Questions for theists

[Luis Garcia]

This isn't exactly a call out thread, but I would be very interested in learning some more about how theists see the world, so I have some questions for the theists of the board. I'm not really interested at this point in shredding your beliefs, but more in finding out why you have those beliefs.

So, first off, how do you know?

If you think that a certain god exists, on what basis do you think that? Specifically, what discrimination tool do you use to come to the conclusion that that god exists while others don't?

I really don't get it.

[Dave Hawkins]

No time now for a detailed answer, but please have a look at my blog (see my sig for a link) to gain an insight into my thinking.

[Luis Garcia]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for answering. I've had a quick look round your blog, and all I could find was "In particular, we observe Biological Machines, the Cosmic Fine Tuning of the Universe, the Laws of Relativity and the Universal Moral Code." and "have a leap of faith in the bible".

There are a whole heap of questions I could ask about these, but is that a fair summary of why you believe your god exists? That these things constitute sufficient, scientific evidence for him?

[seebs]

So, first off, how do you know?

Well, strictly speaking, I guess I don't.

If you think that a certain god exists, on what basis do you think that? Specifically, what discrimination tool do you use to come to the conclusion that that god exists while others don't?

I think that's the wrong way to approach the question. I think that something exists, but the rest is theories about something.

I used to think, for the longest time, that ravenscape had sort of light-brown hair, because one of her avatars did. When I saw a picture of her, I didn't cease to believe in ravenscape, I changed my views about what ravenscape was like.

[stumpjumper]

Blind men and the elephant.

[ravenscape]

So, first off, how do you know?

Well, strictly speaking, I guess I don't.

If you think that a certain god exists, on what basis do you think that? Specifically, what discrimination tool do you use to come to the conclusion that that god exists while others don't?

I think that's the wrong way to approach the question. I think that something exists, but the rest is theories about something.

I used to think, for the longest time, that ravenscape had sort of light-brown hair, because one of her avatars did. When I saw a picture of her, I didn't cease to believe in ravenscape, I changed my views about what ravenscape was like.
From what I gather, that photo is pretty dissonant with how people picture me based on text/other clues.

[seebs]

Yeah. I will always think of you as the mousey-blonde chick. She just LOOKS like a ravenscape. I suspect you are an imposter.

[ravenscape]

Curses! Foiled again!

[Jobar]

On another thread, I was just mentioning Fred Phelps. I've read his defenses of his 'godhatesfags' theology; he backs it up with scripture just as well as any more loving believer can back up a sweetness-and-light god.

Stump, do you think that ol' Fred is 'feeling' part of the same 'elephant' you are?

[stumpjumper]

Yes.

I think he's near the elephant's ass, though :D

[seebs]

On another thread, I was just mentioning Fred Phelps. I've read his defenses of his 'godhatesfags' theology; he backs it up with scripture just as well as any more loving believer can back up a sweetness-and-light god.

And, as I said in the other thread, Hovind does just as good a job defending his evidence that evolution is impossible as evolutionary biologists do of defending their positions. At least, going by the measure of quotable sound bites per minute, ignoring the outright lies, ignoring the misquotes, the quote-mining, and the totally arbitrary interpretations...

[Luis Garcia]

I think that's the wrong way to approach the question. I think that something exists, but the rest is theories about something.



But you favour one theory over others, presumably?

[Luis Garcia]

Blind men and the elephant.

So you think all the gods that anyone has ever described are the same one? Do you see no contradictions between any of the thousands of gods?

[seebs]

I think that's the wrong way to approach the question. I think that something exists, but the rest is theories about something.



But you favour one theory over others, presumably?

Yes.

But there's a world of difference between "I think A exists and B doesn't" and "both A and B are theories about an underlying reality, which I'll call C. I think A is more accurate."

[Luis Garcia]

I think A is more accurate.

I accept yours is a softer version of my question, but, given that, I think my question still apllies. By what means do you think A is more accurate?

[seebs]

I think A is more accurate.

I accept yours is a softer version of my question, but, given that, I think my question still apllies. By what means do you think A is more accurate?

Short answer: I have observed many, many, models, and noticed that they appear to have underlying commonalities. I have found a theory which appears to accommodate the apparent underlying reality, and offers a framework for exploration.

I'm a bit of an instrumentalist; since the theory is working, I'm going to stick with it until someone offers me a theory which is somehow compellingly better at doing the job.

[Luis Garcia]

Short answer: I have observed many, many, models, and noticed that they appear to have underlying commonalities. I have found a theory which appears to accommodate the apparent underlying reality, and offers a framework for exploration.


Forgive me for being dense, but the words are familiar but I don't have a clue what you actually mean. Specifically the bit I've bolded. How do you explore it?

See, the scientific method is a well known and understood mechanism for investigating reality. Seeing as you can't use it on an invisigod, what method do you use, and why?


I'm a bit of an instrumentalist; since the theory is working, I'm going to stick with it until someone offers me a theory which is somehow compellingly better at doing the job.


Another one here. Compellingly? By what metric? How would you compare the two theories and decide one is compellingly better than the other?

[stumpjumper]

Blind men and the elephant.

So you think all the gods that anyone has ever described are the same one? Do you see no contradictions between any of the thousands of gods?

Well first I think we need to realize that there is a difference between these two statements:

Christians and Jews believe in a different God.

Christians and Jews hold different beliefs about God.

I would say the latter is much more accurate...

[Luis Garcia]

I would say the latter is much more accurate...

Again, my question stands. How do you know? What makes you think the latter is more accurate?

[stumpjumper]

Because I believe there is one transcendent source that acts as the inspiration and reference point for the various god concepts that humans have formulated.

I personally believe that the overall Christian message is most relevant to me and offers a model that is more accurate and explanatory in regards to existence and humanity but that doesn't mean that I need to or should argue that other experiences and models can not claim the same God as their source and inspiration.

[Luis Garcia]

But it also doesn't mean you need to or should argue that other religions can claim the same god.

So why do you?

[stumpjumper]

What God are they referencing then?

[Jest2Ask]

Because I believe there is one transcendent source that acts as the inspiration and reference point for the various god concepts that humans have formulated.

I generally feel (believe ?) the same way. However I would use common reality instead of Transcendant source.

I personally believe that the overall Christian message is most relevant to me and offers a model that is more accurate and explanatory in regards to existence and humanity but that doesn't mean that I need to or should argue that other experiences and models can not claim the same God as their source and inspiration.

I can understand the most personally relevant part but like Luis Garcia :wave: not clear about Christainity accurately explaining existence in general and humanity specifically. :confused:

OK back to lurking, PTI (ESPN sports fans should get that.)

[Luis Garcia]

What God are they referencing then?

Well, I'm not convinced you're understanding my question.

Personally, I don't think any of you are referencing any gods, but my interest, in this thread at least, is not what your conclusions are but what tools you use to arrive at them.

You claim that all religions refer to the same god. Ok. But how have you come to that conclusion? What tools do you use to investigate questions such as this?

How do you know?

[Jobar]

Yes.

I think he's near the elephant's ass, though :D

Heh! OK, good answer.

But what this implies about the God you worship is that he isn't always benevolent, you know.

[Jobar]

On another thread, I was just mentioning Fred Phelps. I've read his defenses of his 'godhatesfags' theology; he backs it up with scripture just as well as any more loving believer can back up a sweetness-and-light god.

And, as I said in the other thread, Hovind does just as good a job defending his evidence that evolution is impossible as evolutionary biologists do of defending their positions. At least, going by the measure of quotable sound bites per minute, ignoring the outright lies, ignoring the misquotes, the quote-mining, and the totally arbitrary interpretations...

Bullshit. If you "ignore the outright lies, ignore the misquotes, the quote-mining, and the totally arbitrary interpretations" when Hovind speaks, there's silence. Nothing is said.

Phelps, OTOH, can back up his hateful and malevolent god with just as many, and just as meaningful and contextual, Biblical quotes as you, or any other believer. Sure, he ignores a lot of turn-the-other-cheek and love-thy-neighbor, but his interpretation is eminently defensible from the same holy book you use. No outright lies, no misquotes- and if his interpretation is totally arbitrary, can you show that yours isn't?

[seebs]

Bullshit. If you "ignore the outright lies, ignore the misquotes, the quote-mining, and the totally arbitrary interpretations" when Hovind speaks, there's silence. Nothing is said.

Well, there's probably a few bits and pieces.

