|
Post by unkleE on Feb 16, 2016 23:16:38 GMT
But surely the book of Job is not historical? As CS Lewis pointed out half a century ago, it has no real historical references to date it or place it. It reads like a piece of Jewish wisdom literature (not surprising, because that's what it is!). I would be severely troubled if I thought God was really sitting up in his heavenly gentleman's club sipping on a scotch and yarning with Satan, and in a friendly competitive mood offers the devil carte blanche to have his way in MY life! But I think it is clear that is just window dressing to allow this discussion of evil to proceed.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 16, 2016 23:41:02 GMT
Sure, but way too many folks take the books of the bible in a numbingly literal sense, fail to allow for genre, context, literary tropes, etc.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 17, 2016 1:05:52 GMT
I doubt it was intended to be historical at all. My argument doesn't depend on that, however. Rather it analyzes the message of the book.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 17, 2016 11:23:30 GMT
I doubt it was intended to be historical at all. My argument doesn't depend on that, however. Rather it analyzes the message of the book. I'm sorry, what argument are you making? But regardless, it is generally considered wrong to take all the details of a parable, which is sort of what Job appears to be, and treating them as literal. I think the message of Job is to not give up on God when we suffer, because no-one really understand it. I don't see how that is an "evil" message. Rather, for its time, it seems to be quite an advanced bunch of ideas.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 17, 2016 13:41:51 GMT
I'm arguing the answer in Job is not sufficient. This doesn't rely on Job being anything but a metaphor. To me, God's answer is not really an answer at all. I don't know how advanced that was-I think the Greeks, for instance, may have had more sophisticated thoughts about this at the time.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 18, 2016 5:23:34 GMT
I'm arguing the answer in Job is not sufficient. This doesn't rely on Job being anything but a metaphor. To me, God's answer is not really an answer at all. I don't know how advanced that was-I think the Greeks, for instance, may have had more sophisticated thoughts about this at the time. Fair enough. I agree with you, except I think the Greeks were a little later (depends on when you think Job was written - it seems to me to be very early, though maybe polished up later). But perhaps we should ask "which answer in Job?", because there are at least two, perhaps three. Job was an "answer" for the people at that time, I guess, but we need a different answer now. Romans 8 may be one answer. But maybe we don't have an answer to that question. Perhaps part of living in today's world is realising no-one has all the answers. But I believe following Jesus gives better and more answers than any other worldview.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 18, 2016 13:29:00 GMT
Yeah, I wasn't sure of the timeline. However I'm pretty sure philosophers had asked similar questions in India, China, etc. already.
Which answers do you see in Job? I'm not familiar with the message of Romans 8 offhand. What answers do you feel Jesus had?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 18, 2016 21:21:35 GMT
Yeah, I wasn't sure of the timeline. However I'm pretty sure philosophers had asked similar questions in India, China, etc. already. I'm sure they did. But while I don't personally find Job a very helpful book, I think an extended piece of drama like Job is an imaginative way to deal with the issue, and leads to an answer of sorts - if we trust God, then we trust him even when we can't see what he sees. It's a slightly fatalistic and stoic conclusion, but it may have been the best at the time. Well Job's friends give him the obvious (at the time) answer - you must have sinned and are being punished. Job's initial "answer" is simply to give up and die - hardly an answer, that's why I said "perhaps three". Then there is God's answer - more or less "Look who knows so much!"Selected portions of Romans 8:18-38: "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. .... We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies .... And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. .... Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." So Paul is saying our present suffering is temporary and God is using even that to bring about good. We accept that suffering for his sake, and we know it won't separate us from his love. It isn't always easy to believe all that, but it is what christians are called to believe and live out. The passage even suggests (to me) something like evolution, when it says "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay". Once I accept evolution as true, I am forced to re-think the doctrines surrounding creation - namely that it was perfect and was corrupted by human sin - and am forced to some view like God using evolution (i.e. gradual growth from something primitive to a "higher" form of life) to create a world that would produce a good result though through suffering and over an extended time. Paul's words sort of hint at something like that. I don't think we are given answers in any of these places - just hints and corrections to wrong conclusions. In Job, God's final response corrects the wrong idea that personal suffering is the result of personal sin (it often is, but it often isn't). Romans doesn't explain why God did it this way, but corrects any sense of futility by reassuring that God has his purposes and it will be resolved one day. I think Jesus says similar things. He too says that personal suffering isn't necessarily the result of personal sin, and his central teaching - the kingdom of God - is a reassurance that God was beginning to put things right through him. From all this, and from thinking about it, I get that we can understand why there is much suffering (because people exercise their free will, a God-given gift, to do evil), but we cannot understand why God allows so much suffering, including natural dangers. But the evidence that God is nevertheless there and working for good is stronger than the questions suffering raises (especially as we can only say suffering is evil if we have an objectively true moral code, and naturalism/atheism cannot provide that), so the only responses are the ones given by Jesus and Paul, and sort of previewed by Job. That's all how I see it.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 19, 2016 0:55:37 GMT
Well, to me Job's answer is really no answer at all.
