But if you do actually mean "why" then that places you on exceptionally weak ground, since you can't answer any of the "why" questions for religion, such as why a loving and compassionate God allows innocent babies to suffer and die.
Hi Percy I got thinking about this and because it is such an important issue I wanted to give you a fuller reply from another perspective.
I agree, as I said, that suffering is the issue that we have to face up to as Christians. After answering your post I was sitting in church this morning and thinking about this. I don’t pretend to have good answers but I do find comfort in my Christian faith that gives me hope. I would add though that even though it is hope and faith, it does not mean that my beliefs are in error. We all have hopes and or faith that something we want to happen, actually does happen.
I lost my birth father shortly before my 1st birthday as he was an RCAF navigator during the war and died in service. Mom married again when I was 3 to a man who became Dad and was a loving father and a wonderful example of ethical living. I never felt less loved than my 2 brothers who were his natural children.
I grew up in what IMHO was the best time and location, (Alberta Canada), that there has ever been. I had the opportunity of education and a wide open future and at a time when being a teenager was far easier that it is today. I truly feel like I am one of the most privileged people that has ever lived.
Today I volunteer with refugee families that have come here with virtually nothing having lived in countries where their lives were in constant danger, where they weren’t sure where their next meal was coming from, and where there was little or no freedom. I have a music program where I work with seniors, in many cases suffering from debilitating dementia. (Music seems to trigger a response in their brains.) I use this same music program with a group, all younger than myself, who suffer from various mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. There is a guy who started coming to our church a couple of years ago after coming out of prison for offenses that were the result of alcoholism, and I and others have been doing what we can to help him get his life in order. He grew up in various foster homes and then when he finally found a home where he was loved his foster mother died at the hands of an British mass murderer while she was visiting in Thailand. I have, as we all have, friends who have had their children die well before their time. I did the eulogy for a wonderful woman who was my cousin just one year after she had having given birth to my god-daughter.
My point in all of that is that I get the argument about rationalizing the suffering. Yes, it bothers me that in addition to all that I have and have had, I can look at my kids and grand-kids and they are all healthy and doing well, while others have little or nothing and watch their children going hungry. How do I deal with that as a Christian who has led a life of exceptional privilege? Why have I had the life that I have had, while others have suffered so much through no fault of their own.
I am not saying that I have evidence for how I rationalize this incongruity, but it does flow from my other Christian beliefs. In a nutshell I believe and live in the hope that ultimately there will be perfect justice for all. I don’t know what that looks like, but I believe that this justice will come from a loving, forgiving and merciful God, that will somehow balance the suffering endured in this world in the world to come. As part of that I see the vocation for those like myself to not just wring our hands and decry the injustice, but to do what we can to alleviate it. None of us, and me more than most, will do all that we should do, but at least we can get a start on it. In the Anglican church we have a prayer of general confession where we pray to be forgiven for all that we have done AND left undone. That always gives me pause.
I also find it helpful to think that God reaches out to everyone with His still small voice, but in particular He used a small nomadic tribe that were almost continuously beaten down and often enslaved by their more powerful neighbours to reveal Himself. When it came to choosing His messiah, His anointed one, the one who embodied His full nature and spiritual wisdom, He used a bastard child of the peasant class within this beaten down society. The disciples of Jesus were simple fisherman and even an outcast who collected taxes for the Romans. He spent time with and loved the lepers, the prostitutes and the pretty much despised Samaritans. Jesus said things like from whom much is given much is expected, and the first shall be last and the last first.
I believe and trust that God fully understands and suffers with the sufferers, and that ultimately we will see and understand perfect justice.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
In a nutshell I believe and live in the hope that ultimately there will be perfect justice for all. I don’t know what that looks like, but I believe that this justice will come from a loving, forgiving and merciful God, that will somehow balance the suffering endured in this world in the world to come.
We all know what you believe GDR; you've told us many times. What you believe about this is the usual rationalisations that don't do anything to explain away the problem.
The problem of suffering has been worried over by religious folk for thousands of years and like you, they haven't got an answer. It's impossible to to reconcile the way life and death works on earth and a loving god that cares for us. You know that. Your only answer is that you believe it's all be ok in the end. That is no answer to the child dying slowly in pain of some hideous disease or the mother forced to watch the process.
But not only do you have to explain why god allows the suffering, you have to explain why he couldn't have a creation without it. And of course he could because he's god and according to your book he's done it twice before, once with a paradise on earth and again with another in heaven.