Phelps, OTOH, can back up his hateful and malevolent god with just as many, and just as meaningful and contextual, Biblical quotes as you, or any other believer. Sure, he ignores a lot of turn-the-other-cheek and love-thy-neighbor, but his interpretation is eminently defensible from the same holy book you use. No outright lies, no misquotes- and if his interpretation is totally arbitrary, can you show that yours isn't?

Well, here's the thing.

Imagine, if you will, a threatening "legal" letter from some guy on the internet.

Does it cite from laws? Sure it does. Does it misquote them? Not so's the average person would notice. Does it misrepresent them, or use words incorrectly, or quote-mine them? Well, maybe, but how would you know?

So far as I can tell, most of what Phelps does is about as accurate as a portrayal of the text as what Hovend does is as a portrayal of evolution. This opinion has been supported by the fact that I have never found someone who felt otherwise who was not either:

1. Explicitly, overtly, hostile to Christianity.
2. Someone who fully agreed with Phelps.

Now, it's not just that people only think something sounds reasonable when they agree. There's tons of disagreements between Christians who will agree that they are both arguing at least basically plausibly. I don't see that for Phelps so much -- because what he says is outright loony crazy.

Does it sound different to you? No. That doesn't mean there's no difference.

I have been involved in some disputes with a guy on a video gaming forum. He portrays himself as a hardware expert of some sort. In fact, he is absolutely, totally, free of comprehension of the words he's using. What's interesting is that many other participants at the forum viewed our clashes as very impressive clashes between two highly talented technical experts... Because many of the participants were totally ignorant of the material. To them, his rants full of half-sentences out of white papers and glossy brochures sounded just as reasonable as my rants full of snippets from technical manuals.

If you were arguing that Phelps might have a couple of points, I could take that seriously. But when you say there's no difference at all, I am obliged to conclude that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't know enough about the field to recognize even the most basic differences between writings in it.

So far as I can tell, you're about as qualified to comment on the fairness or accuracy of what Phelps says about Christianity as the editors of Social Text were to comment on the accuracy of an article about physics.

There's real people out there who have anti-gay positions that they can justify competently, and with whom it is possible to have substantive arguments. Phelps isn't one of them. If you can't tell the difference between his writings and those of other people in the field, you don't know enough about the material to be commenting on what is or isn't representative, or how coherent peoples' positions are. It's just that simple.

[Ian Nerr]

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

[Jobar]

Seebs, I'm not denying that Phelps is a serious nutter. Far from it. Of course I find his dogma repulsive as an ethical humanist, and I hope the nasty bastard dies of something slow and painful. But I've read his writings; I've checked out his Biblical references. They say what he claims they do.

And that means that you can defend a malevolent god using the Christian holy book.

If you want to think that I'm not familiar with many varieties of Christian dogma, well you're free to think so. I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on all of them. But the simple fact is that the Bible can be used to defend a version of God even more monstrous than the one that Phelps says he believes in. Consider Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God"; consider Martin Luther's rants about the Jews; consider Torquemada and the Inquisition. Should I go on?

[seebs]

Seebs, I'm not denying that Phelps is a serious nutter. Far from it. Of course I find his dogma repulsive as an ethical humanist, and I hope the nasty bastard dies of something slow and painful. But I've read his writings; I've checked out his Biblical references. They say what he claims they do.

I got a threatening letter from a Reconstructionist at ChristianForums once. He cited a law saying that, under Minnesota law, I could be convicted of stalking him because he claimed that my posts made him feel threatened. I went and looked up that law. He was apparently right.

I asked a lawyer. It turned out he was full of shit. I, as it happens, did not understand the text of the law. But I had no way of knowing that.

And that means that you can defend a malevolent god using the Christian holy book.

Sure. And you can criticize evolution by quoting Darwin, who said that the eye is impossible to evolve. The words cited really are there in the text!

If you want to think that I'm not familiar with many varieties of Christian dogma, well you're free to think so. I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on all of them. But the simple fact is that the Bible can be used to defend a version of God even more monstrous than the one that Phelps says he believes in. Consider Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God"; consider Martin Luther's rants about the Jews; consider Torquemada and the Inquisition. Should I go on?

I will certainly grant that there are some horrific things which can be defended by people carefully picking their favorite points of view. However, I have frequently found that they are in the same boat as the creationists who quote Darwin's remarks about the formation of the eye.

With the exception of Proverbs, the Bible is not a book of individually-packaged sound bites each of which means exactly what you might think it is supposed to mean if you heard it on its own.

[Luis Garcia]

But, Seebs, if all we had to go on were Darwins words, you could have fine arguments about whether they were meant to be taken literally or whether they were allegorical or whether the context matters. But, in fact, we have evidence from the biosphere to measure his words against.

As far as I can see, my question still stands. How do you know?

You've just said that

With the exception of Proverbs, the Bible is not a book of individually-packaged sound bites each of which means exactly what you might think it is supposed to mean if you heard it on its own.

But how do you know? How do you fine tune your understanding of your god and/ or the bible?

Suppose your god does exist, and the bible is a message from him to humanity, but there's a crucial mistake somewhere in the original. How would you spot it? What's your error correction mechanism?

It may be coming across that I'm being provocative, but I really just don't understand.

How do you know? What makes you think your approximation of your god is more accurate than others?

[seebs]

But, Seebs, if all we had to go on were Darwins words, you could have fine arguments about whether they were meant to be taken literally or whether they were allegorical or whether the context matters. But, in fact, we have evidence from the biosphere to measure his words against.

I think this misses the point.

I'm not arguing the question of whether the conclusion is true; I'm arguing the accuracy of a given portrayal of what he said.

The biosphere is totally nonresponsive to that. The surrounding text, in which it is revealed that he was engaging in a rhetorical device, is much more relevant.

As far as I can see, my question still stands. How do you know?

I don't, really. I speculate, I theorize, and I approximate as best I can.

With the exception of Proverbs, the Bible is not a book of individually-packaged sound bites each of which means exactly what you might think it is supposed to mean if you heard it on its own.

But how do you know? How do you fine tune your understanding of your god and/ or the bible?

I think it's pretty straightforward when reading it. Paul's letters have continuity, flow, and rhetorical devices. It is easy to come up with flatly contradictory claims within a single paragraph if you just quote-mine him... And however nutty he was, I don't think he was that nutty, so it seems more reasonable to assume that he did not think he was writing for fortune cookies.

Suppose your god does exist, and the bible is a message from him to humanity, but there's a crucial mistake somewhere in the original. How would you spot it? What's your error correction mechanism?

Corporate discernment, mostly. I'm from the Quaker side of the fence; we believe in the continued interaction of humans with God. So, imagine that there is an erroneous claim. What happens? We find that we are troubled by something, we explore what it is, we talk with each other about it, we meditate, and we compare it to other things we know, until something clearly gives.

That this works is fairly well established. I am well aware that it works at least partially by mechanisms which are perfectly explicable without appeal to the supernatural.

But keep in mind, the notion that "the Bible is a message from God to humanity" is utterly ludicrous from my point of view. The Bible is a book written by humans about God. It describes messages from God to humans, and the set as a whole gives some suggestions as to a general pattern of messages from God to humans, but the book is about God, not by God.

The Feynman Lectures are awesome, but they are not a message from physics to humanity.

How do you know? What makes you think your approximation of your god is more accurate than others?

Well, as a militant agnostic, obviously I don't know.

What makes me think that it's more accurate? Consistency with my experiences. Understanding of the fairly constant patterns of ways in which humans turn to evil, and ways in which we can try to avoid falling prey to those.

[Luis Garcia]

I think this misses the point.

I'm not arguing the question of whether the conclusion is true; I'm arguing the accuracy of a given portrayal of what he said.

The biosphere is totally nonresponsive to that. The surrounding text, in which it is revealed that he was engaging in a rhetorical device, is much more relevant.

I'm not convinced I did miss your point. Mine is that we have an independent source of information against which we can test claims made about evolution.


I don't, really. I speculate, I theorize, and I approximate as best I can.

{snip}
Corporate discernment, mostly. I'm from the Quaker side of the fence; we believe in the continued interaction of humans with God. So, imagine that there is an erroneous claim. What happens? We find that we are troubled by something, we explore what it is, we talk with each other about it, we meditate, and we compare it to other things we know, until something clearly gives.

That this works is fairly well established. I am well aware that it works at least partially by mechanisms which are perfectly explicable without appeal to the supernatural.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you know your god model is the most accurate because it feels like it is?



