There are so very many assumptions on a theological extrapolation like this that I think it is worthwhile to spend a moment discussing them. For instance, one of the most significant assumptions is revealed by Ollie Wallflower asking these questions from the perspective of the world which exists now. However, there is no inherent need for an 100% spiritual being (God) to create an entirely different kind of realm (physical) for His creations to live in; a realm where their interaction with spiritual beings is limited at best. The fact that we live in this physical world is, to a large degree, why these questions have any real significance.
Also tied into these questions are the assumptions of divine purpose, divine planning, and a divine defined timeline. It is easy to imagine a perfectly good God who has no explicit purpose for His creations, other than for His entertainment of sorts, objects for His affection and delight. It follows then that a perfectly good God has no inherent need of a multi-millinia plan, and no need of a timeline to say when the physical realm will come to an end, or be remade, or whatever your belief. To a lessor degree, these questions have significance based on the Christian presumptions of purpose, planning, and timeline.
So, let's acknowledge that we are working under the above noted, and probably many more, assumptions which are richly steeped in Christian theology, and move on from there.
The next hurdle is defining what is perfectly good, or omnibenevolent. “Good” has so many varied uses in our language that perhaps we would do better to define it as love in this case. What does a perfectly loving God look like? Well, because we are building this argument on Christian fundamentals, why not use a Christian definition of love? We'll look at one of my favorite, well written sections of verse, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, below for reference:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." NIVChristian or secular, I think that's a good definition for love, period. So let's promote this as our concept of what an omnibenevolent, perfectly good, all-loving deity would be like. OK, now let's attack the questions:
Can an omnibenevolent God insist that He alone be acknowledged as God, or must He allow for the belief in other gods, or in atheism, as well?
Love is patient, ergo, God must be patient with people who believe in other gods or no gods.
Love is kind, ergo, together with patience, God should allow people to come to the truth about God on their own time.
Love does not envy, ergo, God has no cause to be jealous over people believing in other gods.
Love does not boast, ergo, God has no cause to insist that He alone be recognized as the only God.
Love is not proud, ergo, God has no cause to even bring up that He is the only God.
Love does not dishonor others, ergo, God has no justification to humiliate or punish those who do not believe in and accept Him.
Love is not self-seeking, ergo, God should not focus on His own displeasure in those who do not choose to follow Him.
Love is not easily angered, ergo, God should not be angered at humans with all of their varied circumstances, imperfect knowledge, and imperfect capacity for understanding that there are no gods but God.
Love keeps no records of wrongs, ergo, disbelief should not be an issue for God.
Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth, ergo, God should be simply happy when any human does come to accept the truth about Him.
Love always protects, ergo, God should protect even those who do not believe in and accept Him.
Love always trusts, ergo, God should trust that all people will come to believe in and accept Him.
Love always hopes, ergo, God should perpetually hope that all people will come to believe in and accept Him.
Love always perseveres, ergo, God should endure those who do not believe in and accept Him.
Can an omnibenevolent God allow evil--even if only for a time--and still be considered "good?"
The question only makes sense if God is assumed to be omnipotent, or at least powerful enough to prevent evil. It also draws into question what our assumptions are regarding evil. We know sin is an act which is against the will of God. Is evil the same as sin? I don't think so, at least not in our present-day vernacular. Evil appears to have a detrimental connotation, and is some subset of more-serious sins. We would not call someone who routinely breaks the speed limit “evil.” On the other hand, a serial killer is someone for whom the label “evil” seems appropriate. For lack of a better definition, evil involves acts which are in active, cognizant, and polar-opposition to love, and most often infringe upon the will of others.
Little in the 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 definition of love is specifically defiant of such evil acts.
Love is kind, ergo, God should act to prevent evil in kindness.
Love always protects, ergo, God should protect people from evil actions.
[EDIT NOTE: The NIV "always protects" is not the best translation. It should read "always endures all things" instead. However, given that no one would be considered "good" if they did nothing to prevent an evil act or bad act which was in their power to prevent, protect is a relevant definition for love.]
A typical Christian objection to this is that such an act of protection or preservation by God would impede on free will; that somehow absolutely free freewill is necessary to result in the purest love. However, this again is based on assumption. Our free will is impeded from the moment of birth by nature of this physical existence. For example, I desire to see the spiritual world, and I desire to fly like Superman, and I desire to teleport because air travel is just too slow. However, I can't choose to do any of those options, as they are simply not available to me. They are restricted from my freewill. Even beyond these super-powers, my freewill is restricted by circumstances. If I was a thief, and my desire was to have everything I ever could want, I could not achieve that because being just one person with a limited lifespan limits the fulfillment of my freewill. So our perception of what freewill is inherently accepts that our “natural” boundaries are the assumed acceptable limits of freewill.
That said, is it possible for God to allow people to have freewill but not allow evil? I think so. Have you ever seen an invisible fence? An invisible fence is a product is designed to keep your dog in your yard. You equip the dog with a special collar which, by radio frequency, activates an unpleasant shock to the dog when it tries to go beyond an established barrier (set by a buried wire). The only thing which activates the collar is crossing that threshold. In other words, the dog is completely free to roam on its own will, dig up the flower beds, chase squirrels, “water” the trees, etc. As long as the dog does all that in the yard, it receives no shock.
