February 01, 2010

Peter Kirk Responds To Assure Us God is Not to Blame for Haiti's Disaster

I previously wrote: "We atheists do not revel in tragedy. We hate the fact that people suffer in this world as all people do. It's just that in times like these it's good to be an atheist. Earthquakes happen. That's all there is to it. What we revel in are attempts by Christians to justify God's actions. They are pathetic, all of them. And guess what? God isn't to blame for the Haitian disaster! Nope. God is completely good and loving towards us all. His ways are perfect. Atheists like myself and Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, and Valerie Tarico have had a heyday with Christian responses so far." Link. Peter Kirk showed up in the comments with some answers.

Kirk wrote:
But in answer to some of your questions, yes, God could have for example spoken to King Charles X (or for that matter to today's bankers) and asked him to forgive Haiti's debts. Very likely he did speak to him. But the king, as a selfish and sinful man (like all of us), didn't do what God asked him, or would have asked him. God could have forced him to do it, but only by turning people into robots.

Notice first the kind of biblical literacy Kirk puts on display. No, by these same standards God could not stop Abraham from killing his son, nor could God convince Moses to go to free the Israelites from slavery, nor could he free those slaves, nor could he convince Gideon to do as he wished, nor Jonah to preach to the people of Nineveh, nor Joseph not divorce Mary, nor convince Paul to stop persecuting Christians. Naw. God just cannot do those things without turning them into robots, ya see. For Christians are conveniently illiterate when it comes to the Bible and they see things in terms of black and white fallacies when defending their faith. Oh, I see it now. God cannot turn people from their ways unless they are made to be robots. Yes. That's the answer. You see, any answer will work when looking for one.

The fact is none of us have very much free will in the first place, so there seems to be little or no moral reason to limit it further when we seek to do horrendous evil. We don't even value free will when it comes to people who do wrong. Why should we? Just lock criminals up in jail, which is a much more humane way of treating bad people than killing them and sending them to hell due to an earthquake.

And he did show the Haitians that their country was an earthquake zone, through devastating earthquakes in the 18th century. But they went ahead and built unstable buildings there anyway.

Kirk probably did not watch the video I linked to earlier. Human beings have always been attracted to live on fault lines around the earth, and this was so before they knew of the devastating consequences of doing so. We want what they give us and since we're risk-taking creatures we do so knowing the dangers. That's how God created us from the very beginning, they say. Still, I wonder if many people who live in these zones around the earth do so because they have faith that nothing disastrous will happen in their lifetimes. That's what faith can get ya. Los Angeles and Istanbul will probably be decimated within the next half century because of earthquakes. In any case, why do these fault lines offer us so much when a perpetual miracle working God could give us what we want without them at all? Why didn't God add wings on our backs to fly to safety when one took place?

How about this argument: Suppose you have a teenage child who goes out, with your permission, and commits some minor offence. Are you to blame? Well, you could have locked the young person up at home 24 hours a day, so yes, by the standards you apply to God, that anything you could have stopped is your fault, you are to blame. But is that responsible parenting? No, it is child abuse. Similarly God could lock us up 24 hours a day so we are unable to sin, but that would be to abuse us, not to be a responsible and loving Father.

Is this the only other option Kirk sees? Really? The only other option is to lock people up? Is that what good parents do who make their sons and daughters into good people? We know why kids turn bad. Sometimes it's due to faulty parenting and other times because of the influences in their lives. Is Kirk saying God cannot do what good parents do or that he cannot control the influences in our lives? Yes, that's the answer: God is perfectly good, it's just that he's impotent.

But the bottom line is that no parent will give a child more freedom than he's responsible for. Do good parents give young children a razor blade, or a shot of whiskey, or the keys to the car before they can handle this freedom? Of course not. And yes, parents do send their children to their rooms and ground them. They do so to keep their children from doing harm to others and to themselves. We do this with criminals too, but only for the most heinous of crimes not minor offenses anyway.

This is why I wrote earlier that Defending the Faith Makes a Person Stupid. It really does! Nothing personal Peter. It's just that these answers are really really dumb. That's what faith does to you.

48 comments:

  1. John,

    Your post are really fun because they are irrational. You can't even see why Christians just don't take you seriously. You can also see why Craig doesn't want to debate you. You are too easy.

    You create a false dilemma.

    Either God is unjust or they are is no God.

    You then deny free will since it is the only exit. You attempt to exclude the response before it is given.

    Atheists are the ones who deny free will preaching that we are all robots subject to the laws of causes and effect.

    You are simply imposing your worldview of naturalism on Christianity again. Atheists do this alot.

