Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution the Work of Satan?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 104 (589365)
11-01-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stephen Push
11-01-2010 5:47 AM


Stephen Push writes:
Some Christians -- notably physician and geneticist Francis Collins and biologist and philosopher Francisco Ayala -- believe in both evolution and an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God. For example, Ayala said:
quote:
The point should be valid for those people of faith who believe in a personal God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, as Christians, Muslims, and Jews do believe. The natural world abounds in catastrophes, disasters, imperfections, dysfunctions, suffering, and cruelty. Tsunamis and earthquakes bring destruction and death to hundreds of thousands of citizens; floods and droughts bring ruin to farmers. The human jaw is poorly designed; lions devour their prey; malaria parasites kill millions of humans every year and make 500 million people very sick; about 20 percent of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion because of the flawed design of the human reproductive system.
People of faith should not attribute all this misery, cruelty, and destruction to the specific design of the Creator. I rather see it as a consequence of the clumsy ways of nature and the evolutionary process.
Stephen Push writes:
Does the theory of evolution really get God off the hook for permitting natural evil (i.e., suffering caused by nature, as opposed to moral evil, caused by human misdeeds)? It seems to me that Ayala is begging the question. If God created the evolutionary process, why is it so clumsy? Why does it cause so much suffering?
I don’t see it as a case of letting God off the hook. I don’t know where the idea that God was omnipotent came from. I don’t see it in the Bible. Probably my dog sees me as being somewhat omnipotent but that doesn’t make it so. By our standards a designer of the universe would seem omnipotent but again I don’t see it as being the case. The Old Testament is full of stories of God working with people, negotiating with people and encouraging people. In short God seems to be at work, within His creation to continually improve on it, and the vehicle He uses for that are those people created in His image.
Jesus came to establish something new within history with a new covenant and the establishment of a new kingdom. Prior to Jesus coming the prophet Micah told people what it was that God wanted. He said that what God wanted of us is that we should love kindness, do justice and walk humbly with our God. Jesus confirmed that message and charged us all with the mission to go out the world to spread that message and to live it in our own lives. The result of that should be a lot less suffering, however, as humans we are doing a pathetic job of carrying out the mission that we have been given. Jesus was another example of God endeavouring to bring an end to suffering, and continues through His created people to do that today. As a Christian I believe that time as we experience it now, will come to an end and there will be a new creation where the suffering does finally come to an end.
The point that I am making is that I see God as being all powerful in our terms, which is not the same as being omnipotent. We don’t know what parameters a designer would have to work with. We have children and we have dreams of what they might be in the future. We can influence their lives, we can love them more than we thought possible, but it doesn’t always work out the way we would like. I have a strong hunch that things aren’t working out as well as God would like, but I also believe that He doesn’t give up on us because he is a loving benevolent God.
I see science including biology as essentially another form of scripture as we can learn about God through His creation. It appears that some form of an evolutionary process is what God used to bring His creation to the point that it is today. From our view point it isn’t perfect, but maybe from God’s view point, working within whatever parameters He had to work with, it was the best and possibly only way to do it. Maybe it was either this or nothing.
As far as free will is concerned I have to agree with Augustine and others that without it would be simply robots and what would be the point. For that matter, within the framework of this life if we didn’t have the ability to know and understand suffering, we wouldn’t be able to know and understand joy. Joy would just become the way things always are and would be a meaningless term. The same of course goes with our ability to know and understand good and evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stephen Push, posted 11-01-2010 5:47 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Stephen Push, posted 11-01-2010 11:35 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 29 of 104 (589385)
11-02-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Stephen Push
11-01-2010 11:35 PM


Stephen Push writes:
It is the first profession of faith in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."
I think that the ability to create the universe as it now stands would qualify as "almighty". Omnipotent means "unlimited power" which is not the same thing.
Stephen Push writes:
That day may or may not come. My question is, Why has natural evil been necessary since the dawn of sentient life?
I go back to the point that there is no absolute answer, but it is obvious in both science and scripture that this is a creation in process. We don't know what limitations exited or still exist for that matter.
