don’t even follow this demand for evidence. In fact, you live your life very much based on faith.

Everyone has irrational beliefs, that much is certain. But usually when I spot inconsistencies in my logic, I try to eliminate them rather than argue that they are inevitable.

It is only when we talk about God that suddenly your demand for “evidence” becomes supremely high.

I don’t think my standard of evidence for God is especially high, it’s just that the proposed evidence is especially weak. Most of the “evidence” Christians use for their god could be found in other religions.

And don’t say that that still proves there’s at least “a god” because, if such “evidence” is really reliable, why stop at that conclusion? Why not agree that visions of Allah prove Islam is correct? Why is personal revelation able to prove the existence of a god/gods, but its credibility falls short of demonstrating particular gods? Unless the god to be demonstrated is the Christian God, then the credibility isn’t questioned.

To prove my point: have you ever flown in an aircraft with a pilot that you haven’t examined her credentials?

Firstly, no I haven’t. But even if I did, that isn’t “faith”. As an analogy, one doesn’t have faith in one’s doctors, but rather assumes that they are only permitted by law to perform operations for which they are trained. Likewise, unless the pilot is looking to become a criminal, he has been trained to fly.

It would require faith to allow a random homeless person to fly your plane or perform a surgery.

 

[PRmerger]

Everyone has irrational beliefs, that much is certain. But usually when I spot inconsistencies in my logic, I try to eliminate them rather than argue that they are inevitable.

Indeed. This is a nonsequitur, but true nonetheless.

I don’t think my standard of evidence for God is especially high, it’s just that the proposed evidence is especially weak

That is most astonishing to hear you say this.

Most of the “evidence” Christians use for their god could be found in other religions

I don’t have a problem with that.

It would seem, then, that it’s quite illogical to reject this evidence and remain an atheist.

Given the evidence AND the fact that a multitude of other religions use these arguments it would seem…untenable for you to reject that evidence.

It seems, just based on logic ALONE, that something that has a beginning can’t come from nothing.

And science is quite clear that the universe had a beginning.

Thus, any person who is a subject of the laws of truth would reasonably conclude that there’s at least a Prime Mover.

 

[PRmerger]

And don’t say that that still proves there’s at least “a god” because, if such “evidence” is really reliable, why stop at that conclusion? Why not agree that visions of Allah prove Islam is correct? Why is personal revelation able to prove the existence of a god/gods, but its credibility falls short of demonstrating particular gods? Unless the god to be demonstrated is the Christian God, then the credibility isn’t questioned.

Once we have agreed that reason tells us that there is a God, then we can discuss why this God is the Christian God.

But you haven’t acknowledged yet the first principle: God exists.

Firstly, no I haven’t.

You’ve never flown in an aircraft piloted by someone else?

Really?

But even if I did, that isn’t “faith”. As an analogy, one doesn’t have faith in one’s doctors, but rather assumes that they are only permitted by law to perform operations for which they are trained. Likewise, unless the pilot is looking to become a criminal, he has been trained to fly.

You have great faith, then, that the airline has adequately vetted their pilots, and that this particular pilot passed her classes, is not drunk or mentally ill, and has flown before and landed the aircraft safely.

Yet you would do this without investigating the pilot yourself.

I find that to be astonishing, given the high level of evidence you demand for the existence of God…

yet you wouldn’t even ask for the pilot to take a breathalyzer before you get on her plane.

That’s great faith, don’t you think? Given that you are trusting your life and the lives of your loved ones to a complete stranger?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Indeed.

The impetus for believing in something is because it is true.

Yes, and we believe something is true not just because there is scientific evidence that it is true. We also have reasons to hope that the truth of a belief is not an absurd position to take. Religious people see the Big Bang theory and we deduce a Creator based on the fact of Creation. The atheist see the scientific evidence and hopes otherwise. He hopes, without scientific evidence, that there is a Big Crunch, or a Multi-verse, or some other explanation that will overcome the suggestion of a Creator. Anything, anything but God. Without the scientific evidence to prove anything of the sort, the atheist still hopes there is an eternal cause other than God.

So I think hope also motivates, or gives us the impetus, to believe a thing is true or false.

We know very well why some people hope there is a God.

What’s baffling is why some people seem to hope there is no God. They must be hoping that or they would not struggle so mightily against all pointers to the existence of God.