    As a result, in atheism, earthquakes happen as you stated. The robotic junk called life simply got caught up in the act of nature and died. You seem to take comfort in knowing that people just die.

    I would encourage you to go to Haiti and look those people in the face and tell them that. "Your just a robot and those folks who died simply were not smart enough to not live on a fault. Your loved ones and you are simply dumb people for doing that. Too bad, so sad for you. By the way, I don't help dumb people out either. I simply like to throw rocks at people's beliefs.

    I wonder what their response would be?

    As I have stated over and over, there is no love in atheism. In addition, there is no reason to value life since we are not free agents made in the image of God. You put people on par with the dirt of the ground which harms all of humanity.

    John, why do you insist on harming humanity which in fact could eventually harm you. Your just a big piece of walking dirt yourself. Why should anyone help a bucket of dirt?


    God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Zdenny


    Zdenny thank Goodness at the end of the day it really doesn't matter what you say.

    I have a protected right not to be forced to follow your mind numbing faith you call a religion. I see it for what it is.

    Religion is a cultural artifact reflected from geographical, historical and ethnic views.

    Got Free Will ?

    If anyone denies free will it is the its the followers of any of the three Abrahamic faiths. If we don't follow your particular version of Christianity then we will go to hell.

    Great example of Free will, Not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Zdenny

    Please re-read Mr. Loftus' post. Nowhere in his post does he say that people are robots: the word robot can be found in the quotation of Mr. Kirk. It appears to be Mr. Kirk's position that God could only "make" humans do/be good by turning us into robots. Further, I think neither Mr. Kirk nor Mr. Loftus believe that humans are, in fact, robots. And, nowhere in his post does he say, or even imply, that the people of Haiti are stupid for living on a fault line. The point about fault lines is that throughout history people everywhere have built their communities on them. Why? Well, basically because that is where all the goodies are -- you pays your money and you takes you chances! It is a tradeoff that is made all the time: cost/benefit, risk/reward. So, I think you will find, if you re-read Mr. Loftus' post, that the statement you imagine him making to the people in Haiti does not follow from anything he wrote in his post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "You see, any answer will work when looking for one."

    I think that this can serve as a great b.s. detector: if someone always has an answer for everything, than he/she is quite likely full of beans!!!! ;D

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jonathan,

    You just committed the same fallacy John did. You said, "Thank Goodness at the end of the day it really doesn't matter what you say."

    Jonathan, you may not realize this but that is what atheism says. When you die, your dead. At the end of the day, your life doesn't matter since you just die and disappear. Christianity makes no such claim.

    Jonathan then says, "Religion is a cultural artifact reflected from geographical, historical and ethnic views."

    In other words, people don't have free will and the laws of cause and effect determine a person's religious viewpoints since everything is determined.

    Once again, Christianity does not say that. Only atheists who view humans as robots would say such a thing. Christianity says that people are able to hear and respond to the gospel. People have minds that can see the rationality of the argument and respond.

    All atheists have to deny free will because they deny mind. They believe that mind is only the operation of physical processes that exist in the mind.

    Jonathan then says, "If anyone denies free will it is the its the followers of any of the three Abrahamic faiths. If we don't follow your particular version of Christianity then we will go to hell."

    Once again, you are so indoctrinated by naturalism that you simply take that indoctrination and apply it to every other worldview in an unjustified manner. God will not force you to love him. Heaven is about loving God and I don't think any atheists wants to be a part of that. Atheists only love themselves!

    God Bless...

    It is important for atheists to see that you need to look at Christianity from a Theistic perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I think that this can serve as a great b.s. detector: if someone always has an answer for everything, than he/she is quite likely full of beans!!!! ;D"

    This is always a blatant sign of a non-falsifiable position, which Christianity is, big time.

    Christians have no problem believing that God was able to save them, and transform them, but all those other terrible sinners in the world; they are just too hard-hearted!

    Yet this flies directly in the face of Paul's proclamation that he was the greatest sinner in the world, and I don't believe he was using hyperbole, since he had been killing Christians up to that point.

    God doesn't have to turn us into robots; just find a better way of teaching us about who he is, and how we should desire nothing more than him. Is God able to reach you (Christian), but unable to reach other people? Are you more open to God than those other people? Are you better than those other people who don't believe in your God?

    If you think so, St. Paul would probably have a few choice words for you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, just got back from walking my dog on this brisk, sunny first day of February and while I walked I was thinking of something Mr. Zdenny said in his (perhaps Miss/her?, anyway) comment: "as I have stated over and over there is no love in atheism." First, stating something over and over does not make it true, but that is neither here nor there. More important, in the next paragraph you say: "Your just a big piece of walking dirt yourself. Why should anyone help a bucket of dirt?" I am trying very hard to see the love in those two sentences but I really can't.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anthony,

    You said:This is always a blatant sign of a non-falsifiable position, which Christianity is, big time."