What if God equipped us all with a type of invisible fence to prevent evil? We could still do (nearly) anything we wanted to do on our own freewill. However, let's say that I had become angry at my neighbor because he had parked in my grass, and I decided I wanted to kill him because of that. The moment I grabbed my gun with the intent to slay him, God's invisible fence kicks in and I start to vomit. (God could easily do this if He is truly omniscient and omnipotent.) The nausea subsides, I grab the gun with the intent to kill my neighbor again, and immediately I start vomiting again. After a few cycles of this, I give up on the gun and decide to strangle him. As I start to walk over to his house with this intent, I start to vomit. Sooner or later I am going to learn that I physically can't kill my neighbor. The same process could be instituted on any evil to nip it in the bud. If instituted universally and consistently, these limitations would then seem as natural as not being able to fly like Superman or to teleport.
Can an omnibenevolent God allow *any* sort of Hell--a place where those who refuse to accept him as Lord will dwell for eternity?
The concept of an eternal Hell only seems to be relevant assuming Christian eschatology is accurate. For if there is no ultimate end point to the world as we know it, and no rebirth into Heaven (or into a sinless physical world, depending on your belief), which will last from then to eternity in perfection, then there would be no need for a Hell to cast the rejects into it for all eternity. Yet even in that assumed construct, the concept itself goes against several tenants of love:
Love is patient, ergo, God should be patient with us, given our limited timeline, limited knowledge, and limited comprehension. On an infinite timely, anyone would be expected to arrive at the truth, but truncating that timeline and making the judgement binding forever means that God has limited patience.
Love is kind, ergo, God should allow conversions at any time, because to lock someone to a fate decided by their own imperfections is not kind at all.
Love keeps no records of wrongs, ergo, God would have no justification for making an eternal judgement of that nature. (It also means that Jesus didn't need to die for our sins! But that's another story...)
Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth, ergo, God should be simply happy when any human chooses Him.
Love always trusts, ergo, God should trust that people will come to believe in and accept Him given an infinite timeline.
Love always hopes, ergo, God should perpetually hope that people will come to believe in and accept Him given an infinite timeline.
Love always perseveres, ergo, God should endure those who reject Him even up to the time of their conversion.
On a long enough timeline, love does conquer all, and truth prevails. :-)
My my, where to begin?
ReplyDeleteI suppose the presumption that a perfectly good and loving God has no need of a purpose for His creations. This is only true if He is not a God of love. The idea that we don't individually matter is one we can easily hold about the universe and still allow for God because we are excused. I'm not that important, if I don't make it its no big deal.
So do we believe God isn't big enough to care about all of us individually or is it that we would rather "slip under the radar"? You get to choose, but it seems to me that the remarkable individuality built into each of us argues that He created each of us specifically, and for a specific purpose.
Do you think that God is not patient with this wicked world? Do you think He is not kind and merciful to the just and the unjust? Do you suppose God boasts? I defer to my earlier post on that one. Can God be arrogant or proud in the haughty sense? This is by definition impossible, the accusation is nonsense. Do you accuse God of dishonoring people because He is righteous and they are not? Is He not even allowed to reveal the truth? BTW - it says not easily angered, implying there is a place for anger in love.
Records of wrongs we have yet to discuss, let's save that...
Not delighting in evil does not mean being passive to it. We all know the saying about good men doing nothing.
Protects is an interesting rendering of the meaning here. In other translations it is "bears all things", somewhat akin to Christ on the cross. My understanding is that the "protection" in the NIV is derived from the sense of impermeability that is part of the original word's connotation. I think "bears" is a better rendering, since the idea of protection you infer is inconsistent with growing. Even in your world where we are protected from doing evil it is through pain that we learn not to.
You say God should trust us to come to Him in eternity. But if He exists and this passage has any meaning at all He doesn't have to because He knows! If He says He won't wait forever it is because it would be pointless for Him to do so.
In the same vein hope is the power to love, the reason for life. Hope is so much more than just wishing it were so. Just a few lines down we read that Hope will continue with us even in His presence in eternity.
Finally Love perseveres (not preserves) it continues to hold out the hand of hope to a lost and dying world.
If there is no God, none of these statements make sense. We are headed to the heat death of the universe and the individual actions of each of us only matter for our lives (in both the benefit and duration sense) and then only to us really. We are each of us alone and that is how we will die. This is the conclusion reached by virtually all atheist philosophers even when they cannot face it and claim we should still strive for goodness. Caveat a certain medieval prince.
No, without God, on a long enough timeline love and truth are meaningless.
@dsholland
ReplyDeleteWell met again, David! Thanks for the comment! Another two part reply here. Part 1 of 2...
That's pretty funny that I mistook “preserve” for “persevere.” Dyslexia strikes again! :-) I'll have to correct it up above.