Stephen Push writes:
The term "all powerful" doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room. Either it is all or a quantity less than all.
I did say "all powerful in our terms". Compared to an ant I am all powerful. God compared to me is all powerful but that is not the same thing as having infinite power whatever that might mean.
Stephen Push writes:
It sounds to me like you are describing a being who is something less than all powerful. You apparently believe that there are natural laws that constrain God. You would not be the first believer who decided, when confronted with the problem of evil, that it would be better to believe God is not omnipotent or omniscient than believe God is not benevolent.
Frankly it isn't a matter of making that choice. As I said before even the scriptures tell the story of a God who works with and adjusts to His creation. The Bible is a grand narrative of God continuing to work with people so that eventually everyone will be humble, love kindness and do justice. On the scientific side, the evolutionary process, from a theistic point of view, is evidence of a creator that continues to work to improve on his creation.
Stephen Push writes:
Again, I see how the above argument might apply to moral evil and moral agents. I don't see how it justifies natural evil that causes suffering to sentient animals and human infants.
I go back to what I said before. We don't know what limitations there are in creating a universe. Maybe it was this or nothing in which case I'm glad he chose this, and seeing as how we all here have chosen to continue on as opposed to suicide, I’m pretty sure that we are all be of the same opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Stephen Push, posted 11-01-2010 11:35 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Stephen Push, posted 11-02-2010 2:18 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 31 of 104 (589392)
11-02-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stephen Push
11-02-2010 2:18 AM


I checked Webster's as well and you are right about omnipotent and almighty. It isn't how I have thought of the terms.
My intial reaction with "process theism" is that I agree with some of it but not all of it. I believe that free will means that we can be influenced by God but not directly controlled. I do however believe in miracles, including of course the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
I guess that we can use the term omnipotence, but from a human perspective I'm not sure it has a great deal of meaning. As soon as we talk about infinite power it ceases to be something that we can comprehend. Are we talking about infinite knowledge of our physical world as we perceive it, or are we talking about infinite knowledge of both the physical and the metaphysical assuming that the metaphysical does actually exist.
As I have said before from a scientific point of view we have evolved physically and from a scriptural point of view our relationship with God has evolved. I conclude from this, that creation must have had limits imposed on it for some reason that would be well beyond our understanding. Today we live in a world, that involves both joy and sorrow, but I believe in happy endings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stephen Push, posted 11-02-2010 2:18 AM Stephen Push has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Otto Tellick, posted 11-13-2010 3:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 52 of 104 (589695)
11-03-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Stephen Push
11-03-2010 1:31 PM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Stephen Push writes:
The current scientific consensus is that the universe is moving inexorably toward greater entropy. But who knows, maybe everything will start over in another universe. However, the theory of multiple universes, if true, would undercut one of the currently fashionable arguments for the existence of God.
Interesting that you should say that. The latest copy of Scientific American which showed up in my mail box last week had this on the front cover: "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own". This has been the Christian position for centuries, although obviously the writers of the article would envision a different universe than I might, but the belief in either one is just that: a belief.
Of course Christianity holds the position that at the end of time, (at least as we know it), our universe and that other universe, (which Christian's view as God's universe), will be united and evil will be no more. The point is of course that in the end the plan is to wind up with a one more complete universe that doesn't have the flaws that are causing the problems now.
I look at it this way although I don't know how many other Christians would agree with me. I agree that it is conjecture and that I may well be out in left field, however, I do believe that I am being consistent with scripture, science and history.
God has created a world that has evolved physically over millions of years to what it is today. Once physical evolution came to a specific point God introduced into at least one of his evolved species, and in particular into the human species, a higher level of consciousness. Since that time that same consciousness, that included a sense of morality and an ability to experience emotions, has been going through an evolutionary process itself. I believe that physical evolution is a guided process and I believe that God also intervenes in our spiritual growth as well, with the most obvious example being the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
I think that I can give one example of the spiritual growth I'm talking about. It was less than 2000 years ago that a Sunday afternoon's entertainment with the wife and kids was to go down to the Coliseum to watch people being killed and eaten by wild animals or to watch prisoners fight to the death. That was in what was arguably the most advanced civilization of the day. With all the horrors that still exist we have at least evolved beyond that.