    Most of the advanced concepts within science are non-falsifiable. The tenets of Koppler aren't required for good science and are certainly not applicable to God or any God proof. that;s what none of you radical apprehend.

    In addition as Zdenney said metaphysical naturalism can't have any such notion as free will...your gene process are merely controlled by sequences and is there's anything that a TRUE naturalist holds clearly it's the complete denial of any will outside of that natural, materialistic gene process.

    We're here not because God required us to be here, we're here by our own choice. The funny thing is that you are too only because GOD exists!

    ReplyDelete
  9. And he did show the Haitians that their country was an earthquake zone, through devastating earthquakes in the 18th century. But they went ahead and built unstable buildings there anyway.

    This pisses me off more than anything else. You know WHY their buildings were built unstable - BECAUSE THEY'RE A FREAKING IMPOVERISHED COUNTRY YOU SMUG SON OF A BITCH. That means that they don't have any money, if you can get that through your smug little self-righteous brain.

    This is the kind of crap that caused me to move from a lukewarm believer to a non-believer - freaking Christian apologists who don't think through the ramifications of their apologies. "Oh, God showed them that their country was earthquake prone and they chose to not have enough money to be able to properly build buildings for an earthquake zone." Do you even THINK before words come off your fingertips?

    Here's a hint: before coming up with an apology, try having some empathy for the victims of the tragedy you're trying to apologize for. It'll help you not make your God sound like either a loon or a heartless bastard.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ZDenny

    from your comment:
    "When you die, your dead. At the end of the day, your life doesn't matter since you just die and disappear."

    I do indeed believe that when you die, you are dead. However, I am hardpressed to understand how your next proposition follows. Why should one's life not matter because in the end one just dies and disappears? My life matters: to my children; my husband; my dog; to the homeless veterans I work with; to the people in Haiti to whom I donated $250; to my neighbors; to more people than I probably realize....my life matters because I am alive and living; because I can enjoy the warm sun on my face on a cold winter's day; I can enjoy pecans in my oatmeal; because I have people who I can say "I love you" to and people who will say it back.........

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cecilia,

    When you dead, your dead. You can't interact with your kids, husband or feel the sun on your face. The problem for atheists is that your husband, children and that sun on your face don't matter either because they will all be dead including the sun which is a dying star.

    An atheist can give meaning to their life in the moment; however, since their life is ultimately meaningless, the given meaning is an illusion. When you deny God, you also become an anti-realist which means you don't really know if your husband, kids or that sun even exist.

    Atheistic philosophy does give people a headache after a while.

    God Bless...

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ZDenny

    And?? You see, when I die I will be dead, I will cease to exist...which means, obviously, that I will cease to have any awareness of existence...so, obviously, I will no longer be able to interact with my loved ones or the world...but since I will no longer exist or have awareness of existence, even, after I die that is of no consequence...dead is dead...

    "Live, Laugh, Love" :D

    ReplyDelete
  13. Harvey and ZDenny, I just wanted to say that I'm so happy for you tow that you've figured out everything about neuroscience. You should probably both call all the neuroscientists in the world who feel that they've just scratched the surface of the science, and let them know that you've got it all figured out.

    But, be careful, because they'll probably be angry and disappointed.

    Zdenny, when I die, and go Hell for eternity, which I'm quite sure is where you think I'm going, what meaning will my life have then?

    Huh?

    Thanks for your response.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cecilia

    You can live, laugh and love while the rest of us help the Haitians. My point to John is that Atheism doesn't work. You are trying to get high on some personal feeling while others are suffering.

    Since those Haitians are meaningless to an atheists. You rationally will just ignore them. They are part of nature and nature decided to suck them into the ground. What care do you have?

    I guess you can just keep on living, laughing and loving until you pass on. Your life contains nothing more than the energy you put into it.

    Sounds a little harsh, but that is atheism. Pretty cold to the bone.

    God Bless..

    ReplyDelete
  15. And he did show the Haitians that their country was an earthquake zone, through devastating earthquakes in the 18th century. But they went ahead and built unstable buildings there anyway.

    Haiti's mean annual income was $790 before the crash.

    The argument, "Why didn't they just choose to move somewhere else?"


    @ZDENNY
    Sounds a little harsh, but that is atheism. Pretty cold to the bone.
    You're mistaking atheism for nihilism.

    And, oddly, you're not taking, "don't /have/ to do anything" not far enough.