But keep in mind, the notion that "the Bible is a message from God to humanity" is utterly ludicrous from my point of view.


Hey, mine too!


The Bible is a book written by humans about God. It describes messages from God to humans, and the set as a whole gives some suggestions as to a general pattern of messages from God to humans, but the book is about God, not by God.

The Feynman Lectures are awesome, but they are not a message from physics to humanity.



Fine, but we can check the claims made about physics in the Feynman lectures against physics itself. How do you check how accurate the book about god is?


Well, as a militant agnostic, obviously I don't know.

What makes me think that it's more accurate? Consistency with my experiences. Understanding of the fairly constant patterns of ways in which humans turn to evil, and ways in which we can try to avoid falling prey to those.

Again, this reads as "because it feels right".



If I make a claim about my area of expertise, you can take my word for it because you trust my expertise (I'd suggest you don't do this).

You could also check the data I'm using, independently of me.

You can check multiple sources of the data, to see if they all agree.

You can develop and test your own models, and test them against both mine and the data.

We can both make predictions based on our models about what new data we should see.

And whoever makes the more accurate predictions more consistently has the more accurate model.

All this is straightforward.

So say you made a claim about your god (such as "my model is the most accurate, but other models still describe the same god") how would I go about testing this claim?

[seebs]

I think this misses the point.

I'm not arguing the question of whether the conclusion is true; I'm arguing the accuracy of a given portrayal of what he said.

The biosphere is totally nonresponsive to that. The surrounding text, in which it is revealed that he was engaging in a rhetorical device, is much more relevant.

I'm not convinced I did miss your point. Mine is that we have an independent source of information against which we can test claims made about evolution.

Right.

But since I wasn't talking about the truth or falsehood of evolution at all, that's irrelevant.

I was talking solely about the question of whether the mere fact that a series of words occurs in a source text proves that a citation to it is an accurate representation of the source text. I used that example, not because of anything to do with evolution, but because it's a famous example of a case where, technically, the words ascribed to Darwin do occur in the text, but I expected you'd all be aware that quoting them is misrepresenting his views.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you know your god model is the most accurate because it feels like it is?

No.

First, I do not know. I keep saying this, and I think you're overlooking it. I do not know. I have a basis for opinions, but that basis is subject to possible inaccuracies. It's not knowledge.

"Feels" is the wrong word, too. I don't think we have enough shared vocabulary to discuss the difference.

Fine, but we can check the claims made about physics in the Feynman lectures against physics itself. How do you check how accurate the book about god is?

The same way we check physics; by seeing whether the model works. We are looking for explanatory and predictive power. I'm an instrumentalist about cognitive models; I don't know that it's meaningful to talk about testing veracity, all we can test is functional correctness.

Do practices like corporate discernment seem to yield insight into ethics? Well, people doing this tend to come to conclusions which are socially uncomfortable or disadvantageous, but which other people become convinced of once they are exposed to them. That conforms with the prediction that people will not always be comfortable with morality; that it is sometimes a little inconvenient to be moral.

For instance, corporate discernment seems to consistently lead people towards egalitarianism. I think that's probably a good sign.

Again, this reads as "because it feels right".

This is because the terminology and experience are theory-laden. You necessarily translate anything I say into your own cognitive schema and experience. So, while it's different, the fact that it sounds the same to you means the difference is in an area you have no cognitive model for. I'm not good at building people new cognitive models.

So say you made a claim about your god (such as "my model is the most accurate, but other models still describe the same god") how would I go about testing this claim?

An interesting question. I would say you'd probably have to start with a reasonably comprehensive study of the practices and beliefs of at least a few major world religions, and compare these to whatever your own experience of ethics, morality, and similar things is like. I'd suggest that a starting point would be to develop a distinction between several different kinds of "feeling", because emotions and sensations are not really the same thing.

[Luis Garcia]

No.

First, I do not know. I keep saying this, and I think you're overlooking it. I do not know. I have a basis for opinions, but that basis is subject to possible inaccuracies. It's not knowledge.


Mate, I get that, I really do. I get slightly baffled when anyone claims absolute knowledge anyway, so I tend to read people as meaning this as a default anyway. But more importantly, at the moment, I don't really care.

When I keep asking "how do you know?" my emphasis is on the "how" not the "know".


"Feels" is the wrong word, too. I don't think we have enough shared vocabulary to discuss the difference.


This is what I'm looking for. Help in understanding what you mean and how you see these things.



Do practices like corporate discernment seem to yield insight into ethics? Well, people doing this tend to come to conclusions which are socially uncomfortable or disadvantageous, but which other people become convinced of once they are exposed to them. That conforms with the prediction that people will not always be comfortable with morality; that it is sometimes a little inconvenient to be moral.

For instance, corporate discernment seems to consistently lead people towards egalitarianism. I think that's probably a good sign.

I have no idea what this means. Would you rather help me with this here or have me do some googling first?



This is because the terminology and experience are theory-laden. You necessarily translate anything I say into your own cognitive schema and experience. So, while it's different, the fact that it sounds the same to you means the difference is in an area you have no cognitive model for. I'm not good at building people new cognitive models.

But this is (almost) what I'm asking for. Not help building a new model for me per se, but help understanding yours.



An interesting question.

And the one I've been trying to ask (probably not clearly) from the start.

I would say you'd probably have to start with a reasonably comprehensive study of the practices and beliefs of at least a few major world religions, and compare these to whatever your own experience of ethics, morality, and similar things is like. I'd suggest that a starting point would be to develop a distinction between several different kinds of "feeling", because emotions and sensations are not really the same thing.

I need help with this. Hold my hand and walk me through it step by step.

1.Should I just assume that religions have something interesting to say on ethics and morality? If so, why?

2. Are religions just about approachs to ethics and morality? If not, what else?

[Zebulon]

Do practices like corporate discernment seem to yield insight into ethics? Well, people doing this tend to come to conclusions which are socially uncomfortable or disadvantageous, but which other people become convinced of once they are exposed to them.

Group dynamics don't always lead to a middle ground consensus, though. Group polarization can lead to more extreme positions than any of the members held originally.

[fundie]

I believe the bible is true. I came to this belief based mostly on personal experiences such as seeing God answer prayer, perform miraculous healings, and sensing Gods presence. But I've also found more universal reasons to believe the Bible. Standard Christian apologetics reasons like the accuracy of bible prophecy, internal consistancy of bible, and seeing Gods faithfulness in other peoples testimonies.
The Bible is very exclusive. Jesus proclaimed that He is the life, the truth and the way, and that no man comes to God except by him. Because of that I must reject any other religions idea of God and any other way that is claimed to lead to eternal life. But besides that, the other religions all have major flaws. For example, there are lots of things about the Quran that would make me reject it, even if I didnt believe the bible. The Quran claims that the original gospel message of Jesus (injeel), came from Allah, but that it was later perverted. It claims that the story of Jesus crucifiction and resurrection is one of those perversions. But the historical evidence is that the crucifiction and resurrection has been central to christianity from the beginning.

But again the more general reason I reject all other versions of God is that I have been persuaded that the bible is true, and the bible is quite exclusive.

[Luis Garcia]

I believe the bible is true.


Ok, good for you. The point of the thread though is helping me find out about the tools you use to come to this conclusion.


I came to this belief based mostly on personal experiences such as seeing God answer prayer, perform miraculous healings, and sensing Gods presence.


See, if you had actually seen "god answer prayer" and the like in any significant sense, that would be evidence, not "personal experience".


But I've also found more universal reasons to believe the Bible.



Feel free to share.

Standard Christian apologetics reasons like the accuracy of bible prophecy,


:D


internal consistancy of bible,



:D

and seeing Gods faithfulness in other peoples testimonies.


:D



The Bible is very exclusive.

Happy easter. (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/blessing.html)


Jesus proclaimed that He is the life, the truth and the way, and that no man comes to God except by him.

And yet you come to god via seeing answered prayers, healings and personal experience of sensing gods presence.


Because of that I must reject any other religions idea of God and any other way that is claimed to lead to eternal life.

So other religions incorrectly worship gods that do not exist, is that right?


But besides that, the other religions all have major flaws.

Like claiming an omnipotent omnibenevolent being would commit nationwide infanticide for political gain, for example?


Oh, wait...


For example, there are lots of things about the Quran that would make me reject it, even if I didnt believe the bible.

What a happy coincidence you were born into the one true religion, then.