It even applies to natural disasters. Sure earthquakes still happen but people have evolved to the point that we are now able to a large degree to be able to mitigate the damage as well as to bring aid to those affected far better than we were ever able to in the past. The point being that God has created a world where he has involved His created beings in the creation of the next generation but has also created beings with the joint responsibility of making this world a place that continues to evolve into a world where there is more and more joy and less and less sorrow.
I think that you have very effectively pointed out what is the biggest difficulty we Christians have to face. I have had to come to terms with it in different ways. One way is the way that I just talked about. I think that the way that impacts me most however is the fact that I’m a dad, and grandfather for that matter. I experience real joy in being a Dad but in that I also experience real risk. I haven’t had to experience the loss of a child and I pray that I will go before any of them do. I also tried to be a good dad but I also know that these kids, could have become rapists or murderers, instead of the wonderful people they are. I think that my benevolent God takes similar risks with us and with all His creation.
In the end I believe that there is ultimate justice and eternal joy. Does that make God omnipotent; I don’t know but it is enough for me. I hope that answers your question as to how I square the conundrum of an omnipotent and benevolent god with evil and natural disasters.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
Edited by GDR, : sp

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Stephen Push, posted 11-03-2010 1:31 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Stephen Push, posted 11-04-2010 12:56 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 56 of 104 (591107)
11-11-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Stephen Push
11-04-2010 12:56 AM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Stephen Push writes:
Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my questions. I wish I could share your optimism, but I don't believe that progress is inevitable or God-given. The 20th Century was the bloodiest in history. The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 was the deadliest in history. New infectious diseases emerge, while old ones develop resistance to our antibiotics. I think we mortals must create our own peace, justice, and joy.
I know that you kinda closed off this discussion but my mind keeps going back to it, as the squaring of the idea of an omnipotent God with a benevolent God in the face of suffering is not an easy question to answer.
I still go back to the fact that after tragedies such as the tsunami you mentioned, I’d still like to point out that there is the good that comes from the humanitarian response to it. Even a hundred years ago the mortality rate from childhood diseases was much much higher than it is now because of advances in medicine.
However, there is something else that I’ve been thinking about. Why is it that we see the results of that tsunami as a tragedy? Why are we bothered by the suffering that resulted? As North Americans neither of us would have even known that it happened if it wasn’t for the media. In all likelihood it didn’t involve anyone that we knew. It likely didn’t have any direct impact on our lives other than that we found it upsetting. Why did we feel compelled that something should be done about it and that the something that should be done should involve us as individuals?
It seems to me that it only makes sense if there is something other than just socialization and natural selection involved that leads us to our altruistic views. If that is the case, which of course I do, then it seems reasonable to conclude that whatever or whoever is behind that sense of altruism would hold at least the same level of compassion and caring that we do.
If again that is the case, then I believe that it is sensible to assume that the world is the way it is for reasons that are beyond our understanding, and that we can actually have trust and confidence that in the end things will be made right and that we have a benevolent Creator. I see God as being all powerful from my vantage point as a human in our 4 dimensional universe, but beyond that I have no vantage point on which to base such a term.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Stephen Push, posted 11-04-2010 12:56 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 6:01 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 58 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 6:43 PM GDR has replied
 Message 59 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 8:42 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 60 of 104 (591134)
11-11-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Panda
11-11-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Panda writes:
There are also other problems with your statement:
"It seems to me": argument from ignorance.
"that it only makes sense": argument from incredulity.
"whoever is behind that sense of altruism would hold at least the same level of compassion and caring that we do": non sequitor.
There are probably others.
When we discuss things on this forum that go beyond what we can sort out empirically there are no terms that seem to be acceptable. What terms should be used for something that you believe but which there is no empirical evidence.