    You're correct that atheists are not forced to care about Haitians. Many do anyway.

    If you don't understand why they would, then perhaps the problem lies with your empathy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whoops, the line should have been:

    Is the argument really, "Why didn't they just choose to move/be born somewhere else?" If so, it's clearly just a post-hoc rationalisation and can be dismissed as such.

    ReplyDelete
  17. When ZDenny and Harvey die, the emergent property of their neurological activity called the "mind" will cease also. With it, their ideas of Christianity will disappear into the ether.

    Which makes the idea of Christianity ultimately meaningless, too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Zdenny (and others in blind agreement)
    i am sick of your characterizations about atheists. you think you know what atheists think, what motivates them, how they see life, what has meaning to them, and you are just wrong. so wrong as to be clueless. try listening and thinking and learning for a change instead of judging and categorizing. you have no idea how atheists see haiti and you have no idea of how atheists feel about anything. i bet you don't even know that atheists have donated money and time to this and many other causes and you will not accept that they do because that does not fit your preconception about atheists. you are ignorant of what atheism is and who an atheist is. so stop trying to make claims about atheists. you are ignorant as to where ethics come from and who has them and who does not. you are ignorant as to the 'meaning' of life and even what the definition of the term is. whenever you are about to start a statement with 'atheists think' or 'atheists say' or 'atheists do', just stop because you are so ignorant about atheists that you are going to say something that is . . . ignorant.
    you trying to define us in a certain way does not mean we are really that way. it only makes you look . . . ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey, Zdenny, where is this Atheist Scripture you've been reading from, because I'd be anxious to get my hands on it. Up until this point, I thought that atheists just got to think for themselves. I didn't know there was a code or a law or some philosophy that one must adhere to.

    Interesting.

    Also, if I die and got to Hell for eternity, what was the great ultimate meaning of my life, other than to suffer for eternity?

    Thanks for your response.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Celia,

    Note how ZDenny uses the word "we" when mentioning behavior that is agreeable to just about anyone, but he will avoid the word when discussing odious behavior.

    Example: "We" (Christians) are helping in Haiti.

    If the topic were Christian pedophile priests, witch hunters in Africa, etc. he would not use the word "we."

    Christians are a collective in good times and individuals in bad times. A double standard.

    Besides, he knows that atheists are helping in Haiti. If there were no religious beliefs, the world would still be responding as it is--it would just be a 100% secular response. Good people exist not because of religion, but in spite of it.

    I just read an article about South Chicago--it stated "even the churches have left." I guess they weren't getting any more publicity? Move the snake oil wagon to more fertile PR grounds . .

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ZDenny
    I do not understand why you say that the Haitians are "meaningless" to me. I can't go to Haiti but I did give $250 to relief efforts. (Which fact, BTW, was mentioned in a previous comment.) On the day after the earthquake I did the thing where you could text $10 for relief immediately and then I e-mailed everyone in my e-mail address book telling them to do the same. Is a $260 donation from me (plus, whatever donations resulted from my mass e-mail, plus the small - $10 - donations I add to my grocery bill each time I shop)enough? Of course not, I wish I could give and do much more. But that certainly puts the lie to your assertion that the Haitians are "meaningless" to me. You must be very lucky indeed if you think $250 is a "meaningless" amount of money...but I am happy for you if you can afford a larger donation or the time off from work to go to Haiti, I think that is great and it is good that you can help the Haitians more than I can.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Jim

    Of course, ZDenny "knows" that atheists are helping the relief efforts in Haiti. He just can't "believe" it because if he did, if he acknowledged this fact it would lead him to places he dare not go...

    ReplyDelete
  23. You seem to take comfort in knowing that people just die.

    I would encourage you to go to Haiti and look those people in the face and tell them that. "Your just a robot and those folks who died simply were not smart enough to not live on a fault. Your loved ones and you are simply dumb people for doing that. Too bad, so sad for you. By the way, I don't help dumb people out either. I simply like to throw rocks at people's beliefs.

    I wonder what their response would be?


    ZDenny,

    I take comfort in knowing that when people die, there is no evidence that they are going to spend an eternity in hell.

    There is really nothing more to be read into that expression. I don't think there are any atheists that find death itself comforting except those suffering from painful debilitating diseases and would like the comfort of ending their lives via painless assisted suicide--something Christians would like to prevent. It seems to indicate Christians love (or at least prefer) suffering to comfort. All indications are that Mother Theresa certainly did.

    As for Haitian reaction to your idiotic thought experiment, that's just deflecting the topic from the "Idiocy of believing in an all-loving God" to the "Dumbness of the Haitian people." Your conflating the arguments.