The Quran claims that the original gospel message of Jesus (injeel), came from Allah, but that it was later perverted. It claims that the story of Jesus crucifiction and resurrection is one of those perversions. But the historical evidence is that the crucifiction and resurrection has been central to christianity from the beginning.

But the historical evidence does not support that these things actually happened. Which is rather more important, don't you think?




But again the more general reason I reject all other versions of God is that I have been persuaded that the bible is true, and the bible is quite exclusive.

So, to recap, the bible is true because god says it is, no other gods exist because the bible says they don't, and you don't consider the possibility that no gods exist.

Is that a fair summary?

[Ian Nerr]

I think A is more accurate.

I accept yours is a softer version of my question, but, given that, I think my question still apllies. By what means do you think A is more accurate?

Short answer: I have observed many, many, models, and noticed that they appear to have underlying commonalities. I have found a theory which appears to accommodate the apparent underlying reality, and offers a framework for exploration.

I'm a bit of an instrumentalist; since the theory is working, I'm going to stick with it until someone offers me a theory which is somehow compellingly better at doing the job.

As far as I can tell, the hypothesis that there are no gods is doing extremely well. Why do you start with assumptions before you adopt "if it ain't broke..."?

[seebs]

When I keep asking "how do you know?" my emphasis is on the "how" not the "know".

Okay! I can work with that -- as long as I have been informed that a word usage choice is in place, I can deal with non-literal meanings.

"Feels" is the wrong word, too. I don't think we have enough shared vocabulary to discuss the difference.


This is what I'm looking for. Help in understanding what you mean and how you see these things.

Okay. Hmm.

What word would you use for the initial perception of error in a proof? Not the part where you figure out why it looks wrong, and give it a name, but the initial experience of suddenly having an awareness, or sensation, of wrongness?

The word "feel" is problematic in some cases because it often implies a purely emotive response, and I don't think this is emotive.

I have no idea what this means. Would you rather help me with this here or have me do some googling first?

Corporate discernment is the Quaker practice. The idea is this: Imagine, if you will, that God really does guide people who seek guidance, but that our perception of such guidance is unreliable. If this is the case, we could develop techniques for having groups of people independently seek guidance, report back on what they came to think, and try to sort of "triangulate" (using the term VERY loosely) on the actual unfiltered message.

Quakers tend to have a very hard time making decisions quickly, in groups, but the decisions that result are usually the result of a consensus process. This is not voting. A single strongly-held belief that a course of action is harmful or not quite moral may be enough to make hundreds of people stop, and spend more time seeking guidance on the issue. This often leads to a recognition of a problem and its eventual correction.

This is not a fast or hurried process, and it is not guaranteed to ever produce closure. However, it often leads to outcomes which protect tiny minorities, even minorities which are completely unrepresented among those participating in the process. I believe this to be evidence that the process is doing good things. (It also, I think, affirms it as a process consistent with the teachings of Jesus, who seemed much concerned with what happened to the few people left out of other peoples' social structures.)

But this is (almost) what I'm asking for. Not help building a new model for me per se, but help understanding yours.

Okay. My basic model is:

* Experiences of the numinous, like other human experiences, are experiences-of-something. I think it interesting to try to find out what.
* I currently believe that most religious experience has a common root in reality.
* Christian teachings and practice have been fairly close, I think, to that reality. Well, no. They've fallen short miserably, in a very predictable and understandable set of ways. As you correct for the human weaknesses, though, they do better.
* There exists (if this is the right term; it may not be) something which underlies most human attempts to describe "God".
* Whatever it is, I am pretty sure it is wise and benevolent.
* Trying to communicate with it seems to be possible but unreliable.
* When we try to develop techniques for improving the effective reliability of such things, we end up being kinder and wiser ourselves.
* ... especially to those marginalized or outcast by autocratic or voting systems.

I need help with this. Hold my hand and walk me through it step by step.

'k.

1.Should I just assume that religions have something interesting to say on ethics and morality? If so, why?

I would say yes, with the caveat that "interesting" may not mean "true". Why? Because all human inquiry into ethics and morality is interesting. :)

2. Are religions just about approachs to ethics and morality? If not, what else?

I think there's a lot of variety. "Religion" becomes bits and pieces of everything; social cohesion, group dynamics, politics, cooperative use of resources, discussion of ethics, discussion of philosophy...

The nature of humans is that if you group them, they will fight over the merits of these respective groups. As such, I'm not fond at all of the practice of distinguishing between people based on group membership, except as required by physics. (I can tolerate medical treatment reflecting medical realities about people's traits.)

This nature is hardly unique to religion. The Rational Responders are doing a kickass job of developing the same sort of cult-like social controls without so much as a shred of theism.

I believe the social controls to be bad -- I'd go so far as to say evil. They are a great portion of why I don't just laugh off phrases like "original sin", because I find that they are inherent in human experience, even in my own.

That said, the worst of the worst is our love of finding evil in others instead of ourselves. The world may be full of truth, or full of lies... But the only part of it I have control over is me. If we all put a tenth as much effort into being truthful ourselves as we usually do into proving others to be liars, the world would be transformed, and I think in a good way.

[seebs]

Do practices like corporate discernment seem to yield insight into ethics? Well, people doing this tend to come to conclusions which are socially uncomfortable or disadvantageous, but which other people become convinced of once they are exposed to them.

Group dynamics don't always lead to a middle ground consensus, though. Group polarization can lead to more extreme positions than any of the members held originally.

This is certainly true. There are many steps which can be taken to undermine this very harmful trend:

1. Consistently praise, rather than decrying, deviation from the group's "norms", if it has any. Always actively explore and discuss things contrary to your position, rather than attacking them.
2. Abandon all ego, ye who enter here. Try to discuss with the goal of discovering truth, not of "winning".
3. Regularly and actively seek contact with people you disagree with, and engage with them on a variety of topics, not just those where you disagree with them.
4. Encourage direct language and criticism on such topics as "isn't it convenient that all of us wolves are voting that sheep are good for dinner?"

In short, while the criticism is valid, there are techniques available to us to undermine the trend, and gain real benefit from sharing and discussing our positions.

Sometimes, that may lead to a position more radical than any involved would have taken. Sometimes, that may be good. If a number of people unsure about how much time or effort they should be willing to commit to helping the poor end up radicalized, all putting in more time than any of them originally thought reasonable, that may not be so bad. If a debate about whether to extend the vote only to women, or only to blacks, leads to the conclusion that all adults should get voting rights, that might have saved us about fifty years.

[Febble]

Thanks for post #40, seebs. A lot of that resonates with me. I especially liked:

* Christian teachings and practice have been fairly close, I think, to that reality. Well, no. They've fallen short miserably, in a very predictable and understandable set of ways. As you correct for the human weaknesses, though, they do better.

Presses both my Christian and stats geek buttons simultaneously.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Rather woolly language here in which much miscommunication can lurk.


* Experiences of the numinous, like other human experiences, are experiences-of-something. I think it interesting to try to find out what.


When you say 'something', are you implying an external source? (after all, deja vu is an experience, though completely internal)

It would be easy to walk into a fallacy here, by leaning on 'thing'.

* I currently believe that most religious experience has a common root in reality.

Well, bad acid trips have a root in reality, too - the reality of LSD.

Do you mean that most people's interpretation of religious experiences are correct?

* Christian teachings and practice have been fairly close, I think, to that reality. Well, no. They've fallen short miserably, in a very predictable and understandable set of ways. As you correct for the human weaknesses, though, they do better.

How does a practice correspond (or fail to correspond) with reality?

Also, which christian teachings in particular?

* There exists (if this is the right term; it may not be) something which underlies most human attempts to describe "God".

Both Febble's and Dave's and J. Random Aztec's, all at once?

* Whatever it is, I am pretty sure it is wise and benevolent.

Problem of Evil. From hyena genitals to baby-watching vultures to congenital deformities (did I mention my son has hereditary rickets?), anyone in charge would seem to be either a complete fuckup or a complete bastard.

How do you reconcile this?

* Trying to communicate with it seems to be possible but unreliable.

How could you discern this from, say, picking up your own stray thoughts?

* When we try to develop techniques for improving the effective reliability of such things, we end up being kinder and wiser ourselves.

Again, how do your measure the effectiveness and reliability? What are the barriers to communication, and how do you know? Would the same techniques not produce the same effect if there were no actual communication going on, merely contemplation with a humanitarian mindset?

