NU 4:8 Oh man! This must be talking about...something....maybe how to protect yourself from the Smoke Monster? Yeah. That's it!
NU 15:16 Uh-oh! Kate better watch her back! I think. I'm not sure. This may not be a good idea.
NU "23:42" Yes! This is the key! If Jack is Balaam and Ben is Balak and...Oh, who am I kidding? That's not working out.
Anyway, if I can get back to being serious-ish, when they say "Numbers" they mean it! There's a few passages where all they do is list off the numbers of things like the results of censuses detailing the number of Israelites by their clan, where they'll camp, how many Levites there are, the number of firstborn males (and how much they're worth or something), the number of Kohathites, a whole bunch of stuff about shekels, another census of the Israelites, and how many things the Israelites "obtained" from the Midianites (more on that later). Now, I'm obviously no expert on the Bible, but I can't see why this stuff is necessary to preserve. I imagine there must be some reason or it never would have stayed in, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out.
There wasn't a lot (partially due to those lists) in Numbers for me to comment on. Most of it was fairly benign. However, there were a few things that really stood out to me and I'll go over them now.
NU 5:23-28 This is, in part, what is to be done to a woman that has been simply accused of adultery. She's to drink water mixed with dust from the ground. If she didn't cheat on her husband then she'll be fine and the water will have no effect on her. But if she did cheat on her husband then she'll experience bitter pain, her womb will swell, and her thigh will fall away (whatever that means).
I don't get how someone can read that and think that it was either 1) helpful for an ancient culture to survive or 2) inspired by an Omniscient God. It sounds more like the kind of trial by ordeal that we would expect from a primitive, superstitious culture bent on justice. And yet, people actually believe this was inspired by (or directly written by) an all-knowing God. I suppose it's possible that God simply felt this was the best plan of action, but it's an awfully curious method for an Omnipotent God to prefer.
NU 8:7 I believe "shaved" is the expression.
NU 11:18-20, NU 11:31-35 The people complain that they have nothing to eat, so the Lord gives them food and then kills them when they eat it because they rejected him.
What do you think is the most logical explanation for this story?
A) A failed attempt to understand/explain food poisoning
B) A failed attempt to understand/explain refeeding syndrome.
C) God was an angry, jealous god.
D) There is no logical explanation for this story.
NU 15:32-36 I wonder if this guy was asking as he was being stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, "Can't you just make me drink some dirt-water!?!? I'll pretend it hurts!"
NU 25 Yes, let us violently kill someone for dating the wrong kind. That's a wonderful response.
At one point the Lord is angry with the people of Midian (for reasons that I'm not entirely clear on). So he tells Moses to avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. Moses gathers an army and sends them to Midian where they kill every male. However, they let the women and children live and brought them back. Which I thought was somewhat decent of them to do. Except apparently it wasn't a good thing to do. So Moses tells the men in the army to kill all the little boys and all the women that weren't virgins (in the sexual sense) but to keep all young girls that were virgins alive for themselves. Maybe, maybe, there's some noble reason for this, but on the surface it looks really really bad. If there were some noble reason, then why keep only the young virgin girls? Was Israel having a shortage of women? It seems possible if they were making them drink dirt-water after a mere accusation but it doesn't get mentioned anywhere that I saw.
That's it for Numbers. Like I said, it's mostly pretty benign.
Usually I would end here but recently I came across something that gave me a lot of pause and I felt it needed to be included in this blog.
I read comic books and in the most recent issue of The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman a true story was retold. (Before I continue, I want to make it clear that Robert Kirkman does not give the conclusion that I got from this story. The Walking Dead is not an atheist book. It's a really good book about humanity. I highly recommend it. In fact, it's so good that AMC is making it into a TV show.) Now I actually heard this story when it first appeared in the news but I had forgotten about it. I don't know if I should thank Robert Kirkman for reminding me or punch him. It's easily one of the most horrific stories I've ever heard. I won't repeat all the details of the story here. I think the following quote from the 4-year-old boy involved pretty much covers it; "My daddy ate my eyes out." If you feel the need to read the full story, you may do so here.