    But the real answer to your question is that it depends on how mature the person is with respect to their knowledge and understanding of the world.

    I have a pretty good understanding of the world. If I lived in San Franciso and an earthquake killed my family, I could tell you my reaction if you made that statement to me.

    One, I would be angry with the ill-timing of the question.

    Two, I would say we ALL live in areas with corresponding tradeoffs. You live in a desert? Gee that's dumb! Yeah, but there aren't any earthquakes and I can pipe in water. And so forth. "Dumb" is what the question is--not what we are as people. We're just living where our parents successfully lived.

    Third, I'd ask you if you are Christian since it was such a stupid question to begin with--and my experience is that Christians ask the dumbest ones. I would ask if my family is going to hell, since they didn't believe in a baby-killing God.

    So here's the question back at you:

    Would you tell the atheist, "Yup, your wife and kids are going to hell because you were too dumb to believe ink on paper from thousands of years ago."

    See how ridiculous this line of reasoning is?

    Come up with some better argumentation than strawmen and pathetic appeals to emotion.

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John said:

    "It's just that in times like these it's good to be an atheist."

    This is why I don't stomach the thought of that worldview very well.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Brad,

    Just like a 6-year old can't "stomach" the idea that there is no Santa Claus. The idea of no Santa Claus is a worldview destroying idea.

    But someday the 6-year old has to grow up . . .

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A christian calling an atheist irrational? Does your invisible wish granting friend agree?
    Who is denying free will? The person talking about causes (which includes our own activities)and effects, or the one who believes god already knows everything that will ever happen (implying that history has already been written through the end of time no matter what we do)?
    Atheists do not love...atheists deny free will...atheists believe lives don't matter because they just end...It appears to me that this Christian is imposing his worldview on naturalism again.
    I would like to see you go to Haiti and explain their tragedy as the will of god. "I don't know why god did this (he's mysterious) but he did it for a reason. And us mere humans should not question His infinite wisdom." Hmmm,this must be some new definition of "free will" that I wasn't previously aware of.
    Atheists believe that there is every reason to value life, because they believe it's all we have.
    It is rationality that lifts humans above the dirt. We are the universe examining itself. That is special.
    And why are Haitians so impoverished?
    Because the French forced them into slavery (with Biblical justification) and deforested their half of the island to grow sugar cane. Talk about reducing people to dirt and denying free will.

    ReplyDelete
  27. John, I was waiting all day for a reply to my comment. Indeed I mentioned my wait in a new post of my own. But I only just found that you replied with a new post, which didn't get linked back into the comments on the previous one. I haven't done more than skim the other comments on your posts, because my time is limited.

    Now to the content of your post. You are the one lacking biblical literacy. If you actually read the Bible you will find many people who regularly disobeyed God, and a minority like Abraham, Moses, Gideon etc who you name who obeyed him some of the time. So much for your theory that God makes people obey him.

    But I totally agree with you in not believing in "a perpetual miracle working God". I believe in a God who set up the world to run according to laws of nature and who only occasionally intervenes to work in ways which don't seem to follow those laws.

    Then you get into flights of fancy like "Why didn't God add wings on our backs ...?" Don't you think God had the right to choose his own design for the creatures he made? What right do you have to question him on such matters?

    Then you come to my parenting example, and I am hardly surprised to see that you totally misunderstand my point. You write: "Is Kirk saying God cannot do what good parents do or that he cannot control the influences in our lives? Yes ..." On the contrary, that is the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that God acts just like good parents in influencing our lives for good - but like even the best of parents he doesn't always succeed in bringing up perfect children. He doesn't do the equivalent of "giv[ing] young children a razor blade, or a shot of whiskey, or the keys to the car before they can handle this freedom". But young children can and do go out and commit "some minor offence" (to quote my original example) without having been given an irresponsible amount of freedom. Indeed they are even quite capable of killing one another with sticks etc they find in the street. So when children do bad things it is not always the parents' fault. And when humans do bad things that doesn't mean it is God's fault.

    Sorry, John, but your answers to my points are really dumb. That's what militant atheism does to you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Peter, nice to see your comment but prepare to get fried. If the regular visitors here at DC don't do this, I will later. Nothing new here but the arguments of a brainwashed person who doesn't know he's brainwashed (but that's typical of brainwashed people).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Then you get into flights of fancy like "Why didn't God add wings on our backs ...?" Don't you think God had the right to choose his own design for the creatures he made? What right do you have to question him on such matters?

    How is this a flight of fancy? Per standard interpretation, he had the ability. I do not see that "giving someone wings" is any more or less miraculous than stopping the sun, or constructing a pillar of fire, or keeping someone alive in the mouth of a great fish.