[Febble]

Problem of Evil. From hyena genitals to baby-watching vultures to congenital deformities (did I mention my son has hereditary rickets?), anyone in charge would seem to be either a complete fuckup or a complete bastard.

How do you reconcile this?


Yes, I think it is self-evident whatever God may be, God is not a Protector of individual living beings from pain or suffering.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Now THAT is interesting, Febble.

You've just switched from 'god' being a label you apply to a self-chosen linked set of concepts, to a thing-that-may-exist with unknown attributes.

[Ian Nerr]

Febble isn't attached to any God concepts, just the word itself.

[Febble]

Now THAT is interesting, Febble.

You've just switched from 'god' being a label you apply to a self-chosen linked set of concepts, to a thing-that-may-exist with unknown attributes.

Switched? Haven't I consistently said that we cannot know what God is, only what God is not?

I mean, I may well be moving AWAY from that position, but that was my default when I arrived (Aquinas and all that).

[Febble]

Febble isn't attached to any God concepts, just the word itself.

I'm happy to change the word.

[Ian Nerr]

Febble isn't attached to any God concepts, just the word itself.

I'm happy to change the word.

What's left?

"God" to you means a vague platonic ideal of goodness or maybe something that exists in some way but you're not sure what or in what way and we don't have to call it "God" anyway.

I like you Febble, but this is like something from Lewis Carroll.

[Febble]

Febble isn't attached to any God concepts, just the word itself.

I'm happy to change the word.

What's left?

"God" to you means a vague platonic ideal of goodness or maybe something that exists in some way but you're not sure what or in what way and we don't have to call it "God" anyway.

I like you Febble, but this is like something from Lewis Carroll.

I dunno, that sounds quite cool to me. Lots of things are like that - we know it when we see it, and we know what it isn't, but it resists easy definition. I offer the "self" as a label with the same problem. On an interminable thread in Philosophy, on IIDB, people argued about whether, if you were to be scanned and copied on Mars, and shot on Earth, whether you would exist on Mars. AFAICT, theists and atheists were split down the middle as to whether the answer was yes or no.

Defining "me" is not easy. But I "know" what I mean, and I have a label for it. I also know what is not-me.

Same with God.

[seebs]

Rather woolly language here in which much miscommunication can lurk.

Yes. Unfortunately, there appear to be things for which no precise language is quite accurate.

When you say 'something', are you implying an external source? (after all, deja vu is an experience, though completely internal)

I think it seems most likely to be external.

Well, bad acid trips have a root in reality, too - the reality of LSD.

Do you mean that most people's interpretation of religious experiences are correct?

No.

There was a story on a forum once about a woman who "knew" that sleep paralysis was actually demons. She knew this because, while paralyzed, she saw a creature with glowing eyes which breathed on her, and even licked her, in the vaginal region.

Do I think her interpretation of the experience is correct? Absolutely not!

Do I think that she really did have an experience very much like what she described? Yes.

Do I think that a real thing external to her was involved in her experience? Yes.

Does she sleep nude, sometimes throw off the covers, and own a cat? Yes. (She even said so.)

How does a practice correspond (or fail to correspond) with reality?

I hypothesize "real" guidance offered by God. Practices might be informed by this guidance or contrary to it.

Also, which christian teachings in particular?

Comfort for the afflicted.

The General Epistle of James, Chapter 1, Verse 27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Focusing on your own failings, rather than those of others:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 7, Verses 1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I'd point out that both of these are regularly rejected, often quite systematically, by Christian institutions that have come into temporal power.

Both Febble's and Dave's and J. Random Aztec's, all at once?

All of them are, I suspect, rooted in some of the same fundamental things. The interpretations may be in error; in fact, I assume all of them are.

Problem of Evil. From hyena genitals to baby-watching vultures to congenital deformities (did I mention my son has hereditary rickets?), anyone in charge would seem to be either a complete fuckup or a complete bastard.

How do you reconcile this?

Several possible ways come to mind. For instance, consider the parallel worlds defense. What if God, being maximally good, creates not only "perfect" worlds, but every world in which net joy exceeds net suffering by any amount, however tiny?

Had you been told that your son would have rickets, would you have said "oh, never mind, we shan't bother"? Did you, even for a millisecond, consider just euthanizing him rather than treating him? I bet you didn't. I bet that, confronting a future in which he experiences some suffering, which you could completely eliminate, you thought maybe his life as a whole would be worth living, even with suffering.

Could I exist without suffering? Someone could, perhaps. Would it be me? Maybe we're good enough to be worth creating, suffering and all. I certainly have tons of complaints -- but none that make me think I'd rather not have existed.

* Trying to communicate with it seems to be possible but unreliable.

How could you discern this from, say, picking up your own stray thoughts?

A very good question. One way (corporate discernment does this) would be to compare theories about it to what other people, especially people who disagree with you, pick up.

Another... Have you ever had someone pose you? How do you tell the difference between being posed and moving your own body? How do you distinguish reflexes from external effects?

* When we try to develop techniques for improving the effective reliability of such things, we end up being kinder and wiser ourselves.

Again, how do your measure the effectiveness and reliability? What are the barriers to communication, and how do you know?

This is a little approximate. How do we measure the effectiveness and reliability of, say, a scanner's color reproduction? Well, we mostly do it by developing sets of tools and going back and forth with them to get them better, until we seem to have reached something which could almost be called "consensus".

Would the same techniques not produce the same effect if there were no actual communication going on, merely contemplation with a humanitarian mindset?

Another interesting question. I think the answer is probably "no", but it might be hard to tell. Where would our control group be found, I wonder? We'd need people from a universe which either has God (if ours doesn't) or doesn't have God (if ours does) to compare with.

My observation has been that our contemplations tend to work within the frameworks we are used to; one of the things I take as suggestive that something is external to me is that it is not at all something I would have thought of. I am sometimes surprised by these things -- and the things which surprise me have a tendency to be more beneficial than I could reasonably predict or anticipate.

[Jobar]

What if God, being maximally good, creates not only "perfect" worlds, but every world in which net joy exceeds net suffering by any amount, however tiny?

An interesting defense against the PoE; but like all of them of which I'm aware, this one allows for a god that is willing to create imperfection (=suffering or evil).

True omnipotence and perfection wouldn't allow evil, suffering, imperfection. Not if such imperfections were in any way objectionable to any theoretical omnimax creator. If you want to argue for some deistic version, to which good and evil are ultimately one, then this is a fine defense against the PoE. (Actually, such a version needs no defense against the argument from evil.) But if you want to hold to divine benevolence, it doesn't work.

Added- you also have to disallow any sort of final Hell here, too.

[seebs]

An interesting defense against the PoE; but like all of them of which I'm aware, this one allows for a god that is willing to create imperfection (=suffering or evil).

Yes.

True omnipotence and perfection wouldn't allow evil, suffering, imperfection. Not if such imperfections were in any way objectionable to any theoretical omnimax creator. If you want to argue for some deistic version, to which good and evil are ultimately one, then this is a fine defense against the PoE. (Actually, such a version needs no defense against the argument from evil.) But if you want to hold to divine benevolence, it doesn't work.

I don't follow. Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical creator who objects to suffering, but objects just as much to the absence of joy, and who thus creates every universe in which net joy exceeds net suffering. This does not imply some kind of "good and evil are ultimately one" rule, and seems to me a basically reasonable definition of "benevolence" -- maximizing net of (joy minus suffering).

And yet, I suspect, a very great number of creatures existing in the various universes would experience at least some suffering.

Added- you also have to disallow any sort of final Hell here, too.

An interesting question. I think the Orthodox sermon River of Fire provides a somewhat defensible "hell" which might or might not count as "final". As Lewis put it; the doors are locked from the inside.

[nygreenguy]

I came to this belief based mostly on personal experiences such as seeing God answer prayer This is what I would call a post hoc. Literally it means and this, because of this. There is no evidence that the prayer caused the action.



perform miraculous healings, I have yet to see/hear of a single one being verified.


and sensing Gods presence. What about the hindu who claims the same? People "sense" things all the time. Often times, there isnt anything even there.

What makes you so sure you are right?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Seebs: if a benevolent entity designed and created the universe, then the rules are his.

As such, the rule that suffering has to exist in order for joy to exist is completely optional, and must be a deliberate, considered creation.

Omnipotent creator gods do not operate within the rules.

If a creator god were benevolent, he would create neither the capacity for suffering, the cause of suffering, or any kind of dependency upon suffering for anything that he wanted.