“I suppose the presumption that a perfectly good and loving God has no need of a purpose for His creations. This is only true if He is not a God of love. ”
Here is an interesting enigma for you: If God needs His creations, how then did God survive for the infinite time prior to when he created us? For if God has always existed, and yet we had a definite starting point, then an infinite time expired before our creation. Clearly, God does not need His creations, but rather we are options. Our purpose, as options, I did suggest as “for His entertainment of sorts, objects for His affection and delight.” Just like I can own a dog or cat in the same manner, or plant flowers in the garden, with no greater purpose than that. How is that against the concept of love?
...but it seems to me that the remarkable individuality built into each of us argues that He created each of us specifically, and for a specific purpose.
It's good to know that God has a purpose for all of the jerks in this world, and that He specifically created them that way. ;-)
You ask a bunch of really good questions here which could easily be turned into separate posts themselves. (The boasting one I answered on the “The Final Chapter” post comments.) However, I think they are a little off the aim of where I was going with the purpose of this particular post. Ollie Wallflower had just asked me the questions in bold above, and specific to your reply-questions here, “Can an omnibenevolent God insist that He alone be acknowledged as God, or must He allow for the belief in other gods, or in atheism, as well?” This is not an examination of how God actually behaves, at least not yet. ;-) Wording the question another way: should a loving God be tolerant of imperfect creations with incomplete faculties and sparse knowledge arriving at erroneous conclusions about Himself? I think that, in Love, the answer must be yes, just as a parent forgives a child for developing erroneous conclusions about them. Are you in agreement with that sentiment?
[continue to the next part]
@dsholland
ReplyDelete[part 2 of 2 in reply...]
A good God should to something to thwart against unbelief, I'd agree. But what action is appropriate is probably where we differ. ;-)
Excellent point on “protects!” I checked out the lexicon and discovered that you are absolutely correct, so much so that I am baffled how they would have translated it as “protects.” Although, I could easily make a case that love does protect. Couldn't you? But let's say it should be “always endures all things,” and so God should endure people not believing in Him forever. How's that? :-)
I'm not sure of your objection to pain. Who said pain was evil? Indeed, you could make the case that pain is good, as it keeps you from cooking yourself, and other detrimental effects. In this physical world, pain is necessary for self-preservation. Why not extend that to the preservation of others? :-)
You could make the case that God already knows if we will come to Him, but I don't think that's accurate. After all, I, and many others, make the case that God doesn't exist at all. I can't love or choose to accept that which does not exist to me. Now, fast-forward to the afterlife. Well, then, suddenly I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. Now loving Him and accepting Him is an option. Yet at that moment when I can most-assuredly believe God, I am shut off from Him for all eternity. That wouldn't be my choice. That's His choice. And quite frankly, it does not appear to be a loving choice.
You paint a very bleak picture of atheism, one which does not at all resemble how I see the world. I think it would be a challenge for you to prove your assertion that “virtually all atheist philosophers” come to this conclusion, especially in the modern arena. Yet, let's assume that that is a correct assertion. Where do I factor in, given that I do not hold to that bleak philosophy? Am I then an atheist heretic? Does that make the splendor of the earth any less delightful to me? Does that make the fabric of nature any less fascinating to me? Does that make the love I share with my family any less enriching and meaningful? Not hardly. I love it all. :-) Love is meaning enough.
In love,
-TWF
Ooh, I did not mean to infer God needs His creations. I was trying to answer your statement that He had to need of a purpose for them (though I must admit "need" was my editorial). I guess that wasn't clear. I don't find it easy to imagine a God with the kind of purpose you infer (off the cuff, afterthought, incidental). That God is not a loving God and therefore does not correlate with the God of Love I have just recently rationalized (if you've followed my posting at all :-)
ReplyDeleteAs such a God of Love cares and cares passionately for His creation. Once again I defer to Dorothy Sayer's description of the passion of the creator for the created inferred from her experience as a writer. A God of Love has the passion of a dedicated horticulturalist for the flowers in His garden.
And yes, all of us created jerks have their purpose, either to glory or dishonor.
I am in agreement that God as a God of Love, "bearing all things" is tolerant and tender toward His creation. As a parent though I understand that it is unloving to become an enabler. God must be both merciful and just to be God.
I suppose it the conclusion that God should just endure people not "believing" in Him forever has some merit. It might be considered the justification for the existence of Hell. It depends upon what we mean by "believing". To be clear we are not expected merely to believe like we might believe we will all die someday. We are expected to believe like Abraham believed, to actually have faith and trust.
Pain is extended to the preservation of others, as you pointed out in another thread society fills that role. My understanding of your argument was that God should just limit our capacity for evil by isolating and punishing us whenever we might injure our fellows. It occurs to me that it might also limit our capacity for good and even love. Maybe the answer is more complex than your simple proposal. It is entirely possible that our capacity for evil is required by our capacity for good and it is the application of pain that is sometimes required to make us understand. I don't think I am the first to postulate this.
Hell is a difficult concept to reconcile with a Loving God. That said, my assertion in the prior thread is that we find what we seek. You cannot make God the bad guy if you refuse to trust Him. You can choose to trust Him regardless of what you rationally conclude, isn't that one description of faith? You can instead choose to assume your understanding of the universe is sufficient to preclude the existence of God. You are still trusting, but you are trusting yourself. You get to do that it is your choice.