    Is there some line between 'reasonable' miracles and 'unreasonable' ones that I am not seeing?

    Also, you seem to be oscillating between two mutually exclusive stances:

    1. God's motivations are ultimately inscrutable to humans. We have neither the moral right, nor the gods-eye view of the world that would be needed to evaluate them via our own faculties.

    and

    2. We can use our faculties to derive the reasons behind God's (in)action in this specific crisis.

    If you wish to assert #2, then it seems that the conclusion would reduce to, "The Christian stance is that everything happens for a reason. Given this, we know that this thing must have happened for a reason."

    Is there more to your argument than this?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am new to this forum, recently bought John's book and started reading it. I believe in God; however, I am trying to take a honest look from atheist point of view. That is one of the reasons why I am going through WIBA.

    I concede none of the logical arguments could completely convince the emotional component of the problem of suffering and pain. For example, even though free will arguments try to provide some reasons for the existence of suffering, they do not answer the deep question: "why?", "why did God do it this way?" I am not asking logical answer for this question, but the reality of pain & suffering such as Haiti compels one to ask "why". Was there no other way God could have achieved his purpose? The emotional pain caused by suffering in this world is too much to be answered by logical reasoning alone! There is no wonder atheists reject any theistic answer to this age long question!

    At the same time, free will argument needs serious consideration from logical perspective. Theist contention is that if God wanted to create creatures with free will, then he has to provide the environment where they can exercise their free will. To say it in probabilistic terms, the "sample space" should include both good and bad possibilities; God somehow need to allow the possibility of the ability of human beings to choose between good and bad. The set of all possible choices human beings can make should include bad choices also along with all good choices. Otherwise, free will does not have any meaning! If God tinkers with the sample space then, then different choices are not equally likely. It will be similar to biased throw of dice! (pls don't bash me that I am trying to say God is trying an experiment; thats not what I am saying!). The question is what if God wanted to create morally free being (similar to himself) who is capable of choosing between good and bad?

    Of course! this does not answer natural evil!

    As I said before, even if I can somehow (not sure how) convince myself with all the rational/logical answers to the problem of evil, I would still not be convinced at emotional level! I would still ask "why"?
    I am not being facetious here when I say...No amount of scientific reasoning can give satisfying answer to a child who is asking, "Why is candy that tastes so good is bad for my teeth?"

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ennangal,

    Thank you for being honest!

    When I was a Christian, my questioning about evil was NEVER a logical one, as much as those in the church around me tried to make it. It was always an emotional question, and the question was fundamentally, how could God stand it?

    I mean, my level of compassion is nowhere near perfect, and yet the One who is to maximally exude compassion can find a way to allow it to happen, and do nothing to stop it? As far as I'm concerned, it is beyond belief, but I do appreciate actually hearing a Christian admit that this is an obstacle to faith.

    When you add in an eternal Hell, the problem is magnified to infinitude.

    Ennangal, would you consider the problem from evil/suffering to be a legitimate reason for unbelief?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anthony,
    Absolutely! It is one of the thorny issues in Christianity! Many abandon their faith because of this very reason (e.g Darwin, Charles Templeton, William Lodbell, to sate few).
    Unjust suffering is definitely an issue!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anthony,
    Absolutely! It is one of the thorny issues in Christianity. Many abandoned their faith because of this (e.g Darwin, Charles Templeton, William Lodbell, ...list goes on).
    Unjust suffering is definitely an issue in theism. It is still not answered satisfactorily.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jim, think for a second.

    Is it really mature to take this Haitian tragedy and call it "good times" because it makes a rhetorical point?

    In fact, just about every argument John presents is directed toward the pain in the world or bad plumbing or animal death. I almost think it's sadistic, and I think that arguing for the utter vanity of life is a losing position. Which is why so many New Atheists are calling for "ridicule tactics."

    I'm not sure that is what we would normally call "mature."

    ReplyDelete
  35. feralboy12 said... "Atheists believe that there is every reason to value life, because they believe it's all we have.
    It is rationality that lifts humans above the dirt. We are the universe examining itself. That is special."

    Damm right feralboy12 .

    Athiests/agnostics do value life (extra specially),because as far as we know there is only one chance to value and enjoy it.That we can be sure of.We can also value future life on this earth,by doing our best to make good decisions that will make life easier for future generations.

    However its not quite so easy for agnostic/athiests like myself to enjoy this life,when i was born to idiot faithful christian cult people who`s faith caused much harm.And went about destroying this life.