For whatever reason, after hearing this story a second time I found myself unable to shake it from my mind. I couldn't stop thinking about this little boy and the unimaginable horror he must live with now for the rest of his life. Even though I feel somewhat selfish for doing so, I began to relate this to the idea of God and the Problem of Evil. I'm the kind of atheist that feels the existence of evil in the world doesn't disprove God. God may have a very good reason for allowing evil, even this especially egregious example. But as I thought about what it would mean for an omnipotent God to exist alongside such a terrible event more and more, I was eventually hit by a response that I feel is the only response I can have. I'll end with it here;
I would rather spend an eternity in Hell on behalf of that little boy than love a God that would allow that happen.
-Nikko
I'm actually interested in the story at the end and the whole problem of evil thing. Being that we're both atheists I think that qualifies us to talk about theodicies.
ReplyDeleteIf a god does exist, I think we can agree it's not Yahweh or any of the Gods that the religions have come up with. I personally think if a god exists then it probably doesn't have any interest in humanity. Nor would it really have any moral obligation to help humanity in any way. Not any more than I have a moral obligation to prevent duck rape (anyone besides you who is reading this probably now thinks I'm insane).
God, supposing it exists, wouldn't have any personal interest in us. So I can't really hate it or rule out the possibility of loving it just because it allows bad things to happen. Now if the God purposefully acted in a way to hurt me, I would hate it or not love it, but just because it remains neutral while humans are suffering doesn't seem to be a reason to hate it or not love it.
But I agree I wouldn't love the Christian God since it does have a personal interest in us, supposedly loves us, and has the ability to help us but chooses to let evil happen. If anything the Christian God would have a moral responsibility to act to save something it loves.
I understand your closing statement. I really do. (Doesn't Kirkman also write Invencible? Yeah, wow, I've been reading that for a year now.)
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'm a huge comic geek. Focus...
Anyway, I think the majority of people I know, Christians and non-Christians alike, struggle with that same issue. Why would God allow such horrific things to pass? From your point of view it makes sense to prefer Hell. You're mad at God because of His inaction, for all His supposed "love" he lets a lot of bad stuff go on.
For me it's an issue of relativity. It's hard to understand the over all message of the Bible one book at a time. You kind of have to read the whole thing, draw a general conclusion, then go back and search out the smaller truths. Overall, what you ought to take away from the Bible is that God does a lot of stuff to try and show His people why they need Him.
You know, nevermind all that. It would take me a few conversations with you to get all this out in a proper fashion and I'm prone to wander so I'll just give it to you straight since you're beyond understnading it tonight anyway.
God let that man eat his son's eyes because eventually it will glorify God. Sounds crazy, I bet it does, but in the end everything that happens, good or bad, is to glorify God. What makes it seem so tragic is your perspective on life. As an atheist, this is it. That boy's eyes were eaten and he's got to live with that for the rest of his life. He was delt a shitty hand and once he's dead that's all he ever was. But in Christ death is not the end of life and he may very well live on in heaven with the most beautiful eyes anyone has ever seen, forever. His time on Earth where his eyes were eaten will barely be a memory. It's the salvation of that boys life, despite the evil done to him, that will glorify God.
@Matt - I don't necessarily feel that the Christian God, imagining he exists, would have to intervene in cases of evil just because he loves us. There may be some reason why he allows evil despite loving us. In the comment after yours, Adam gives one of the reasons that is often put forward. My thing is, I simply can't accept that reason. I'll expand on that...
ReplyDelete@Adam - It's not that I'm mad at God. If he exists, he's clearly welcome to do whatever he wants. I simply don't want to jump on board. If loving God means that I have to accept what happened to that little boy, if saying that it was "OK" on any level is a consequence of loving God, then I want no part of it. I'm especially troubled by a reason that involves making God look better. It does nothing to take away my sadness to tell me he'll get new eyes in heaven. If doctors here on Earth could provide him with new eyes and no scars, it would not make the situation any better. Nor would it be excusable if neurologists could remove his memories. Having those things happen in heaven would be no different to me. There is no reason for this that I can fathom that would make loving God worth it for me. And if there is some reason that only God knows, then he needs to explain it to my face. I can't accept something like that on blind faith.