I have not found an atheist philosopher who was able to offer any meaningful (to me) justification for selfless love. Since proving the negative is hard I would challenge you to offer one who can. The most current philosopher of that disposition I am familiar with is Bertrand Russell (Why I Am Not A Christian). My understanding of his justification was that it was just a better way.
I do not mean that you do not love, if I prick you, you will bleed ;-) My contention is that the love you really feel gives the lie to your conclusion about the universe.
Thank you, Fool, for answering the questions I asked of you in such a detailed fashion. I can see already that debating the issues raised in this post could go on for weeks, if not months, so I will forcibly limit myself to just a few points:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I liked the way that you used 1 Cor. 13 to define the attributes of love. I could argue that it defines what love should look like only from a *human* perspective (for example, "hope"--this wouldn't apply to a God who knows the future), but I won't, because overall it's a very good, comprehensive description that *mostly* applies to a deity, also.
I would make a distinction between "envy" and "jealousy." You write, "Love does not envy, ergo, God has no cause to be jealous over people believing in other gods." God, as you know, describes himself in Exodus as being a jealous God. This means that he wants those whom he calls his own to have no other gods before him. But He is not an envious God, because he isn't discontent over something that another person has, which is the definition of envy. By extension, I think it's okay for a person to be jealous--I mean, what kind of man wouldn't care if his wife were in love with someone else?--but it's *always* wrong (and harmful) to be envious.
Also, I think there's a difference between boasting and asking others to acknowledge who you are. For a king to demand that his subjects recognize his authority is one thing. For him to go to all the local pubs and tell people how awesome he is because he has 100 wives is quite another.
[*Forcing myself* to move on to the next section!]
In a way, as a teacher, I'm like the "invisible fence" that you describe. My students are free to do anything they wish--so long as they are in compliance with all 10 Classroom Rules at all times. Unfortunately for them, most of the things they want to do break one or more of these rules, so I don't think it can be said that they truly have free will in my classroom. Free will means being able to make *bad* choices as well as good ones--even choices that will negatively affect other people.
[Next section--again *forcing* myself to stick to just a few things]
You write, "Love always trusts, ergo, God should trust that people will come to believe in and accept Him given an infinite timeline." I'm confused. Would *you*, given an infinite timeline? You've said that the more you learn about God, the less you think that he could be real.
You write, "Love always perseveres, ergo, God should endure those who reject Him even up to the time of their conversion." Doesn't he do this? I mean, *you're* still alive and well, right? ;-)
@dsholland
ReplyDeleteIf it seemed that I had inferred that the purpose I suggested was an afterthought, then I did not explain it well. It was in the sense of a deliberate choice, like the decision to get a dog. Who gets a dog for a pet without the intention of loving it? :-)
Have you considered the implications of God loving everyone perfectly and yet purposing some people for dishonor?
...it is unloving to become an enabler.
Yeah, you would think God would show Himself to those silly atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., and stop enabling their disbelief. ;-) OK, you might not think that, but it makes sense to me.
It might be considered the justification for the existence of Hell.
Even though it's not Biblical, the concept of Purgatory make more sense to me than Hell, given a just, forgiving, and loving God. Like I said, if I find myself in Hell, then I would be an instant convert, and not just to avoid punishment. It would be pretty simple then. He is God, so, why wouldn't I want to follow Him?
It is entirely possible that our capacity for evil is required by our capacity for good...
Given that, by (Biblical) definition, there will be no evil in the afterlife, are you then suggesting that the good done in the afterlife will be paltry compared to the good we do in our first lives? By all accounts I have heard, quite the opposite is the case.
You are still trusting, but you are trusting yourself.
I guess that you don't realize that you are also trusting yourself; trusting that you have accurately discerned the god of the universe and determined that that god is worthy of your trust. That really takes a lot of faith in yourself. ;-)
I have not found an atheist philosopher who was able to offer any meaningful (to me) justification for selfless love.
You may find this strange, but I am not very well read in the books of atheist philosophers. The funny thing about atheism is that there is no manual, and there are no tenets, other than not believing that God exists. So I would find it difficult to pull a reference for you without a bit or research, and I do not even know how hard that would be because I do not know what the field really looks like. But I can easily offer you my opinion, and I do hold myself to be somewhat of my own atheist philosopher. So please do me a favor: define what your criteria are and define exactly what you mean by selfless love. I might even make a separate post for it. (By the way, “justification for selfless love,” if it is truly selfless, is inherently a contrasting juxtaposition, because a justification is something which satisfies you. Even if you say that it is because God said so, you are being satisfied by that reason.)
All the best to you...
@Ollie Wallflower
ReplyDeleteMust...eat...only...one...chip... LOL!
Thanks Mr. Wallflower. Good point about the human definition and “hope.”
Regarding “envy” and “jealousy” though, I am not sure I completely agree. It seems to me that jealousy could be considered as a subset of envy. With the material things, this becomes obvious as the terms are interchangeable. With spouses, if you see your wife talking with another man, you might get jealous. One obvious reason would be is that you are envious of the time and attention she it paying to him as opposed to you. Yet because love always trusts, it can never be envious or jealous in its pure form.