    The future is maybe not ever best served by the faithful, who`s faith naturally tends to suggest this world is not so very important.Faiths tend to produce thoughts that this world is dispensible in that gods supposedly produce another if needed,this selfish thinking does not do much to help "value" this planet! so does not value the future generation either.

    How backward and ignorant that the faithful wallow in fraudulent thoughts of what actually ammounts to value.The values of the faithful are mixed in with ignorance abuse and wastefulness.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ennangal said... "To say it in probabilistic terms, the "sample space" should include both good and bad possibilities; God somehow need to allow the possibility of the ability of human beings to choose between good and bad.

    Hi i agree with Anthony,thanks for being honest.

    Ennangal i allow my children to choose between good and bad too,but to do that, that dont mean i need to completely disappear out of the picture ..offer them no personal guidence,and lay out fear of judgement and hell if they happen make the wrong choices.

    And if i did,i certainly wouldnt be "expecting" them to really ever think of me as HONESTLY being so very loving

    ReplyDelete
  37. Brad,

    I think your building a strawman of your own.

    John said at the top of this post: "We atheists do not revel in tragedy. We hate the fact that people suffer in this world as all people do. It's just that in times like these it's good to be an atheist.

    You stated: Is it really mature to take this Haitian tragedy and call it "good times" because it makes a rhetorical point?

    John isn't saying the Haitian tragedy is "good times," he's just saying it's good to be an atheist because we don't have to try to justify natural disasters with the concept of a God who intervenes to answer prayer, but lets buildings collapse on people.

    It would be the same as saying "In times of drought, it's good to have water available" and then you accuse the person of saying droughts are "good times."

    Your "good times" appears to me to be saying atheists love disaster--the more the better! Am I misinterpreting you?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jim, thanks. This is typical of the kind of reasoning Brad offers and one of the reasons I don't respond much to him. With critical thinking skills like that no wonder he believes.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gandolf said…“i allow my children to choose between good and bad too,but to do that, that dont mean i need to completely disappear out of the picture ..offer them no personal guidence,and lay out fear of judgement and hell if they happen make the wrong choices.”

    Yeah! I see what you are saying. But I was trying say the free will argument requires equally likely possibility of both good and bad choices for humans to choose. So if God intended to create free willed creatures like us, the sample space should contain both! That’s all to it!

    But what you are referring to is moral guidance from God! I guess here the point of contention would be on the method and the amount of guidance (intervention) God needs to exercise to show his presence. Theist would point to moral restrain (conscience) one need to overcome before committing bad acts. Could that be God’s way of offering personal guidance? I know atheist won’t agree! What I am saying is we not only have free will to choose between good and bad, but we also somehow have the ability to know what “ought” to be chosen. Well! this is nothing but some variation of morality argument!

    ReplyDelete
  40. John, I'm not sure whether I will hang around here to be fried. There's not really a lot of point in me debating with people who clearly are not prepared to consider my arguments.

    Richard, of course God could have given us wings. That is not the issue. The issue is that he chose not to, for reasons that I will not attempt to explain.

    And then there is a middle way between your "two mutually exclusive stances", neither of which I actually took. Ultimately God makes his own decisions, and we can't understand them completely. But with the faculty of reason he has given us, and from what he chooses to reveal about his thinking, we can come to some partial and incomplete understanding of some of what he does. It is that partial and incomplete understanding that I am tentatively offering here, all the time still saying that this "is not an attempt to answer the question of why God allowed this natural disaster." I don't think I even said that this happened for a reason, so please don't put this thought into my mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey Jim,

    That was so nice of John to illustrate the "ridicule tactic" for me, wasn't it? (actually, John has mentioned that he doesn't respond because I'm a "small fish" without a blog following)

    As for your question, it is a little bit of a misinterpretation. I'm not saying that disasters are "fun" just for the sake of the destruction for an atheist, but that it gives an opportunity for an atheist to say "see, I told you so." I don't think John takes any pleasure at all in seeing the destruction, but I do think he gets pleasure from appropriating that tragedy into an argument.

    This is all because the atheist position is based almost exclusively on the argument from suffering. So any type of suffering is interpreted as evidence against God. Events in history are spinned to highlight the pain, horror, or vanity of the situation.

    Case in point. Most biologists see evolution as an incredibly elegant system to produce complexity in life. John has to focus on animal death in his upcoming chapter to deflect the elegance of the system.

    Look at the recent posts: Haiti earthquake, babies in hell, animal suffering, lead poisoning, people are stupid and deluded, Christians hate each other, etc. Even applied to the Bible, Price, for instance, takes up a lot of time arguing for the gullibility of people before he makes his historical arguments. John does the same and makes sure to highlight passages like Judges 19-21 (out of context) and Psalm 137 to paint a picture of the Bible as a human (read: negative) document.