Imagine a software developer creating an screensaver that periodically corrupts random files, locks up your computer, downloads kiddie-porn and mails it to random people. When hauled up in court, he explains that it had to do those things, in order to conform with the Fucked Up Screen Saver Protocol, that states that every five minutes, the application MUST seriously inconvenience the user. And the author and sole implementor of FUSSP is of course our developer, whose decision to implement it in this application was entirely arbitrary.

What would his chances be, do you think?

[seebs]

Seebs: if a benevolent entity designed and created the universe, then the rules are his.

As such, the rule that suffering has to exist in order for joy to exist is completely optional, and must be a deliberate, considered creation.

There are two major categories:

1. Constrained by logic. God has infinite power, but cannot, for instance, trisect arbitrary angles with compass and straightedge. The connection between suffering and joy may be logically necessary, and the PoE is dead.
2. Not constrained by logic. God can create suffering while being perfectly good, because the mere fact that it seems contradictory means nothing.

The only way we can even have a discussion about what is possible is to assume that we are talking about gods constrained by logic.

That said, I think you missed a point. Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical universe in which, at totally unrelated times, and with no cause and effect relationship, creatures experience a total of thirty-seven lorns of suffering (the lorn is the universal measure of suffering; four of them represent losing your parents and being left an orphan), but a total of negative thirty-eight lorns of joy.

This universe ought to be created by a god whose goal is to maximize net experience of joy.

Omnipotent creator gods do not operate within the rules.

If a creator god were benevolent, he would create neither the capacity for suffering, the cause of suffering, or any kind of dependency upon suffering for anything that he wanted.

If we assume that there is no logical connection between suffering and joy, this might well be true.

Imagine a software developer creating an screensaver that periodically corrupts random files, locks up your computer, downloads kiddie-porn and mails it to random people. When hauled up in court, he explains that it had to do those things, in order to conform with the Fucked Up Screen Saver Protocol, that states that every five minutes, the application MUST seriously inconvenience the user. And the author and sole implementor of FUSSP is of course our developer, whose decision to implement it in this application was entirely arbitrary.

What would his chances be, do you think?

Very poor.

But I would argue that you're arguing for something more like a demand that someone create a screen saver which performs real-time raytracing to make the world's best flying toasters, but which does so without using any CPU or GPU time, to save energy.

[Rathpig]

Seebs,

This is some weak and contrived shit here buddy. Are you honestly trying to kludge the problem of evil with a theology of slight positive percentages? Read what HNA wrote. Think about it. Epicurus explained the problem of a benevolent god a bit ago. Perhaps you missed the memo?

Case in point: Harlequin-type ichthyosis

If an all powerful, all knowing, ever-present god exists, the entity is evil by any definition of the word. Creating horrible suffering for any purpose is evil. Creating horrible suffering when it is with your power, knowledge, and presence to prevent that suffering is despicable beyond comprehension. It simply doesn't matter what possible "good" may result. This is sadism.

If the Abrahamic "God" was proven to me this instant, I would only see an evil entity unworthy of worship.

This "God" is the ultimate bastard.

[Dreadnought]

The POE is really only effective against omni-all deities, against slightly lesser gods it loses much of it's power. The presence of various nasty parasites causing suffering wouldn't for instance be evidence against a deist, but to some extent benevolent deity that set the wheels in motion and watches from afar. Why should this type of God mess about with particularly nasty creatures that evolve? Where do you draw the line? Humans are omnivores and so routinely kill other beings to survive. Shouldn't also humans be removed from the scene by that logic?

I also find the link that seebs hints at between some degree of suffering and joy interesting. Total and permanent joy may not be possible, or even joyful, which is one of the reasons I find the idea of heaven rather silly.

[Rathpig]

The POE is really only effective against omni-all deities, .....

The only purpose of the Problem of Evil argument is to demonstrate the contradictory nature of all-omni theological constructs and benevolence. As such, it would have no application outside of this specific form of theism.

Deism, and similar theist ideas which do not advocate worship, are making no specific claims which require refutation, so the PoE is not a concern. However, any theology which does require worship of a deity must explain the existence of evil and if fear of retribution alone is the central motivation for that worship. In many ways the Old Testament "Yahweh" falls under the ideal of a vengeance god with benevolence only available to those who properly sacrifice. This avoids the PoE by disclaiming omni-benevolence. (Though contradictory passages may exist.)

The real application of the PoE occurs in New Testament claims for the nature of "God". At this point the theology reaches way beyond the possibilities of logic. Regardless of omnipotence, no self-contradictory entity can exist, so the PoE leads to two distinct possibilities: an impotent or an apathetic deity.

[seebs]

This is some weak and contrived shit here buddy. Are you honestly trying to kludge the problem of evil with a theology of slight positive percentages? Read what HNA wrote. Think about it. Epicurus explained the problem of a benevolent god a bit ago. Perhaps you missed the memo?

I have thought about it. I do not accept the premise "good is defined exclusively and completely by the elimination of suffering". Parents have kids, knowing that these kids will suffer, because they would rather have kids than not -- and because they think the kids will, on the whole, like life more than they dislike it. So I don't think I accept the Epicurean argument.

So, let's talk about the problem of too-much-evil.

Imagine that I grant for the sake of argument that we can describe a world "better" than this one. Okay. So, God makes that world. Now... What about this world? Should God make this world too? I think so! It's pretty decent overall.

I don't see the problem here. I have no evidence that this world is a bad idea. It may be imperfect, but:

1. I can't prove that these imperfections are not logically necessary in some way to produce a world in which some commensurate benefits can occur.
2. I also don't have any reason to believe that all the various imperfect-but-still-okay worlds shouldn't exist.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Prove that they *are* logically necessary. It's your claim, and a very bold one.

You're telling me that it is logically impossible to construct organisms that can feel pleasure (either physical or emotional), but are unable to suffer.

What is your basis for that claim?

[FyreWyngz]

This is all very interesting reading. I'm coming into it perhaps late and don't want to disrupt so please disregard this should you find it as such.

God doesn't exist.
Every thing exists within God.
God is within every thing.

For God to exist *he* must have actual being - have life or be animated. It seems to me that someone would've captured God with their cell phone camera by now!

I'll leave you to ponder the rest of my comment if you care.

[Rathpig]

I do not accept the premise "good is defined exclusively and completely by the elimination of suffering". Parents have kids, knowing that these kids will suffer......

What is the alternative? Is good defined by the presence of partial suffering? This seems to be a sadist's justification.

Where you are making a major mistake is the confusion between human events beyond the control of the participants and the claims made by the Abrahamist tradition. If parents have kids knowing of a specific suffering which they could easily prevent wouldn't society consider this criminal? Parents should do everything within their power to prevent suffering, but let's remember that parents are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator deities.

The Epicurean ideal is not necessarily obtainable in every instance; however it does define a specific condition which can be held as ideal. it is a target and a guideline. Just because the ultimate good can not be readily realized doesn't allow us to automatically ascribe good to the creation of suffering.

The specific criticism here is that the deity knowingly allows suffering which could be easily prevented. That is not "good". Even more damning is that the deity as described by the religious dogma must by necessity be the creator of this suffering.

So, let's talk about the problem of too-much-evil.

The "problem" within the construct of a omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator "God" would be any evil at all. It assumes the existence of a situation outside the control of the deity. Or a situation which is designed by the deity to be evil.

This is not something that can be equivocated around. Either the Abrahamist tradition is based on an untenable claim or the deity is the author of evil.

[Ray Moscow]

So, let's talk about the problem of too-much-evil.

The "problem" within the construct of a omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator "God" would be any evil at all. It assumes the existence of a situation outside the control of the deity. Or a situation which is designed by the deity to be evil.

This is not something that can be equivocated around. Either the Abrahamist tradition is based on an untenable claim or the deity is the author of evil.

Yeah, that's how I see it, too. Epicurus (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then/411189.html) nailed it way before the Christian era (error), and that has stood the test of time.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

[Barbarian]

This is not something that can be equivocated around. Either the Abrahamist tradition is based on an untenable claim or the deity is the author of evil.The second alternative could be expanded to read "the deity is the author of evil, which he created for no compelling reason whatsoever". Also, he even boasts about creating evil, right there in the OT.

[Rathpig]

...... right there in the OT.

And we know Christians like to kludge around the Old Testament except when it serves a specific purpose. The theology of picksy-choosy is the true way to Heaven. Damn the details and self-contradictions. It's bread-and-circuses if you only believe.