Regarding boasting, I can see your point. However, when the difference in power is so very great, who is the authority becomes blatantly obvious to everyone. Therefore, insisting on a spoken claim of superiority then comes of as something to stroke the ego, don't you think?
Regarding the invisible fence, I guess your missed the part where the dog was free to dig up the flower beds? :-) If you think about it, there are lots of things which we do, which are somewhat “bad” choices, or at best are not “good” choices, but not inherently evil. For example, not giving charity to a beggar, not stopping by the side of the road when we see a car with a flat tire, not pulling debris we find off of the highway to prevent other people from running into it, not calling our mothers as often as they would like, etc. There is a world of bad choices out there which we could make, and do make, without being evil. So I am not advocating to force people to only do good in this hypothetical situation. I'm only stripping away murder, abuse, swindling, etc.
Would *you*, given an infinite timeline?
If that infinite timeline includes the afterlife where I can see God to know that He does exist, you betcha!
Doesn't he do this? I mean, *you're* still alive and well, right? ;-)
Yes, but I will return to dust. As above, if I had time beyond this life, there is a much more significant chance for a conversion because I could see the truth. However, to truncate my like and judge my eternal destination based off of my imperfect, mortal perception in a material world? Well, then, it would appear God has his limits of endurance.
Cheers, and keep an eye on those students!
I think the number of abandoned pets indicates that not everyone is passionate about their choices in that area (though many are).
ReplyDeleteThe whole free-will/predestination argument is difficult, but I believe both must be true. One of the things I admire in Zen-Buddhism is the way you are required to think through a contradiction.
But your point is God should show himself and make it plain. It may be argued He did that as Christ and was still rejected (pretty emphatically). Maybe He knows what He's doing?
Hell is a difficult thing. But let me ask you, if you would want to follow Him, why not follow Him now? I think there are people who just wouldn't want to follow Him ever. They would just sit there blaming Him for their circumstance, forever. I've seen behavior like this in time, would it suddenly change in eternity? God knows we are not always reasonable let alone rational.
I think I am suggesting the good done later is not of the same kind as the good done now. Will they still keep "the books?"
You are correct in some sense I am trusting in my understanding, but then I would ask you to re-read my Faith and Fractals post. He teaches and encourages me NOT to rely on my own understanding. Relying on our own understanding is how we get into bizarre dogma.
There are a number of well know atheist philosophers, Rousseau, Descartes, Nietzsche and of course Machiavelli (the most honest IMO). I referenced Bertrand Russell because he is the most recent I have read any of. My (recent) understanding is there is now a group called the "New Atheists", but beyond that I know nothing of them. As for the argument that the "old atheists" philosophy leads to despair, that's a pretty well understood argument (I didn't make it up).
You hit the nail on the head about selfless love, and I think I hinted at it in the thread three posts back. How do I love my neighbor as myself when that usually is at the expense of myself? If I try to do that on my own strength I eventually exhaust my resources. I need to be getting love to be able to continue to give it. God provides that (in a very real sense) where philosophies that suggest we can do that without God are unrealistic (again IMO).
David
@dsholland
ReplyDeleteI think the number of abandoned pets indicates that not everyone is passionate about their choices in that area (though many are).
I'm not sure, David, but I think you just committed a sin which I too often transgress in debate. I was speaking of intent and purpose. It appears that in your zeal for debate, slipped the pace and have now referenced the execution of the original intent and purpose. What's funny is that this was all a metaphor for God I was constructing, in which I argued God's intent and purpose for us was just love and entertainment, and now you have effectively counter-argued that God's execution of that intent and purpose has been faulty. If I thought you were sincere, I would think I had just experienced my first enlightenment of a fellow man. ;-)
Maybe He knows what He's doing?
Maybe. If so, I'm lost.
But let me ask you, if you would want to follow Him, why not follow Him now?
You mean aside from understanding that He is a myth, and so I should logically follow Him no more than I follow Zeus or Thor? Let's say I had a Paul-style conversion experience, and Jesus called me out. Then what? Well, obviously it would make sense to follow Him. But “how” then becomes the question. If you've been reading my other blog much, I think you have come to find out some reasons to suspect the Gospel writers are guilty of (at the bare minimum) recording inaccurate information. Suddenly believing in God doesn't change that fact. It would then have to be worshiping God in the spirit of the New Testament, not the letter of the New Testament. What that would ultimately mean is too far away to speculate.
They would just sit there blaming Him for their circumstance, forever.
That's probably true about some people, but that isn't me. I've led a fairly blessed life (if you can call it that). I don't have any reason to blame God for anything on a personal level. The world in general may be another story though. ;-)
I think I am suggesting the good done later is not of the same kind as the good done now.
I would sure hope it's a “better good” than now, given that it will be for eternity. It seems odd that God would have some lesser good in store as a reward.