(By the way, Invincible is awesome. If you like that then you should start reading The Walking Dead.)
The guys I geek out with at the comicbook store have been trying to push The Walking Dead on me for a few months now. I love Invincible so I guess I'll give it a try.
ReplyDeleteAs for any act of evil being ok; that's not what I meant. You don't have to accept evil as permissible to believe in God. God hates evil. He'll judge that boy's father according to whats in his heart. It will glorify Him because somewhere in that boys life, or the lives of those surrounding him, it will make sense. Maybe it will happen this side of heaven, maybe not, but God can take any bad thing and make it right.
Do you feel any of this in an opposite situation? I mean, if you see evil and questions God's existance because it makes you sad, do you also wonder if God does exist when you see something beautiful or that makes you happy?
"but God can take any bad thing and make it right." ..... The whole point is that he LET IT HAPPEN in the first place! For crying out loud. I mean personally I understand the need for balance in life, good and evil, for if you were always happy, then "happy" wouldn't exist... it would just be how you are. The ups and downs of existence serve to teach us valuable lessons and strengthen us as individuals so that we might enhance the general experience of humanity. However if the Bible is to be believed, then as was alluded to, it seems that God is doing these things on purpose to draw us to him. Sick.
ReplyDeleteI'm also a little disturbed by the idea that the bad things that happened in the Bible (and therefore I'd assume the bad things in real life) are ways to show us why we need God. I think far more people forsake and completely abandon God in light of daily atrocities, not to mention the more seldom, and exponentially more horrific, ones.
I could see how an argument could be made for people turning to god during times of need, but aren't they just hoping that he'll deliver them from an evil.... only to prepare for the next? If belief is the key to this whole mess, why not believe in yourself a little more instead of an intangible silent spirit in the sky?
@Image of Adam: To answer your last paragraph, we're not questioning God's existence... because we're assuming he doesn't exist from the get go. In that light, both the good things and bad things that happen to us are direct results of a combination of environmental factors and human decisions.
All for the "glory of God" eh? Seems kind of petty that a being beyond time and space, all knowing and all powerful would exist solely for his own glorification. Why do people continue to anthropomorphize something beyond humanity and understanding? *sigh*
(oh, and it doesn't make me sad when I see evil, it makes me angry to think that either a) God is doing evil on purpose, or b) God made man in such a way that he would do evil on purpose)
@Image of Adam - You're misunderstanding me. The presence of evil doesn't make me question the existence of God. As I state several times, I think it's perfectly possible for God to exist and for evil to happen. What I'm saying is that I cannot love God if that means I have to believe there's a good reason a 4-year-old boy had to suffer so intensely. There's just no amount of reasoning that could ever justify that.
ReplyDelete@Hooch- I completely agree. This anthropomorphizing of a creator seems to be silly and has a lot of problems with it. That is why I consider myself an atheist in regards to all the religion's gods. They all seem to be a reflection of humanity therefore an invention of humanity. That's why if I even discuss the existence or will of a God, I always try to keep it as far away from human character as possible.
ReplyDelete@Nikko and Image of Adam- I forget the man's name but there is the 'Soul Making' theodicy that you may want to check out. I think it's stronger than the divine plan theodicy.
One thought on this though I wrote an entire post a month or so ago on the problem with the problem of evil. You talk as if God is the one that enacts evil. He does not enact evil. He does not tempt people or bring them to sin. We are created with free wills and make choices whether right or wrong because we are created to be able to do such. So, we are the ones that enact evil that an omnipotent and omniscient God allows yet controls each situation to bring about His purposes. He is sovereign over evil and uses such evils that exist in the world to ultimately maximize His glory and produce in us the greatest good.
ReplyDeleteOne example would be with Joseph. Joseph experienced great evils, but what was meant for evil, God used for good to put Joseph second in command of Egypt and also save those in the famine.