Biology has explained why there's suffering and why it's necessary. You can't explain why the god of the bible did it that way and will never be able to - all you can do is invent excuses. I simply can't understand why you need all the paraphernalia of religion to make things better for people that are suffering here.
quote:Now, let's take a case of someone who's been "dealt a bad hand". What about Frulein Fritzl, in Austria? Whose father, unwilling to get out of the way, kept her in a dungeon, where she didn't see daylight for 24 years. And came down most nights to rape and to sodomize her, often in front of the children who were the victims of the previous attacks and offenses. And it's only purely by accident that Herr Fritzl is now in custody. And it's a shame he's 76, because his life imprisonment isn't going to feel enough like that to him. I want you to just take a moment, since [religious apologists] are so interested in the downtrodden and the helpless imagine how she must have begged Him. Imagine how she must have pleaded. Imagine for how long. Imagine how she must have prayed, every day how she must have beseeched heaven. Imagine. For 24 years. And no, no answer at all nothing, NOTHING! Imagine how those children must've felt. Imagine what they felt when they saw one of their number, the dead twin, being borne away from neglect, on top of everything else. Now, [religious apologists] say; "That's allright, that she went through that, because she'll get a better deal in another life?" Are you- I have to ask you if you can be morally or ethically serious and postulate such a question!? "No, that had to happen! And heaven did watch it with indifference, because it knows that that score will later be settled. So it was well worth her going through it, she'll have a better time next time." I don't see how you can look anyone, ANYONE in the face or live with yourself and say anything so hideously, wickedly immoral as that. Or even imply it. Christopher Hitchens
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
After reading that quote of Hitchens, I perused his RIP thread that you started and remembered this link you gave me...I watched the entire video. I found it fascinating that they were able to discuss history, philosophy, and human development without once referring to God as a living entity. They were not being smug, however...just matter-of-fact. I found the discussion a bit challenging to follow, as these are very intelligent men.
Daniel Dennett is the first on my curiosity list, so I just now (am watching) a 1-hour talk by him titled Daniel Dennett — on our mind, God and other illusions. It is admittedly captivating to listen to him. This is where my inner rebel shines most adamantly and defiantly. 90% of the religious believers whom I know would never entertain such philosophical discussions which present a view of the brain and human consciousness that requires no religious or even spiritual understanding...though at the moment they are discussing autonomous decisions, deterministic behavior vs "free willed" decisions and so on. (35:00 into the video)
Another reason that I began watching this stuff is because of your earlier challenge to my arguments saying that I essentially had no clue...no idea how atheists think. Now I'm beginning to get an idea.
Edited by Phat, : i watched the video
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
The problem of suffering has been worried over by religious folk for thousands of years and like you, they haven't got an answer. It's impossible to to reconcile the way life and death works on earth and a loving god that cares for us. You know that. Your only answer is that you believe it's all be ok in the end. That is no answer to the child dying slowly in pain of some hideous disease or the mother forced to watch the process.
That is a devastating quote from Hitchens and it is hard to imagine that kind of evil. All I can again say if we can't choose evil we can't choose that which is good.
A Canadian named Jean Vanier gave up a life wealth and privilege to work with people who were developmentally challenged. There are millions of people who give of themselves, including some their whole lives to work to help others less fortunate.
Frankly I have no problem with people like yourself and Hitchens who reject any deity based on the the suffering of others. The hope is that people like yourself who are so repulsed by the suffering also feel that it is their call to do something about it. As a Christian I see it as God's call for all of us. As an atheist I would hope that you see it as humanities call to give of yourself to alleviate suffering.
I would also add that yes we should feel deeply about the suffering in the world, but at the same time we should rejoice in the joy of others in the very same world. There is a great deal of that as well.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
I have no problem with people like yourself and Hitchens who reject any deity based on the suffering of others. The hope is that people like yourself who are so repulsed by the suffering also feel that it is their call to do something about it. As a Christian, I see it as God's call for all of us. As an atheist, I would hope that you see it as humanities call to give of yourself to alleviate suffering.
Logically, the requirements for an atheist and a believer are identical. To one, the source is the mind of Christ Himself, exhorting and encouraging us to change and grow. To the other it is entirely biological and developmental...but the call is the same for both. Ringo taught me this, with his message/messenger argument. I never wanted to admit that he was right...but after watching the Four Horsemen and Dennett videos, I see the logic.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
All I can again say if we can't choose evil we can't choose that which is good.
That's such a terrible argument. If he can make heaven without evil there's absolutely no need to have it here. It's just plain silly.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It would have been far more appropriate for you to repeat your reply to Tangle in your previous message, that it's a given you don't understand this. A regression involves time and is a series of "befores" - if there is no time there can be no regression.
I get that Percy,...
No, you didn't. Again.
...but my point is that it is the same argument whether you talk about a regression of gods or processes. It's still turtles all the way down.
No, it is not turtles all the way down. Ringo said it better than I did. We stop at the last turtle that has evidence. We don't postulate unevidenced turtles.
Explaining something you don't understand by drawing an analog to something else you don't understand is unlikely to help, but anyway, it's like dark matter. It's a nice theory, it explains a lot of things, but there's no evidence for it. Therefore it's not a turtle in the scientific arsenal, at least not yet. And maybe never. Maybe MOND will win out in the end. Or something else.