You are probably much better read of atheist philosophers than I am. The little I know of the classics do, indeed, paint in somber hues. However, I don't think they had the whole picture. Just like Newtonian physics can get you far, it can't get you to quantum mechanics. Newton could not have even dreamed of such a thing. I have a bit of a more holistic point of view which draws on several disciplines. Think Carl Sagan instead of Nietzsche, and you may get the idea of where I am coming from.
How do I love my neighbor as myself when that usually is at the expense of myself?
What's interesting is that in the grand scheme, it actually is quite the opposite of an expense to yourself. The trouble is that the benefits are more indirect, and therefore much more difficult for the average person to discern and to incentivise them, but they are there; psychologically and sociologically proven. But that's a pretty deep topic to dive into in the comment section. ;-) While God may work for you, personally, it seems to me in general that the Christian population is unaffected. If there was some appreciable difference, you might have a stronger point.
Kind regards... -TWF
Back again...
ReplyDeleteWow, I don't get how my statement that not everyone has the same commitment to their pets leads to a blurring of the line between intent and execution, and how that means God's execution of His intent for us is then faulty. My point was that not all people think about the consequence of their "intent", and was specifically in reference to the level of commitment God has to his creation (though I hope we are at least entertaining). I'm unclear how that argues God's execution is faulty, please expand.
>>>
Maybe He knows what He's doing?
Maybe. If so, I'm lost.
<<<
So far?
>>>
You mean aside from understanding that He is a myth
<<<
No, by saying you would be willing to follow Him if you knew He was not a myth, you admit that if God exists you would not only owe Him your allegiance, but would willingly give it. So it is only your perception that He does not exist that prevents that allegiance now. This in spite of the fact that you know and understand that if He is God and does exist, you would be required to honor His playbook, not dictate yours. So both God and I can safely assume that if, like Thomas, you thrust your hand in his side you would believe. Of course we bump up against the argument from our other thread about finding what you seek. Conveniently all that remains is His playbook.
WRT - Blaming God as we sit in hell - If I am justified in myself, but God unfairly (as you have intimated) thrusts me into hell for failing to acknowledge Him in my life in time and space, how could I become convinced that He was right and I was wrong? Where does the grace of insight come from to cause that enlightenment? I don't know how it all works, but I can see patterns in humanity that might make it so. On that note I really liked the spirit and understanding of hell expressed in the movie "What Dreams May Come". The theology isn't that great, but it's just a movie.
>>>
It seems odd that God would have some lesser good in store as a reward.
<<<
You have confused the good we do with the good God does.
>>>
Think Carl Sagan instead of Nietzsche,...
<<<
I am not very familiar with his work (though I understand his cosmology to be mechanistic, rather like Marx). I do not know, but perhaps you can explain if Mr. Sagan's perspective is significantly different from B. Russell (Why I Am Not A Christian - Speaking on the heat death of the universe, "It merely makes you turn your mind to other things.")
I agree the question of Love is a deep dive, and the argument for indirect benefit holds water. My point is that even though the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself is sound and well understood (if God made it that way, it should be consistent with His truth). The problem arises in our implementation. As I said elsewhere, I'm not that good. I am also not unique. The failure of man's ability to execute on the principle is the "Tragedy of the Commons". This too is psychologically and sociologically proven.
"it seems to me in general that the Christian population is unaffected". This is a great mystery to me. Particularly when it is so clear that God has chosen to reveal Himself in this world through His Church. People have moments of realization, revelation, enlightenment, but it is not common to have that without some human contact that has demonstrated in time and space the reality of His divinity. There may be some correlation with Christ here, but as you say, deep for a comment.
XO
David
@dsholland
ReplyDeleteI'm unclear how that argues God's execution is faulty, please expand.
Sorry if I was cryptic there, but characters are limited in comments. Let me see if this helps:
Your "the number of abandoned pets" is a result, a product of the (failed execution of the intent, not the intent itself.
Your "not everyone is passionate about their choices/not everyone has the same commitment" is a statement regarding how effectively the intent is being executed, not about the intent itself.
My original "Who gets a dog for a pet without the intention of loving it?" represented God's intent for us in metaphor.
So, if loving pet ownership represents God's metaphorical intent, and you follow up with comments regarding ineffective execution (weak commitment) and failed results of such intents, then, following the boundaries established by my metaphor, you are then commenting on God's ineffective and failed execution of that intent.
I realize that was not your intent, as I had expressed, but continuing on in my metaphorical language invited such an interpretation. ;-)
No, by saying you would be willing ...Conveniently all that remains is His playbook.
If there is a god of the universe, and It cares about me (not necessarily loves me) for one reason or another, morally right or wrong no longer matters. It is just a matter of Its will and not Its will. So I would be, in that sense, obligated to do Its will, and It could force me to do so if It desired. That's the privilege of absolute power, after all. And it is absolutely impossible to prove or disprove such a god exists unless it chooses to reveal Itself.
You would make the case that the god of the universe is the God of the Bible. The Bible (His playbook) claims that God will is perfectly good; morally right, along with omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The Bible shows what God does and says such that His exhibited morality can be judged against our own sense of morality. We look for evidence of omniscience. We can ponder acts of omnipotence. We can feel out the signs of omnibenevolence. We can in this way, as you say, thrust our hands into the wounds. In this way, this God can be proved or disproved. The trouble is that I see the wounded body before me is not a body at all, but a pile of dirt scoop and fashioned by man. So what else can I conclude?