Now, sometimes such evils are never justified in our lifetime, which is why we are promised that all the deeds of man, both good and evil, will be judged on the Day.
And for God to not desire to be glorified would not make Him God. To be God means there is nothing greater. And He doesn't exist solely for His glory because He already exists and cannot have any more glory added to Him. Rather, OUR existence is so that we can share in the glory and the community that God already experienced prior to human existence.
@Matt - I've heard the "Soul Making" theodicy before and it just doesn't cut it for me. Not that I think you're pushing it as a preferable alternative. I can't accept that as justification for what this child went through. Or anyone that goes through a terrible event. "That crazy man murdered your family and raped you because your soul wasn't complete yet. Sorry about that. But now you're good to go!" No. That's terrible. Even if it is true, it wouldn't make me want to love God.
ReplyDelete@Lane - Actually, if you read my post, I never say that God causes evil. I only say that he allows it. You said so yourself. You even say that he controls the situation for his purpose. He needs to maximize his glory. Perhaps you'd like to be the one to tell this child that it sucks his father ate his eyes but it's "OK" because it helped God to maximize his glory. You do that. I'll be over here not loving God.
@Nikko- I agree the soul making theodicy isn't good, but I think it is better than the theodicy that says it is a clever scheme to maximize God's glory.
ReplyDelete@Nikko and Lane- Let's all just suppose a God exists, I would say the best solution to the problem of evil would be that this God doesn't have these anthropomorphic feelings, and doesn't really care in particular about living organisms. Then there is no problem of evil since a sense of justice is not part of gods nature.
Getting to what Lane puts forward as his theodicy, we all want to be appreciated for our good work, it is a very human thing and for me, therein lies the problem. If this whole existence is just for God to be glorified for its power, it just seems much too human. One reason I reject every religion is because their concept of God is not divorced from what can be human traits, and I suspect a God would have a much different nature than humans. In my experience in order to understand something you have to stop looking at it from the human lens. For example Caesar Milan(the dog whisperer). If you watch his show you'll see many of the problems owners have with their dogs is that they anthropomorphize the dogs and deal with the dogs behavior as they would a human. The success Caesar Milan has had with his Dog Psychology research, is that he has found a consistent form of thought to explain dog behavior that divorces itself from human motivations and feelings. So just as human beings create behavioral problems with their dogs, human beings create problems of evil with their gods.
(Yes that entire post was aimed at that last sentence)
@Matt - I really hate it when I see someone yell, "Shut up!," at a dog that is barking. The dog doesn't understand "shut up"!! It thinks you're barking too!!!! It's probably thinking, "Why are you barking at me!? The strange person is over there!!"
ReplyDeletePersonally I like to go in the back yard in the middle of the night and start yelling, "HEY, HEY, HEY, HEY....HEYHEYHEYHEY!"
ReplyDeleteOk, so a couple questions for the atheists in the audience. (I need some base line information.) Having been atheists for some time you've no doubt heard these questions...
1. In the absence of any God, from where are you drawing your ideas of justice and how are you able to measure right and wrong? There must be some constant you are refering to in order to make these judgement calls.
2. None of you think setting up your own intellect at the end all/be all for identifying "good reasons" has problems?
I'll paraphrase an example from Alvin Plantinga: If you look in a pup-tent for a St. Bernard, and you dont' see one, it's reasonable to assume one isn't there. If you look in a pup-tent for a flea, and don't see one, there still might be one there.
You're assuming if there were a good reason for evil it would be obvious to us. Why should it be?
Since this blog is dedicated to understanding the Christian I must adddress this business of
anthropomorphizing God. He created us in His image. We are not assigning attributes to Him that aren't already there. The Bible tells us God is capable of anger, love, jealousy... You're blog is about Christianity and how/why we do the things we do, not why humans try to make gods that act like them.
Nikko, you'll find in your readings that God doesn't "need" anything. He is completly self reliant and as such does not "need" to be glorified. He simply IS glorified by our existance and how He takes our mess and brings forth good.