I don't see why that suffering Romans describes is necessary. Evolution is largely wasteful, and of course results in much suffering. Creation ex nihilo would make far more sense.
The evidence seems far stronger for an atheist naturalism to me. As for objective morality, that's another discussion but I don't think we need that to critique the idea of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God-it's simply an argument from incompatibility with the nature of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 19, 2016 11:49:45 GMT
Well, to me Job's answer is really no answer at all. No, we are agreed, more or less, there. I don't think anyone has an answer. I guess it depends on what God's goals are. What goals do you think God, if he exists, should have? What evidence (in summary) would you see? And what is the theistic evidence you think the atheistic evidence is stronger than? No you don't need objective morality to critique the idea of God, but I think you need objective morality to mount a serious argument from evil (what does "evil" even mean without morality?). How would you actually set out such an argument?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 19, 2016 13:52:21 GMT
I think that God, as described by most Christians, would desire for us not to suffer this much, and be happier.
As for evidence, there is the prevalence of suffering (this applies only to a god that would care about this). Evolution, which explains the development of all life forms without the need for divine aid. The relative emptiness of the universe which makes little sense if the focus is life on Earth. As I've noted elsewhere, the fact that our minds seem to be rooted in the brain, unlike what theism posits in every case I know of. There is more, but that seems like a good summary. On the other hand, I admit that it needs to be explained why every culture that I know of has a belief in the supernatural (usually involving gods, although not always). I believe this is explainable with natural means though. Accounts of miracles (which you've mentioned) could be evidence as well, however I'm not very familiar with them and how weak or strong they are. I don't think that suffices as evidence of a god, though it may be a problem in regards to naturalism (however it may be these are just natural things we still lack an understanding of). There is likely more I'm forgetting.
The problem of evil or suffering is a criticism of the all-good, all-powerful God posited by Christianity. So to critique it, one must only set forth this as a contradiction. If objective morality would be necessary for that, it can be assumed in the argument whether or not it exists.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 19, 2016 21:45:34 GMT
I think that God, as described by most Christians, would desire for us not to suffer this much, and be happier. Hi, thanks for those answers. It is difficult to know where to go in a discussion like this, because I think many issues are worth discussing, but I see little point in arguing too strongly. I'll try to find a balance. I think this describes what you think God WOULDN'T do, but I wonder what assumption you're making about what God would be aiming to do? I find that many non-theists either haven't considered this, or have a very different assumption than I have, yet this is crucial to any discussion of God's behaviour. That's an interesting list. - I have already said I agree about suffering - it makes it harder to believe in God, i.e. it counts as evidence against God's existence.
- It is true that evolution ended any design argument based on human life, but the design argument based on fine-tuning of the universe has replaced it, and has a far more rigorous scientific basis. I think the true statement about evolution is Richard Dawkins' one, that it allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, for without it, it would be very hard, I think. But it fits just as well with theism in my view.
- Likewise, I can't see how the relative emptiness of the universe establishes any part of atheism. I'd be interested to see you construct an argument to that effect. And when we consider that cosmology has established cosmic fine-tuning, and the size and density of the universe are almost totally required for it to allow life, I think the emptiness argument actually becomes evidence for God once we understand the cosmology. I'd be interested to discuss this further with you.
- I think the mind-brain issue is a strong defeater for naturalism, for it means naturalism cannot explain common human experience, and therefore has to be reductionist to levels which are impossible to live with. I'd be interested to discuss this matter more with you also.