Percy writes:
"Why" is not a science question unless you mean it in the sense of, "What caused this to happen?" If you do mean it in this latter sense then observational evidence has spawned several promising theories. But if you do actually mean "why" then that places you on exceptionally weak ground, since you can't answer any of the "why" questions for religion, such as why a loving and compassionate God allows innocent babies to suffer and die.
I have dealt with that numerous times and yes, suffering is a difficult question for a Christian to answer. I'll repeat what I've said before. Firstly a loving compassionate god is a far better explanation for why there are creatures who are able to love altruistically and minimize suffering than are blind processes.
You seem to have a great love of declaring what you believe while offering no support. For you a loving compassionate God is just a better explanation than blind processes, yet evolution is a blind process and you accept evolution. But though you believe evolution happened, you also believe it was guided by God, even though you have no evidence, probably because it just comports better with how you view things.
But then why do you need evidence for the resurrection but not for God guiding evolution? My guess is that it's because your true interests lie on the religious side and so you really feel a need for evidence for that, but the science side not so much. In other words, you only see "evidence" in places that garner your greatest attention.
I think that we have agreed that deep down people realize that the golden rule should be foundational to humanity whether they actually live it out or not.
The golden rule isn't something people realize deep down. It's simply that actions that encourage cooperation increase the chances of survival.
Concerning the suffering caused by humans is concerned, and you've heard it a thousand times, you can't have the ability to choose to love sacrificially if you can't choose to love the self even to the detriment of others.
Nope, haven't heard this one before.
Entropy seems to be a necessity for a world with only one direction of time which results in natural disasters.
Entropy and the arrow of time are involved in everything that happens, not just natural disasters.
Also from from a Christian standpoint, this isn't the end and that with new creation there will a world where the wolf lies down with the lamb and there is no suffering.
I thought original sin broke all that and it wasn't coming back.
Percy writes:
You haven't actually described any evidence. My evidence that the Big Bang is real is that antenna and satellite probes detect electromagnetic radiation of just the right temperature required by theory. You can read all about the evidence for the cosmic microwave background radiation at Wikipedia or at a huge number of other sources on the Internet. Please provide some equivalently hard evidence that your God is real. Or answer any of a number of other questions you've avoided, such as does your God exist within time or outside time, and what is your evidence?
I believe with only subjective evidence that we are an emergent property within a much greater reality. For us time flows in only one direction but in the greater reality of which we are only 4.5% time and space are infinite.
The short answer is, "No, I have no evidence."
I have no evidence...
Oh, geez, I hadn't read ahead. Did I call it or what!
...for that but it forms a way of understanding things which fits with both my Christian understanding as well as with my ultra minimal understanding of relativity and QM.
That's fine, but then why do you keep saying you have evidence, that the NT is evidence, that the resurrection is evidence, etc., etc., etc.
Percy writes:
Let us not play games. You used the word "materialist" in a pejorative manner, as if materialists and spiritualists were at odds with spiritualists having the superior viewpoint. I replied that you are as much a materialist as everyone else, in other words, that we are all, by necessity, materialists because we live in the real world.
No I didn't. I meant it is the same sense as I would use the term Christian, atheist, secular humanist etc.
"Materialist" and "atheist" are hurled as epithets by Christians all the time. I think you've become so accustomed to the terms that you've lost sight of their pejorative qualities.
Percy writes:
But the more fundamental question, and another one that you've avoided thus far, is why you're trying to tie your immaterial spiritual beliefs to evidence from the material world.
Even Paul wrote that we can see God in the physical world. IMHO it only makes sense to learn from all the sources that we have, whether it be holy books, philosophy or science. Ultimately the absolute truth has to have all of this in harmony.
Religion clashes harshly with reality, so I guess it can't be part of this "absolute truth" you seek.
I don't want to lose track of the main point. I'm not trying to change anyone's religious beliefs, but when the religious decide they need real-world evidence then they're going to have to find actual honest to God real-world evidence, not just things that only other believers accept as evidence. Real evidence is something that can't be ignored, not something you can just take or leave.
My only quibble is that there is evidence for dark matter. There is just no direct evidence.Dark energy though has at this time no evidence for its existence.
I grew up in what IMHO was the best time and location, (Alberta Canada), that there has ever been.
My mother grew up on a farm not too distant from Calgary.
Justice will come from a loving, forgiving and merciful God, that will somehow balance the suffering endured in this world in the world to come.
But you can't really believe this since it makes no sense to alleviate any suffering in this world if all will be made right in the next. Your efforts would be redundant. Are you maybe thinking more of your own reward? Or are you maybe just filling in a religious explanation for the normal human impulse to relieve suffering?
My only quibble is that there is evidence for dark matter. There is just no direct evidence. Dark energy though has at this time no evidence for its existence.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
™ Version 4.2
(1)