I think technically, as athesists, you shouldn't even be able to catagorize evil. Correct me when I'm wrong, but don't you all believe in evolution and "chance?" What you call evil is northing more that survival of the strongest. What I call evil you should embrace, because ultimately is will make us stronger as a species right?
Nikko, a note of encouragement. Numbers is quite a dull read, I agree. To me the Old T. doesn't get my attention until 1st Samual through to the New T. Reading about David and Saul and the slow disintegration of Israel as a power is a good read all on it's own. 1st Samual - 2nd Kings will read more like a story.
ReplyDelete@Image of Adam- In regards to your first two questions:
ReplyDelete1)Mostly the principles of Classical Liberalism. Now people may disagree with the philosophical conclusions, but by the best of my reasoning in general I accept non-coercive and non-fraudulent actions to be moral and their opposites immoral.
2)I think what you're saying is, "How can you trust your intellect to make moral claims?". To that I would say if you don't have any faith in the human mind to reason through ethical issues, you can't really have faith in the human mind to study science or discover new mathematics. Obviously the human mind can answer those questions so why not moral ones? By the nature of morality people will often times disagree since we all have a unique life experience and have different values, but that doesn't mean we can make judgments as to what is good and what is bad.
It is a very self effacing and contradictory argument to say we can't trust our minds to reason, and then argue for that position. I also don't like that argument because of how anti-Socratic it is. For all practical purposes Socrates invented philosophy and so to attack the confidence in independent thought (which is the Socratic method), is almost to say that you should abandon all philosophical thought all together.
Now I would turn question 2 around on you and ask, "How can you trust your Bible, to answer questions of morality, when the only claim to authority it has is that it's written by God, and the only thing claiming it's written by God is the Bible itself?"
IofA said, "I must address this business of
anthropomorphizing God. He created us in His image."
But we can observe with every world religion that the gods all exhibit very human characteristics. I would even say confidently that any random deists idea of god has many anthropomorphic traits. So it is a testable, repeatable, and observable fact that people project human characteristics on Gods. With that in mind it becomes more plausible that the Christian God was created by human minds rather than the Christian God created humans like it.
IofA said, "What I call evil you should embrace, because ultimately it will make us stronger as a species right?"
ReplyDeleteThe thing to remember is that Evolution is a scientific and not a moral theory. Good scientists will keep their science from spilling into their ethics. Bad scientists like the Nazi Doctors, didn't do this and committed atrocities. I don't think any scientist would look to evolution for an answer to a moral question. They probably most often think it out for themselves, secondly ask friends, thirdly turn to God if they believe.
Also let's be sure to separate Atheism and Evolution, these are two distinct concepts that really are not that related. Anyone who believes there is no God because evolution happened is being fallacious. Anyone who accepts evolution because they don't believe in god is being just as fallacious.
@ Matthew - I don't think we should start doubting our ability to sort out independent logic. I trust my mental faculties to determine a good financial deal, or to recognize a recurring pattern. But this kind of logic is based on things I can reasonably understand and point to with empirical evidence. Moralty is a different animal. By saying there can be no good reason for someone to suffer places you in a position to say, "Because I can't understand it, there is no explination for it." That, in a sense, is placing blind faith in your ability to draw a conclusion for something you don't fully understand.
ReplyDeleteI think I understand your statement on evolution, but I was under the impression that was the only means atheists had to explain our existance, (or ailens, which is laughable). I guess this will make me sound like a real nut too, but I don't think there is enough solid evidence to say evolution is pure science. Darwin himself expressed his theories were born out of a rascist belief that whites were superior to negros. Not to mention the lack of any evidence to support macro-evolution.
As for my 2nd question being asked of me, I'm not looking to myself for moral guidence. I have faith that the Bible is God's word because He has moved my heart to believe such. Any good that might come from me came from Him first.
@IoA- As far as morality goes, there are many ways you can argue for a moral principle based off of observed evidence and reasoned thought. My non-coercion principle is derived like this:
ReplyDelete1) All that is good for people is that which allows them to survive and achieve happiness.
2) Reason is the means by which people survive and achieve happiness (especially in an epicurean sense, this could probably be considered an observed fact).