[Rathpig]

Epicurus nailed it way before the Christian era

I've always taken this as strong evidence of the growing trend toward omni-deity constructs. Hebrew theology was merely part of a larger trans-cultural trend which deserved commentary long before their specific interpretations were widely known.

I have a great admiration for Epicurus because he was truly a man beyond his time.

[seebs]

I do not accept the premise "good is defined exclusively and completely by the elimination of suffering". Parents have kids, knowing that these kids will suffer......

What is the alternative? Is good defined by the presence of partial suffering? This seems to be a sadist's justification.

The alternative is not to have the kids. Then there is no suffering.

Where you are making a major mistake is the confusion between human events beyond the control of the participants and the claims made by the Abrahamist tradition. If parents have kids knowing of a specific suffering which they could easily prevent wouldn't society consider this criminal? Parents should do everything within their power to prevent suffering, but let's remember that parents are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator deities.

There is an obvious act in their power which absolutely eliminates all of the suffering of the kids:

Don't have them.

The Epicurean ideal is not necessarily obtainable in every instance; however it does define a specific condition which can be held as ideal. it is a target and a guideline. Just because the ultimate good can not be readily realized doesn't allow us to automatically ascribe good to the creation of suffering.

True. But the argument that any suffering at all is proof of evil is dead. What needs to be shown is that not just that the suffering could be prevented, but that its prevention would not prevent even more anti-suffering.

The specific criticism here is that the deity knowingly allows suffering which could be easily prevented.

Yes, and so do parents. Condoms are cheap.

How can parents be good, given that they create suffering, by creating the kids in the first place?

The "problem" within the construct of a omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator "God" would be any evil at all. It assumes the existence of a situation outside the control of the deity. Or a situation which is designed by the deity to be evil.

Okay, let's try this.

Imagine, if you will, a world in which there is no suffering of any sort at all.

Now, add to this world the possibility of hunger, and the resulting increase in the joy of eating food when you are hungry. Might you conclude that at least some suffering is "worth it"?

What about virtues? Without risk, there is no courage.

HNA, you make an interesting point about logical necessity. However, I do not agree that I'm the one advancing a claim. The claim has been made that the PoE disproves God. I have pointed out a possible weakness of the argument -- the possibility that suffering may be logically necessary. It's up to you, if you want to preserve the logical PoE, to prove that it can never be the case that any suffering is logically necessary to produce greater joy.

...

Also, I note I haven't yet seen any kind of real response to the parallel worlds argument. I know it's a weird argument, but I'd like to see some kind of real rebuttal to it, if there is one. I've not yet seen one.

[Barbarian]

seebs, you are retreating now into Metaphor-land. Having children is not analogous to being an omnipotent god and creating sentient beings capable of suffering into a world where suffering is inevitable. People are born into a world full of constraints a.k.a. physical laws and all of their consequences; this does not apply to a creator god and this is where your analogy breaks. Also, it is not clear whom exactly do you think you spare from suffering by not having children. Is it your potential children or what? Presumably, you are driving towards 'we should be happy to be here', as if we would be unhappy if we never existed, or towards 'we should be thankful for being alive', which is okay if it just happens to us, but not okay if an omnipotent being creates us into a world containing suffering, together with the worst curse possible, that of willing to live.Also, I note I haven't yet seen any kind of real response to the parallel worlds argument. I know it's a weird argument, but I'd like to see some kind of real rebuttal to it, if there is one. I've not yet seen one.You mean this?Imagine that I grant for the sake of argument that we can describe a world "better" than this one. Okay. So, God makes that world. Now... What about this world? Should God make this world too? I think so! It's pretty decent overall.Why should he make anything at all? And why is your 'thinking so' even part of an argument?I have no evidence that this world is a bad idea. It may be imperfect, but:

1. I can't prove that these imperfections are not logically necessary in some way to produce a world in which some commensurate benefits can occur.I can. Logical necessities must either be constraints on god, or his creations. If they are constraints on god and not his creation, the question of their provenience must be asked, and the answers, if given in a theistic spirit, must point to an entity who created both god and his environment enforcing those constraints. If those constraints are his creations, he could have chosen not to create them.2. I also don't have any reason to believe that all the various imperfect-but-still-okay worlds shouldn't exist.I don't quite get what you are driving at with this.

When I proposed over at IIDB that all imaginable worlds plus some more must have been created in parallel because God couldn't possibly have independent reasons (read: constraints) to choose one over the rest, there was very little reaction. It's true that I also added that since both sinning and not sinning are physically possible, therefore everybody is eternally damned in some futures and saved in others, many-worlds interpretation FTW. Maybe I should relaunch that argument.

[Rathpig]

Seebs,

Focus on what Barbarian wrote and read it carefully.

You are trying to make an emotional special pleading to defend a impossible contradiction. Your analogy fails. "Good" parents do everything in their power to prevent suffering. Can the "good" God say the same? "Good" parents don't bring children into the world with the intention of creating suffering. Can the "good" God say the same?


We can solve this riddle with one simple assertion: God is a human construct.

Re: Epicurus.

/topic

[seebs]

seebs, you are retreating now into Metaphor-land.

I'm just being very pedantic. The claim made was that if it were possible to prevent suffering, it would be immoral not to. Period.

And yet, obviously that's not what we think.

Having children is not analogous to being an omnipotent god and creating sentient beings capable of suffering into a world where suffering is inevitable. People are born into a world full of constraints a.k.a. physical laws and all of their consequences; this does not apply to a creator god and this is where your analogy breaks.

How do we know that there are no constraints? Logic sounds pretty constarining to me.

Also, it is not clear whom exactly do you think you spare from suffering by not having children. Is it your potential children or what?

Exactly.

If you have children, the children suffer. If you do not, they never suffer. You can prevent that suffering.

Presumably, you are driving towards 'we should be happy to be here', as if we would be unhappy if we never existed, or towards 'we should be thankful for being alive', which is okay if it just happens to us, but not okay if an omnipotent being creates us into a world containing suffering, together with the worst curse possible, that of willing to live.

Please don't read extra stuff into my argument. I made exactly the argument I was making, it is not "going somewhere" other than the conclusions I specifically point out.

The claim I was responding to was the claim that it is always immoral to fail to prevent suffering when it is within your capacity to prevent suffering.

Obviously, this is not the right standard.

A better case could be made for a claim like "it is immoral to fail to prevent suffering when you can prevent that suffering without sacrificing more important goods."

Also, I note I haven't yet seen any kind of real response to the parallel worlds argument. I know it's a weird argument, but I'd like to see some kind of real rebuttal to it, if there is one. I've not yet seen one.You mean this?Imagine that I grant for the sake of argument that we can describe a world "better" than this one. Okay. So, God makes that world. Now... What about this world? Should God make this world too? I think so! It's pretty decent overall.Why should he make anything at all? And why is your 'thinking so' even part of an argument?

Well, all of this is speculation about what God "ought" to do.

Why should God make anything at all? A fascinating question. Obviously, creating nothing would lead to no suffering, at all, for anything.

So why create anything? Presumably, there's some kind of value being pursued. Given that we experience things other than suffering, I suspect suffering is not the primary purpose, certainly.

I can. Logical necessities must either be constraints on god, or his creations. If they are constraints on god and not his creation, the question of their provenience must be asked, and the answers, if given in a theistic spirit, must point to an entity who created both god and his environment enforcing those constraints.

Why?

I don't see why constraints need to be created. For all I know, logical constraints are simply inevitable, and it's not possible to create a thing without them.

I can invent all sorts of mathematical systems, but only some of them can actually be realized in any way.

Furthermore, there's simply no point in arguing about the case of a God not logically constrained. A God not constrained by logic can create a world in which there is suffering while simultaneously being perfectly benevolent. After all, our only objection to this is that we think it's contradictory -- but if God is not bound by logic, then our argument is meaningless.

2. I also don't have any reason to believe that all the various imperfect-but-still-okay worlds shouldn't exist.I don't quite get what you are driving at with this.

This is a defense-in-the-alternative. Imagine that, in fact, the logical constraints don't exist. We could live in a world just like this one, only in which there are no harlequin babies. We could live in a world like this one, only in which mosquito bites don't itch.

Now, that suggests that a really benevolent God should create those worlds. What it doesn't suggest is that this world shouldn't be created. Why not create more than one?