You have confused the good we do with the good God does.
Oh, are you saying that you will be doing nothing in heaven? Or that you will do no good in heaven? Is God going to do everything for us (or you) in heaven?
I am not very familiar with [Sagan's] work
Don't try to find books on his philosophy. That's not what I am speaking about. Watch one of his classic science videos and you get a sense of a man who loves life, is thrilled with wonder, and filled with hope, and yet is an atheist. That's what I'm referring to.
Heat death and other topics should be discussed and not ignored, for sure. I can't say that I have a solution for that issue, but I think that, to some extent, we should be comfortable in not knowing every little detail about the universe we live in. That is not to say we should stop pursuing the truth, or that we should end the discussion completely. But scientific history has shown us time and time again that the tools we have at a particular time will only lead us so far in discovering truths until the next technological breakthrough. So with a certain humility, we should acknowledge that the tools we have now are not enough for a perfect view. The facts we hold to today are only tentative until proven otherwise, and the mysteries which exist today may remain that way until we have the power to explore them.
The problem arises in our implementation.
Indeed, even when we do strive to love our neighbor, we can't even agree on how to do so. :-)
Forgive me if I skip the X's, and just reply with
OO
-TWF
Good responses. I have (as you may expect) small clarifications.
ReplyDelete>>>
Your "not everyone is passionate about their choices/not everyone has the same commitment" is a statement regarding how effectively the intent is being executed, not about the intent itself.
<<<
Not really. It was a statement about intent, or "will". Commitment is all about intent, the passion of intent. Your confusion on that point leads to the idea that it implies God's execution does not match His passion. Think "Passion Play" and you should see my logic.
<<<
The Bible (His playbook) claims ...
>>>
I was not imagining "his playbook" as the bible, I meant "His Rules" (but in some ways it fits I suppose).
<<<
His exhibited morality can be judged against our own sense of morality.
>>>
One of the big disagreements we have, and part of the beginning of this set of exchanges (from a few posts back) is the interpretation of His exhibited morality. Just a bit before that the discussion was about understanding perspectives.
Another point I have been making in these threads is that there is not universal agreement on that interpretation, and that not everyone who see's the record finds the same glaring flaws you see. Perhaps we (Christians) are blinded by our devotion, perhaps not. Again, think Zen (or Hegel).
>>>
You have confused...
<<<
My point was that suffering is part of what stimulates and illuminates nobility in humans. Ostensibly that need to "rise above" is no longer present. How, exactly, this is used to "judge" good I cannot say. I raised the idea that the "books" are no longer kept on our actions (which exposed another side issue).
>>>
Don't try to find books on his philosophy.
<<<
I think I said elsewhere in this set of exchanges that I do not mean to imply you cannot love (life, learning, etc) as an atheist. You still bleed. My argument is with the basis for meaning. This has been and remains a classical weakness of atheist philosophy. It is one of the big problems I have with that worldview. "Because you are", seems to me as unrewarding an answer to "Why am I here?" as I imagine you find, "Because He said so." :-)
One thing that brings me to "Because He said so" rather than "Because you are" is the (to me) glaring difference between the knowledge (fact) you point to and truth (application). I see in the writings of not only the Bible but other "wisdom traditions" and the poets, things about humans that do not change with amassed knowledge. Not only that, but the truths exposed in these writings seem to agree about the nature of man and to a large degree the practical daily solutions to his problems. To imagine that insight is the flawed interpretation of "primitive" minds is (IMO) the height of arrogance. In Genesis 11:6 God may have considered the outcome of our ability to understand without relying on Him. I agree with His estimation that man apart from God is too seriously flawed to have that power (another idea expressed by "our poets"). Does this make me an atavist? No, because I also believe that it is only because we worship a God outside time and space that we can bring time and space into subjection. I just don't trust us to do it without God!
Ok, maybe not so small ;-)
David
P.S. It was a Corinthians II 13:12 X ;-)
@dsholland
ReplyDeleteCommitment is all about intent, the passion of intent.
Oh, my mistake. I’m sorry. So my objection to your objection should have been that you were citing minority cases against my generalized and illustrative expression in order to be contentious, not that you had moved on from intent to execution. ;-) I stand corrected.
One of the big disagreements we have…
Yes, we do have limited perspectives. In truth, however, we have limited perspectives of everyone and everything, including ourselves at times. ;-) However, that does not prevent us from making prudent judgements in life. It just means that we will make an occasional mistake.
… there is not universal agreement on that interpretation …
Not everyone is in agreement that the Mint Oreo Blizzard is the absolute best ice cream treat in the world either, but it is. :-) It is a point. There are diverse opinions, and sometimes the least popular opinion turns out to be the right one. I would say that’s a given. For someone making a case, such as myself, it does not matter that there are a variety of opinions out there. This is what matters: Can I state a clear position and support it with coherent and consistent facts? (That is facts as they appear to me based on the aforementioned limited perspective.) What else can anyone do?