For my part, my reasons for believing in God come down to: - Cosmology - why is there something rather than nothing? and the fine-tuning/design argument.
- Humanity - I have never seen satisfactory naturalist explanations for consciousness (mind), free will, ethics or even rationality.
- Human experience - miracles, visions, mystical experiences, etc.
- The historical facts about Jesus.
So when I put all those items against suffering and the "hiddenness" of God, the only two atheistic arguments that seem to me to have strength, I feel the weight is strongly on the side of theism. I think the only fair way to analyse this is to look at both hypotheses. (A) There is a good God and he allows suffering for some reason, or (B) There cannot be a good God because he wouldn't allow this level of suffering. If we flesh out those arguments, we get something like this: 1. Suffering is evil. 2. A good powerful God would create a world where so much evil occurs. 3. There no good powerful God exists. That argument makes it difficult to believe in hypothesis A. But hypothesis B cannot demonstrate #1, so it is difficult to believe in it either. That is why I say no-one has answers. I think our gut feeling leads us to feel hypothesis B is the reasonable response, but its inability to mount a valid logical argument (in my view) weakens it a little. As I have said all along, I think human suffering as we see it in the world today and in history is a terrible thing, and makes it harder to believe in God, and I don't want to minimise that. But I think it has to be recognised that the argument from evil contains within itself a logical contradiction. Thanks for the discussion so far.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 20, 2016 2:23:45 GMT
Well in the Christian conception, God is described as all-good, just and loving. So therefore it seems that God would desire us to be happy. That entails to me eliminating much of the suffering in the world.
I feel the argument from fine-tuning is weak, not only due to physicists who say that the constants needed for life could be much different than we think, but also that the universe is mostly devoid of life and thus it doesn't seem to be specifically designed for that. It's largely empty space and collapsed stars. Why that is necessary for life seems beyond me. The cosmological model of the Earth as the center of the universe (possibly also flat) with the stars merely being lights in the sky, is far more sensible from that perspective and it's not surprising this is how people originally saw it. The emptiness of the universe with the rarity of life indicates to me that this isn't a cosmic goal at all, only a byproduct. An all-powerful God could surely establish natural laws that did this in a far less wasteful fashion. Even the very existence of natural laws could be unnecessary if you have a God that can simply will things into being as needed.
I freely admit philosophy of mind isn't something I'm well versed in. So why is human experience not explainable by naturalism without a reductionism which would be impossible to live with? I'd certainly like to discuss that more.
With the problem of evil, I don't think the argument has to be that all suffering is evil, only that so much seems pointless and unnecessary. As to establishing that suffering is evil, it seems to be something Christian belief admits (as in the Book of Romans which you cited, for instance). The argument rests on whether this is compatible with the character of God as posited by Christians. Thus for me there is no logical contradiction in the argument. I don't think that the argument alone is necessarily a defeater for Christianity however-it has to be taken along with the rest.
You're welcome, and I thank you as well. It's very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 21, 2016 0:07:06 GMT
it seems that God would desire us to be happy. That entails to me eliminating much of the suffering in the world. I think that is the answer many people would give - CS Lewis described this view as a benign old Grandfather in heaven! - but happiness is an elusive concept. Positive psychologists say that pursuing happiness doesn't get us there - to be happy, we need to focus outside ourselves, on relationships and living for a cause. I think "happiness" may be a rather small goal for God - e.g. he could easily make "happy" robots or hamsters. I think God's aim is much "larger" - to create autonomous, rational, moral, loving, creative beings - little gods if you like - living in an autonomous universe. But with the autonomy comes most of the problems. You might like to check out this paper by a research astrophysicist, which summarises the scientific evidence. If you're not too mathematical or scientific (as I'm not), just read the intro and concluding text to each section. But it shows that fine-tuning is real science, whatever conclusion we draw from it. And it shows why the universe has to be the way it is granted the Physics - the density, distribution, gravity and expansion are all very finely tuned - anything even fractionally different and it would all have collapsed long ago, or by now just be a thin soup. I can't see how the emptiness matters. Do your words mean any less because they are surrounded by white paper or screen? If the universe was just some plaything of God, it could be anything I guess, but if it is going to be a self-existent place with autonomous life that uses rationality to discover things, then it narrows things down quite a bit. That's why our assumption about God's goal is important. Well to start things off, here's a few thoughts. If there's no God, then most people would also