When I proposed over at IIDB that all imaginable worlds plus some more must have been created in parallel because God couldn't possibly have independent reasons (read: constraints) to choose one over the rest, there was very little reaction. It's true that I also added that since both sinning and not sinning are physically possible, therefore everybody is eternally damned in some futures and saved in others, many-worlds interpretation FTW. Maybe I should relaunch that argument.

It's a fascinating question, because many-worlds seems to kill the PoE completely. Why is there suffering in this world? Because it was possible for worlds containing suffering to exist, and this world had some merit justifying its creation anyway.

[Rathpig]

... because many-worlds seems to kill the PoE completely.

This is simply not correct. A many-worlds hypothesis merely changes the parameters of possibility. It doesn't eliminate the Epicurean postulate when all the stated qualities of the creator deity remain.



A great book on this topic is Robert Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice.

Abrahamic theology only makes complete sense if God is an amoral jokester with a rather sadistic streak and worship becomes a amusing pastime for an otherwise bored entity. But who's playing a joke on God?


I am sure the goalposts can be moved around in this thread enough that we are playing billiards on a baseball diamond, but the original problem remains: you guys, in general, built your god too great. You over-engineered the construct.

[Zebulon]

A better case could be made for a claim like "it is immoral to fail to prevent suffering when you can prevent that suffering without sacrificing more important goods."

So a world without suffering would be a world that is lesser in some way than a world with suffering?

This suggests that a heaven of eternal happiness, free of suffering, is in some way lesser than this world. There's a contradiction here.

[Barbarian]

How do we know that there are no constraints? Logic sounds pretty constarining to me.The operating world is 'sounds'. It is indeed constraining for us (or rather, there are physical constraints which can be grouped/abstracted into structures we make to correspond with logic). But how is that a constraint for a god? After all, any real miracle should involve a breach of logic - a logically possible miracle is just a statistical freak, an interesting occurrence of a rare constellation of events.Please don't read extra stuff into my argument. I made exactly the argument I was making, it is not "going somewhere" other than the conclusions I specifically point out.Yeah, I was going on autopilot there. One dollar per case I was treated to that kind of statement etc.The claim I was responding to was the claim that it is always immoral to fail to prevent suffering when it is within your capacity to prevent suffering.I think this is a case of equivocation. If there was some sort of suffering-o-meter measuring the total suffering of sentient beings in the universe, then you'd be right to say that by setting number-of-sentient-beings to zero total suffering was set to zero (which does raise the interesting idea of why did god create us at all). But that is not the question here; we take it for granted that sentient beings already exist. The question is, why do the already existing sentient beings have to suffer, and is it immoral to allow it to happen if you could turn it off?

Isn't this a tangent anyway?A better case could be made for a claim like "it is immoral to fail to prevent suffering when you can prevent that suffering without sacrificing more important goods."The rules that require sacrificing something for something are constraints. There cannot be externally imposed constraints on an omnipotent omnicreator god, and internally imposed constraints are just capricious ideas with lipstick on.Well, all of this is speculation about what God "ought" to do.I'd rather formulate it as speculation about what god would have done if he existed in the first place.Why should God make anything at all? A fascinating question. Obviously, creating nothing would lead to no suffering, at all, for anything.

So why create anything? Presumably, there's some kind of value being pursued. Given that we experience things other than suffering, I suspect suffering is not the primary purpose, certainly.That's again not omnipotent. An omnipotent being has no purposes. A purpose is a wished-for state of things not yet achieved, a state towards which you strive. It's a notion created by humans who, due to their limitations, do experience such gaps between wishes and achievements. No such gap between "I wish this was so" and "Lo, it was so, and I saw that it was good" can possibly exist for an omnipotent being.I don't see why constraints need to be created. For all I know, logical constraints are simply inevitable, and it's not possible to create a thing without them.I bring this question up because the exchange "why is there something rather than nothing? well, of course because it was created by something!" bothers me to no end. So I reloaded it in a different form "why are there constraints on god rather than no constraints? well, of course because those constraints were created by something!".Furthermore, there's simply no point in arguing about the case of a God not logically constrained. A God not constrained by logic can create a world in which there is suffering while simultaneously being perfectly benevolent. After all, our only objection to this is that we think it's contradictory -- but if God is not bound by logic, then our argument is meaningless.Which god do you believe in: the one bound by logic or the one not bound by it? In the latter case, you would be reduced to write poems about him and not argue on a board. But from reading what you said on these boards, you definitely believe in the logic-respecting sort of god. So why this hypothetical? Yes, I could not and would not argue against the seebs who preaches an illogical god, but you are not that seebs as far as I can tell.This is a defense-in-the-alternative. Imagine that, in fact, the logical constraints don't exist. We could live in a world just like this one, only in which there are no harlequin babies. We could live in a world like this one, only in which mosquito bites don't itch.

Now, that suggests that a really benevolent God should create those worlds. What it doesn't suggest is that this world shouldn't be created. Why not create more than one?Are you saying that there could be more worlds and this one is just less comfortable than others? Then you run into the "why limit the number of worlds by considering cost-benefits at all?"question.It's a fascinating question, because many-worlds seems to kill the PoE completely. Why is there suffering in this world? Because it was possible for worlds containing suffering to exist, and this world had some merit justifying its creation anyway.Except the last half-sentence: a merit justifying its creation does not need to exist. It's created because it can be.

(Also, many worlds == embarrassingly primitive simplification of what relative-state interpretation actually says. This message brought to you by citizens concerned about physicist nerds entering the debate from the wrong direction.)

[Barbarian]

I am sure the goalposts can be moved around in this thread enough that we are playing billiards on a baseball diamond, but the original problem remains: you guys, in general, built your god too great. You over-engineered the construct.Tee-hee, that's Gödel's law for gods: if a god is postulated to be sufficiently powerful to create an universe, then there will exist some observable fact in that universe contradicting the idea of such a god.

[Febble]

I am sure the goalposts can be moved around in this thread enough that we are playing billiards on a baseball diamond, but the original problem remains: you guys, in general, built your god too great. You over-engineered the construct.Tee-hee, that's Gödel's law for gods: if a god is postulated to be sufficiently powerful to create an universe, then there will exist some observable fact in that universe contradicting the idea of such a god.

I never thought of that.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Seebs: I can't prove that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. It remains, however, a shitty reason to believe there is one, and my burden to prove it.

[Jobar]

Seebs, do you agree with the Kantian injunction that morality consists of treating human beings as ends only, and never as means to an end?

You're claiming that God looks at the total joy/suffering ratio in the universe, rather than the individual joy or suffering of each individual human (or any sentient being). Isn't that treating the individuals who have mostly shitty lives as means, to the end of having a universe with whatever percentage more joy than suffering? The individuals who suffer, still suffer, whatever the total.

Therefore, God is immoral.

[Constant Mews]

No time now for a detailed answer, but please have a look at my blog (see my sig for a link) to gain an insight into my thinking.

Dave, didn't you just today complain about folks who "argue by links"?

[Constant Mews]

This isn't exactly a call out thread, but I would be very interested in learning some more about how theists see the world, so I have some questions for the theists of the board. I'm not really interested at this point in shredding your beliefs, but more in finding out why you have those beliefs.

So, first off, how do you know?

If you think that a certain god exists, on what basis do you think that? Specifically, what discrimination tool do you use to come to the conclusion that that god exists while others don't?

I really don't get it.Intuition, primarily. It is impossible to deduce God from His creation. And I don't necessarily subscribe to the conclusion that God exists while Allah or Zeus doesn't. I do have a great deal of sympathy with the position that God provides a variety of paths to truth.

[Barbarian]

And I don't necessarily subscribe to the conclusion that God exists while Allah or Zeus doesn't. I do have a great deal of sympathy with the position that God provides a variety of paths to truth.The first question would be: what sort of truth? IOW, the answer to which question?

I regard these god-concepts as leading to severely incompatible paths in life. Most worshippers do not seem to regard their religion as a framework for finding the truth; they appear to claim that they already have the truth and are henceforth obliged to act on it - maybe help the poor or run hospitals, but also attack Planned Parenthood and fly planes into skyscrapers. I think it could be successfully argued that if religions are frameworks for finding the truth, then most worshippers follow distorted variants leading to massive fail. Case in point, YECs. It could be argued that they serve as counterexamples, helping others by negative example to come closer to truth, but that would mean that the YECs themselves are sacrificed for the greater good. This does not seem very moral, and also does not square with omnipotence.