I don't see the last statement as being a non sequitor as the question that was being addressed is how one as an individual deals with the idea of an omnipotent God with a benevolent God in the face of the suffering that we see in the world.
I was answering the question of how I deal with the issue. Can I prove it? No! Do I expect to convince anyone? No. I am just expressing how I deal with it personally in answer to the question that was asked.
Panda writes:
But whatever gets you through your day, I guess.
Just a tad condescending however, I am just trying to sort out my beliefs about the truth of our existence as we all do. We obviously have come to different conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 6:43 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Panda, posted 11-12-2010 5:29 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 61 of 104 (591135)
11-11-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Stephen Push
11-11-2010 8:42 PM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Stephen Push writes:
Natural selection and cultural evolution explain -- without the need to invoke a supernatural being -- why humans are sometimes altruistic. I say "sometimes" because humans are also sometimes selfish, callous, and murderous. I see no reason, other than wishful thinking, to give God credit for our better nature while shielding Him from any association with our dark side.
If there was no dark side then we wouldn't have the free will to choose love, compassion, joy, forgiveness etc. We would simply be robots. God has given us the choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 8:42 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 10:32 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 63 of 104 (591147)
11-12-2010 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Stephen Push
11-11-2010 10:32 PM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Stephen Push writes:
Which brings us full circle to my OP, in which I acknowledged that the above answer might arguably explain the need for moral evil but cannot explain suffering caused by natural phenomena.
I underdstood that which is why I was surprised that you raised the point. I have explained my understanding of the fact that we have natural disasters even though I worship a benevolent creator in earlier posts in this thread.
The only other point that I would add is that as a Christian I believe that Christ did suffer and die on the cross and so is very aware and sympathetic when it comes to suffering. Again, with this in mind, I believe that things are the way they are for a good reason that is beyond human understanding, but at the end of time things will be made right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 10:32 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 4:11 AM GDR has replied
 Message 68 by Stephen Push, posted 11-12-2010 11:51 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 67 of 104 (591186)
11-12-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
11-12-2010 4:11 AM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
frako writes:
Im gonna pull a creo argument out of my sleave. What if you are wrong ? And the Jews are right then you will go to hell for worsheping a false idol.
Here is a quote from the the Bible for you. It is Micah 6:8
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?
What God wants from all of us is to want the best for everyone, treat everyone fairly, and not to think to highly of ourselves. God is much more concerned about the condition of our hearts than He is our theology.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 4:11 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by frako, posted 11-13-2010 3:36 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 70 of 104 (591281)
11-12-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Stephen Push
11-12-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Stephen Push writes:
I focused on the issue of "natural evil" because it is relevant to biological evolution and is the more problematic question for those who believe in a 3OG (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God). But I don't buy the free will answer to moral evil either. Does the existence of free will require a 3OG to allow 6 million Jews to perish in the Holocaust? Included among those victims were infants who never reached an age at which they could exercise free will. Couldn't a 3OG at least mitigate the worst effects of human evil without turning His creatures into automatons?
Actually in human history the holocaust is nothing out of the ordinary. Human history is littered with such human atrocities and you can even look at more recent incidents of genocide than WW II. That is in no way to be interpreted in a way that minimizes the holocaust.
There is no human explanation as to why this level of depravity is allowed to happen. We went through the discussion about omnipotent previously. I suppose that the choice is then between a god who is benevolent but has limitations, or one whose omnipotence that extends beyond this universe but whose benevolence is limited. My conclusion is that we have a benevolent God who had limitations or reasons for creating the world the way that He did. Seeing as how the vast majority of people choose life as opposed to suicide at least indicates that joy exceeds suffering. That is about as far as I can go on that.
The only positive out of it is that at least much of the world is horrified by these things. We are repulsed and are amazed that this sort of thing can happen at all. It wasn't that long ago that it was what was expected. I recently went through the book of Maccabees. It was one continuous war after another with the goal of annihilating the whole tribe of the enemy. It does appear to me that bit by bit mankind is evolving spiritually.