My point was that suffering is part of what stimulates and illuminates nobility in humans.
And it’s not a bad point. However, what I have been (unsuccessfully) trying to illustrate is that that part (suffering) is vestigial. The great rising above is interesting to us because it makes a good story. It is a kind of hero worship. Don’t get me wrong. Heroes are great. But some of the noblest people I’ve known haven’t had some fantastic back story where they overcame all odds. They are just people who choose to do the right thing consistently, who persevere in pursuing their goals in engendering goodwill, and treat everyone with dignity and respect. And by persevere, I do not mean that they chose not to murder people or swindle old people out of their retirement savings or lure a child into a Penn State situation; not that they avoided heinous evils which I have been advocating for divine prevention. I mean that they drive themselves toward that accomplishment, forcing their own will along when it would be easier to give up.
Why am I here?
You’ve mentioned this theme often enough that I think it may be your primary objection with atheism, or certainly a big one. “Why” isn’t really a good question. “I’m here, what should I do?” is a better one; for Christians, atheists, everyone. For you, you find the answer to that question in a book, and I think I can summarize it succinctly and accurately from your perspective that the answer is “to love.” For me, (surprise!) I have the same answer. To me, it is obvious that loving makes life worth living. It is the most enriching life experience anyone can have, and (even better!) it is shared. So really, we’re probably not that different. You just choose to love one more imaginary friend than I do. ;-)
… things about humans that do not change with amassed knowledge… To imagine that insight is the flawed interpretation of "primitive" minds is (IMO) the height of arrogance.
I think you may be romanticizing the commonality. After all, could you not do similar study and find all of the negative aspects of humanity? Would you not find the same perpetrated ills and evil desires essentially unchanged against the backdrop of changing times?
With a groovy kind of love,
-TWF
If your objection to my objection had been that I was citing minority examples of your generalization, I would have reminded you that my original point was about purpose and the love of the creator for the creation. What you interpret as contention was an attempt to differentiate between the model of love of the creator for the creation and (lack of) commitment to a plaything.
ReplyDeleteContinuing along those lines, my overall theme has been that the objective reality observed in the world (for me at least) corroborates the ideas I see in the Biblical record. I am trying to validate my subjective feeling with objective data. If I observe that "creators" invest themselves in their creations (artists, craftsmen) am I illogical to presume the higher form of that activity would follow the same pattern?
From this I derive a purpose in creation and by extension the value of man, so we arrive at the same conclusion about "how" we should live. The difference is the argument for purpose. In my perspective, the "how", rests on the answer to the "why". So yes, my great objection to atheism is that in a random universe the "how" has no basis. Truth and love only triumph if the "why" justifies that triumph. As I have said, this does not mean you should not live as though it mattered (after all I believe it does), just that I contend you're view is inconsistent. Typified by my reference to Russell's, "...think about something else."
I do not think I am romanticizing commonality. The point is that there is no corresponding increase in the positive aspects of humanity to accompany the increase in knowledge. We are fundamentally the same as we were, that's the point. You may contend that our civilization(society) has improved, but I would argue many of those improvements are in fact the practice of the moral principles that were established long ago. If we agree on the system of morality (fundamentally expressed in the Golden Rule), and that system of morality has not changed for over 3 thousand years why should we discount the basis of that truth (I say truth because it seems to have stood the test of time).
The Athiest's rejection of God leaves him no basis but man to justify the good, and no explination for why it matters. The classic result is futility. Yet we "know" in our soul that it does matter, that beauty, truth and love do exist. So the Athiest and the Diest both live by faith. Why should you find it amazing that this be planned by God.
As always,
David
Hey David, starting at the end of your last comment, I wonder if you know about the Scriptures which state that it is God's choice, not man's choice, where the ultimate rejection lies? Check out my recent post, "By Invitation Only."
ReplyDeleteI think I understand what you are saying quite well what you are saying about the "how" and "why," but I don't think you've fully considered the situation from the atheist point of view and why it is not inconsistent. Of course, that may be a little difficult for you under the present circumstances. ;-) Yet, I am fairly certain you have the capacity to do so. Part of me wanted to splinter this subject out into a separate post to explain it to you in detail, but another part of me says maybe I should give you another chance first to puzzle through it on your own. The latter part is what I am leaning to now. Let me give you a hint: Is God the only being which matters at all to you? Let me know if you make any headway, or if you'd like me to help you, um, see the light, so to speak.
Now in regards to the love of a creator for his creations, I think any craftsman or artist could tell you that they have favorite works, and works that did not pan out the way they had planned. Works they love, and works they contemplate scrapping. Of course, with God, He is an omniscient creator, so no work He creates can turn out other than exactly how He had planned. So, then are we all saved? No. Yet, as mentioned in the link above, it is God's choice, not ours, for who is saved. And the favored works of an artist or craftsman are often prominently displayed and protected, yet there is demonstrably no guaranteed prominence or protection for someone who is saved in this life. If tornado blows through, or a car accident occurs, or they contract a terminal disease, they die like the rest.