conclude there's no supernatural, everything is natural or physical. So we can understand the brain scientifically, but what is mind, what is consciousness, what are feelings and what is the sensation of seeing yellow or tasting chocolate? All of these things are based in the physical (elecro-chemical) workings of our brains, but our experiences are so much more than our brain processes, and we could understand everything about our brain processes and still know nothing about our consciousness and feelings. There are two obvious responses: (1) the physical is all there is, and all the other things can be reduced, ultimately, to the physical, or (2) the physical is not all there is, and these are things are real. A particularly important aspect of this is free will. If everything is physical, then our brain processes are determined by physical laws - the electrochemical processes and the inputs of our senses which enter our brains as electrical impulses. There is no "us", no "soul", no mind outside those processes to alter them. Thus it inevitably follows that our choices are in fact determined by the physics of our brains, there is nothing else to change that, and in principle our "choices" could be known in advance if we understood our brain processes and the inputs well enough. So everything we do is determined and free will is an illusion. But no-one can live that way. That may be the view from the outside, when a scientific observer examines our brains, but on the inside we feel we genuinely have choice. What's more, our own view of ourselves, the workings of our human groupings, our ethics, criminology and law, much of our psychiatry and advertising, all depend on choice. Many say that it is impossible to live without believing we have choice. So we have a dilemma. Evolution has led us to a point where we cannot live without the belief in free will that reductionist science says is an illusion. Something's got to give. Will we believe a science that starts with the assumption that the physical is all there is (an assumption it cannot get from the facts, because it limits itself to the physical), or will we believe our common human experience? "Pointless" requires some reason to believe that "point" has meaning in an atheistic universe. "Unnecessary" may be true, but how do you give it any meaning? I still say that neither the theistic view or the atheistic view stand logically. You keep showing me that the theistic argument cannot stand, which I agree with, but you still haven't shown me that the atheistic argument does any better. Thanks
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 21, 2016 3:57:43 GMT
Well, when I say happiness it's not about just personal gratification. Happiness is many things. One thing it is, for instance, would be parents not having to see their children die from preventable diseases, something that has been all too common throughout history and still prevalent in many parts of the world. I greatly value the things you mention as well, but how do things like this contribute to them?
I'm not saying fine-tuning isn't based on real scientific evidence, it simply seems to be far less clear-cut than it's sometimes made out as. Other physicists disagree this is necessary, and my point is that certainly an all-powerful God could have made the universe without such a waste. It isn't about meaning, simply logic which to me seems lacking in making such a vast, largely empty universe when the focus is claimed to be upon Earth.
Why do autonomous beings with reason need such a large universe? The Bible indicates the goal was to create us here on Earth, so the rest seems unnecessary.
So how do we know our experience is much more than our brain processes? The very question under dispute, surely.
The free will question I know somewhat more about. I've gone from a hard determinist viewpoint to being more sympathetic with compatibilism. Regardless of that, whether or not free will exists is something that would be very hard to know (however defined). In any case it seems like this would not change anything in our daily lives necessarily. This is something we might call the "free will paradox"-if there's no free will, most people are still determined to believe there is, and act on that. So whether or not there's free will is largely a question for philosophers. I doubt most people will ever come to disbelieve in free will, for no other reason than as you say it feels like we have it (whether or not we do). Even for those that do, I don't know how much it affects them in daily life. I know for me it didn't make a great deal of difference.
Our belief in free will may itself be determined, even as you say an evolutionary adaption (although I'm not sure how this could be shown). I'm not sure which science here you mean (neuroscience?) or that it starts by assuming only the physical exists. Regardless, the evidence may lead toward that conclusion and in many cases it seems our common human experience is wrong. If so, should that be ignored?
Again, this argument assumes a theistic universe and then works as a reductio ad absurdum. Thus it has nothing to do with whether an atheistic universe has such a point or meaning. I haven't yet been attempting to make a positive case for atheism here, so your reaction is not surprising. Atheism could be wrong simultaneous with Christianity, for instance. The argument alone does not show atheism is true, it only critiques Christianity. A question, however: if you don't think the theistic view stands up logically, what do you base your belief on?
P. S. I can't seem to figure out how we quote someone on here. Every time I try it keeps my previous quotes too.
|
|