I will repeat a quote I used a couple of posts back from Micah 6:8.
quote:
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 believe that the Bible should be read as one meta-narrative but at the same time having said that I think it is reasonable to take this verse in the context of the whole of scripture and say that this one verse encapsulates the core of the Christian faith and in particular the gospel message of Jesus.
With that in mind I suggest that your posts in this thread put you far closer to the heart of God than the Christian who gives intellectual assent to the fact that Jesus died on the cross for us and loudly and proudly lets everyone know that he has his theology right and that everyone else is out to lunch. I also suggest that you are closer to the heart of God than the one who spends all his time doing good works and figures that God is now in his debt.
I am convinced that God wants us to be horrified by all suffering, even if it means rejecting Him. By your posts it seems to me that you are rejecting God out of a sense of feeling the pain of those who suffer, and despising the lack of mercy, justice, love and compassion that is far too often the norm in this world. I suppose a Christian can be defined as one who accepts the Creeds but I see the gospel message as saying that it is a truly loving heart that makes us right with God regardless of the faith that we profess. If I read your posts correctly it sounds to me like you are right in there with the good guys. If you read the teaching on the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 you can quickly see that being righteous in the sight of God isn’t about getting your theology right, but is about humbly loving kindness and doing justice.
Stephen Push writes:
Having been raised Roman Catholic I have little patience for the "beyond human understanding" response. The priests and nuns would engage their students in what appeared to be a rational discussion of the Faith, but whenever we asked a question they couldn't answer, they would say, "It's a mystery." That has always struck me as a cop out. Of course, we will never understand everything, but why stop trying?
I don’t know about the priests and the nuns but I spend a considerable amount of time trying understand more. Of course we should never stop trying but I suppose in the end there are some things that may never be clear to us. Having said that, it seems to be that through better knowledge of early languages and new sources of material giving us a more complete understanding of the scriptures, and with huge gains in scientific knowledge in all fields including biology, we are making progress in our understanding of the creator and his creation. We should never stop trying.
Stephen Push writes:
I'm also not inclined to wait for death or the end of time to make things right. Just as "it's a mystery" shortcircuits intellectual progress, talk of the afterlife inhibits the struggle for justice in this life. I suspect this ideology helped keep generations of my Catholic ancestors satisfied with their lives as peasants in Europe. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't try to make things as right as we can now, given that none of us knows what the future will bring.
The gospel message is all about trying to make things as right as we can now. That is true whether it be about digging wells in Africa, reducing pollution, electing politicians with integrity, doing medical or scientific research, or even writing a beautiful piece of music. As humans and God’s image bearers we are to bring the gospel message of love, peace, forgiveness, mercy, justice and hope to the world in anticipation of the end of time. Making things as right as we can now with humble loving hearts is what Christianity is about. It is about ceasing to be self-centred and becoming Christ centred in order that we may be world centred. (Definitely much harder than it sounds as only I know too well.)
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Stephen Push, posted 11-12-2010 11:51 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Stephen Push, posted 11-13-2010 1:31 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 76 of 104 (591425)
11-13-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Otto Tellick
11-13-2010 12:06 PM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Otto Tellick writes:
My point is that the values of secular humanism stand on their own, being derived from premises and observations that do not depend on any religious belief. Human tendencies toward positive collaboration, mutual support, charity and altruism stem from our senses of enlightened self-interest, affection, compassion and empathy.
I agree that the values of secular humanism can stand on their own independent of religious belief, (unless secular humanism is considered a religion), but the point of from where or what those values have been derived is an open question.
If you are correct then our values are derived from a world that began as a random collection of atoms and molecules pulled together by the force of gravity, which then combined together to form complex living cells, which then combined together to form simple life forms, which then, over time, combined together to form more and more complex life forms, all in a random unguided process. One of these complex life forms, namely us, then through an evolutionary process and socialization came to believe that as a species we should be characterized by positive collaboration, mutual support, charity and altruism.
My point of view is that the process as described in the previous paragraph happened as described except that instead of it being an unguided process that it was a guided process, and that there is a designer that is exists outside of our 4 dimensional universe that is doing the guiding.