    This isn't the initial reason I rejected atheism during my season of doubt, but its the reason I don't seriously consider it now. People become atheists when they decide that life really is pointless and there is no real beauty or organization to the world or humanity. What's left is the existential "do something with your life" absurdity that flies in the face of the philosophical conclusions.

    In the pit of my stomach I don't think I could ever accept a worldview that highlights the absurdity of life. I think it's a wrong conclusion and a losing argument.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Brad Haggard

    You state that "People become atheists when they decide that life really is pointless and there is no real beauty or organization to the world or humanity."

    Really?? How do you know that this is true? Do you know exactly what is in the hearts and minds of each and every atheist on the planet? I will only speak for myself: I do not see life as "pointless" nor do I believe that there is no "real beauty...to the world or humanity" -- in fact I believe very much that there is beauty and meaning in the world, in life and in humanity.

    You also said: "What's left is the existential 'do something with your life' absurdity that flies in the face of the philosophical conclusions."

    I do not understand what you mean by this statement -- how is doing something with your life absurd? I can understand that the opposite stance (do nothing with your life) would be absurd but I am puzzled by your position.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Peter Kirk one more time, just for you.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ Zdenny


    Jonathan then says, "Religion is a cultural artifact reflected from geographical, historical and ethnic views."

    In other words, people don't have free will and the laws of cause and effect determine a person's religious viewpoints since everything is determined.


    Huh?

    Where do you get free will from my statement?

    Cause & Effect = determinism?

    If you’re born in a culture whether geographically, historically, and ethnically, you will follow certain behaviors because that is all you know. You as a citizen of a particular place and time you will follow the culture of that place and time. Unless you are raised in a pluralistic society that offers you alternate options. I would argue that a large part of the population of our planet doesn’t have this “free will” option but follow the course of their family and culture. Only a citizen of a the western industrial societies actually have a option of “free will” if it actually exists at all. No were but the west were one can be a Christian (of one form or another), Muslim, Jew, New Age, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever. Citizens of the west have the option of changing their religion and it’s not stigmatized. In other parts of the world changing ones faith is not an option and it could kill you.

    Regarding things be determined if you think your life is determined then it is. If you think your life is not determined then its not.

    Clearly you read what you want to read and not what is actually written. You make up stuff.

    God will not force you to love him.

    No, Zdenny your faith, your god, gives you only two choices. Either you love me or go to hell. Why do you lie about this fact?

    Free will and Christianity The very fact that you think god had given the choice to Adam Eve throws Free Will out the window. The very fact you think god interacted with Hebrews (and no one else on our planet ) Free Will doesn’t exist. If your god (small “g”) wanted to offer us free will there wouldn’t need to have any interaction with us, no Adam / Eve, no Cain / Able, no Flood, no tower of Babel, and no Christ and his resurrection. God would have left us to our own devices, grabbed some popcorn and watched the show. There would have been no point in interacting with god’s version of the Sims.


    God = no Free Will
    No God = Free Will.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cecilia,

    I won't presume to speak for you, but atheism as a philosophy draws its roots from that presupposition. I've also seen that argument proffered on these threads repeatedly. Ask John if he thinks there is any real organization or beauty in the world and see if you get a straight answer.

    As for the existential absurdity, I'm amazed at how many atheists and skeptics are unwitting children of Heideggerian philosophy. Heidegger thought that the way to truly live was to reject God and live life knowing that you were going to die and ultimately not count for anything. That is the absurdity, living as if your life mattered knowing that ultimately everything was pointless (i.e. in light of the eventual exhaustion of Earth's resources, humanity's eventual extinction, or the heat death of the universe).

    I think it's a good thing to do something with your life, but that, philosophically speaking, leads me to believe that our lives evidence a greater purpose than bare materialism.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And as if on cue, John posts a video of a ringworm...

    ReplyDelete
  47. City street departments warn when they send out their street-cleaning machines. I'm a sysadmin at a certain site, and when I install an update I warn people that that site will be unavailable.

    So if it's necessary to make an earthquake, then an onmimax god could easily poof into existence tablets made out of solid silicon carbide that warn of the coming earthquake. Or converse with everybody there with a human voice.

    So some lowly sysadmin can do better than some alleged onmimax god? Seems like there isn't such a thing and that the Universe runs on completely impersonal natural laws.

    ReplyDelete

Before you waste your time with a comment that might not be acceptable read my comment policy.

Here's a hyperlink HTML for convenience:

<a href=""></a>