Neither position can be empirically proven and so we are left to come to our own conclusions. You and I have come to different conclusions.
However, if we accept the first scenario then I wonder what grounds we have to believe that the moral underpinnings in our lives have any validity. How do we know that there is an absolute right and wrong. How do we know that Hitler was absolutely wrong if our values are completely derived through an unguided evolutionary processes? How do we know that the perpetrators of the many genocides in the last century are immoral. How do we know that the evolutionary processes that made those involved the way they are didn’t bring about the values that we should hold as well?
Yes, I agree that the values of secular humanism can stand on their own, independent of religious belief, but where we disagree is where those values have their root.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Otto Tellick, posted 11-13-2010 12:06 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Stephen Push, posted 11-14-2010 8:48 AM GDR has replied
 Message 83 by Phage0070, posted 11-15-2010 8:48 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 77 of 104 (591426)
11-13-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by frako
11-13-2010 3:36 PM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
frako writes:
So if jesus is not his son, or god incarnate then you have a slight problem whit the 2nd commandment
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I was disavowing the position of Jesus in the trinity, but you have somehow misunderstood my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by frako, posted 11-13-2010 3:36 PM frako has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 78 of 104 (591427)
11-13-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Stephen Push
11-13-2010 1:31 AM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Stephen Push writes:
I think we share a similar outlook on many issues.
I agree :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Stephen Push, posted 11-13-2010 1:31 AM Stephen Push has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 81 of 104 (591483)
11-14-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Stephen Push
11-14-2010 8:48 AM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Stephen Push writes:
I think we evolved a moral sense that enables us to develop a moral code that is shaped by our culture. The process is, I believe, analogous to how an innate language ability allows us to develop language skills shaped by the language(s) we grow up hearing.
To a large degree I agree with that. But the question remains whether there is an external objective truth about what moral code we should aspire to. The answer to the question is something that brings together all major world religions. It is probably best described using the Buddhist term the "tao". C S Lewis does a wonderful job of writing about it, and here is a brief review of his book, The Abolition of Man
I agree that our socialization has a great deal to do with the spreading of a moral code but I see that as part of the divine plan. You and I have already pretty much agreed that we share a common moral code. I believe that we are called to infect others with that moral code simply by putting it into practice in our own lives. Once again we are to go about humbly loving kindness and doing justice. It's infectious.
Stephen Push writes:
I guess the bottom line in that, without being able to look to religion or scripture for moral absolutes, I have to examine my own conscience and seek guidance from a variety of sources, including people I admire and both humanist and religious literature. It is sometimes a struggle. But isn't it also sometimes a struggle for those who believe in God?
It is the great human struggle for all of us. It is when we stop struggling that things go off the rails. We all struggle daily to either make what we know deep down to be the right choice when it is so much easier and maybe even more fun to acquiesce and ignore that still quiet voice within all of us. (I'm ignoring mental illness in all of this.) As I Christian I believe that there is the Holy Spirit that nudges along the path that we should take.
I remember the sixties with its mantra of "if it feels good do it". There was also its counterpart "look out for number one". We will always face the struggle between that view of life and the Christian position that we are to love our neighbour and to love God. I suggest that loving God means to love the attributes of love, mercy, justice, truth, forgiveness etc which I believe flow from Him.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Stephen Push, posted 11-14-2010 8:48 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Stephen Push, posted 11-15-2010 3:19 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 88 of 104 (591760)
11-15-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Phage0070
11-15-2010 8:48 AM


Re: Powerful, Wise & Benevolent God?
Phage0070 writes:
This strikes me as one of the most lamentable aspects of theistic conversation with non-theists, as it highlights a hurdle of understanding that many theists are incapable of breaching. I am referring of course to the concept of moral underpinnings having "validity".
A naturalistic view of the world easily lends itself to the conclusion that there is no objective moral code. In that sense there is no "absolute right and wrong" outside the views of the individual. Our condemnation of genocide is then based on our moral views conflicting with the perpetrator's, as all moral differences are simply differences of opinion and view; if someone is to hold your same moral view they will likely require to hold similar goals.
I agree that is the naturalist view. It does mean though that Hitler was only right or wrong depending on your point of view which might even change day by day according to circumstances. It also means that there is no real moral distinction between the humanitarian aims of Mother Theresa and the totalitarian aims of Hitler if there is no objective moral code.
Phage0070 writes:
The concept of "god" is a transparent attempt to breach these hurdles dreamed up by some of the first medicine men and tribal leaders with more ambition to rule than moral acumen. The ploy attempts to circumvent the requirement of similar goals when controlling people; when the shaman says "God" is on his side the implication is that this powerful being overpowers your petty goals and concerns. The obvious purpose of this is so the shaman can inflict his morality upon those with dissimilar goals; the essence of rule.
Obviously many aspects of many religions are dreamed up by people who could and likely did have ulterior motives. I would agree that this has happened over and over again even in my own Christian faith. That doesn’t negate in any way the possibility that there is an external creative intelligence that does desire us to make moral decisions based on a objective moral standard. My belief is that the objective moral standard is based simply on the concept of humble unconditional love. In the terms of our world it doesn’t seek control or power. It only seeks to influence in the belief that humble unconditional love is infectious.
I agree that other moral standards are infectious as well. Genocide can’t just be carried out by one person. The moral code that says killing your neighbour because they are an inferior race obviously had to be ingrained in a specific society as well. It does occur to me that if love is not a moral absolute then we would have long ago all reverted to survival of the fittest if only due to self-preservation.
I also believe that a sense of moral superiority based on our belief in any moral absolute is wrong as well. If there is a moral absolute that comes from an external intelligence then we can hardly take credit for believing in that moral standard. After all, if that is the case, it is hardly an original idea.
In the end I believe that there has to be an absolute truth and morality. Humans have advanced in knowledge and become more and more adept at killing each other. I believe this progress, without an underpinning of an absolute moral code based on love, would have brought about the demise of civilization. It would come down to the last man standing who would have had a very lonely death.
Phage0070 writes:
Unfortunately the perpetuation of permeation of this power grab through our culture leaves many people damaged. They feel lost without divine moral guidance; they may accept the shedding of the leash, but they cannot rid themselves of the collar. The first insidious lie of the shaman that their moral views are inherently inferior to that of a deity, a deity who's morals are suspiciously similar that of the shaman, leaves the theist looking for someone to overpower their morality.
Until the theist can fully comprehend and shed the desire to be ruled by another they will still asks questions about moral "validity". What could they possibly mean by that? It is the cry of a slave searching a master, it is a request for outside approval and control.
We give up control and look for authority to oversee our lives all the time anyway. We support political parties, we appoint courts of law, we establish laws and expect people to follow them and so on. Besides, either an external morality exists or it doesn’t and even if it does it is the Christian belief that we have the free will to accept or reject it. What could be more freeing than that? It is like a child responding to the unconditional love of a parent.
Phage0070 writes:
If you wish to verify this, ask any theist what purpose their life would have if their god didn't exist. Most will say that their lives would have no purpose, and in fact *couldn't* have purpose if that were true. It is this stunting of self-determination that may be the most lasting crime against humanity.
I agree that we could find purpose in our lives even if the world did come about by naturalistic means. We can find meaning as parents; we can find meaning in our jobs, hobbies friends etc. I wonder though, what would be the meaning for life in the broader sense. Science tells us that this world, and likely this universe will come to an end, even if it isn’t until the sun burns out. When that happens all meaning for our existence will have evaporated. I suppose that is ok but the idea that this existence leads to something else does have a certain resonance. I don’t however see that as stunting our self determination. We still make our own choices to love or hate, lie or tell the truth, kill or heal etc. I suppose the only other question is do the choices that we make really matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Phage0070, posted 11-15-2010 8:48 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Phage0070, posted 11-15-2010 9:42 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 95 by Otto Tellick, posted 11-17-2010 3:56 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024