3) Define coercion to be any action that disallows people to make a reasoned decision for themselves. (For example fraud makes people make decisions on false premises and keeps them from properly applying reasoning to a situation, similarly threats of violence cause people to make decisions out of fear rather than reason)
By (1), (2), and (3) we conclude coercion is immoral. This isn't my complete view on morality but I think it shows that we can make arguments for what should be considered moral and immoral.
IoA said,"I think I understand your statement on evolution, but I was under the impression that was the only means atheists had to explain our existance..."
But evolution does not explain our existence the only things that evolution explains are:
1)Diversity of life
2)Atavisms (Characteristics of an individual that are not usually expressed in that individual's species, but are expressed in other species)
3)Common characteristics and genes between species
4)The fossil record
5)Some behaviors of animals
6)There's probably more but I can't think of them.
Now I'll grant you that an atheist is probably more inclined to seek out the scientific explanation to these things, but none of this explains existence itself. So I stand by the statement that Atheism and Evolution are completely distinct.
In regards to Darwin possibly being racist, the argument for evolution is not based on a racist premise but on the evidence provided by the above things that evolution explains. Darwin may have had personal defects but that shouldn't reflect in a decision to accept or reject evolution.
@Matthew - I would like to thank you for your eloquence. You are doing a fine job representing atheists. (I mean that. I was expecting this to get ugly but you conduct youself well and I'm thankful for that.)
ReplyDeleteI must submit your non-coercion principle to my original question. While I agree that a coerced decision may be bad, it can also be good, yet it's still presupposing that coercion is something inherently bad. You have defined coercion as something that prevents me from making a free decision. But how have you reasoned this to be wrong? You are still subscribing to a rule that says to manipulate my freedom of choice is wrong, which is approaching a circular logic. At the same time, by using the epicurean example, you've set the individuals pleasure as the chief purpose in life. Do atheists adhere to anything more concrete? (In a nutshell, coercion is bad because manipulating my ability to reason is bad. Why?)
Also, while I don't want this to tailspin into a creation vs. evolution debate, I want to post the full title to Darwins first publication on evolution in responce to your statement, "...the argument for evolution is not based on a racist premise..."
-On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life-
The epicurean approach doesn't seem to lend anything toward the benefit of my fellow man. I know it was only an example, and maybe not your personal belief, but living for pleasure while striving for the absense of pain isn't logical. How does that account for the sacrafice of self? Adam Smith (The Adam Smith) would say by serving myself I am serving others, but only to a point. Is there anything more concrete you can give me that isn't dependent on the relitivity of man's reason? I mean at one point man resoned the world was flat, magots spontaneously appeared on meat and objects floated based on shape.
Ugh! I hate when an argument gets away from you like this has. I'm going to make an attempt to play catch-up real quick.
ReplyDeleteThis is all @IoA
1. In the absence of any God, from where are you drawing your ideas of justice and how are you able to measure right and wrong? There must be some constant you are refering to in order to make these judgement calls.
I draw my ideas of justice and "right and wrong" from what I feel. If something feels wrong, I don't do it. If it feels right, I do it. That sounds really subjective, and I don't deny that it probably is, but I also feel that most people will tend to agree on certain base morals (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) and from this agreement we are able to build functioning societies.
2. None of you think setting up your own intellect at the end all/be all for identifying "good reasons" has problems?
I absolutely think it has problems. But I don't think invoking God escapes these problems because I think God is an imaginary character. When you say, "I have faith that the Bible is God's word because He has moved my heart to believe such. Any good that might come from me came from Him first," I can't help but hear, "I have these feelings inside me that tell me what 'right' and 'wrong' are and instead of saying those feelings are mine I say they come from God." The reason that's a problem is that anyone can claim their feelings came from God and no one could disprove that anymore than I could show you, in my Godless universe, that my feelings are the right ones. All we can do is hope that we agree and do our best to convince each other when we don't. My Godless universe and your God-filled universe are really not that different in terms of morality.
I'll paraphrase an example from Alvin Plantinga: If you look in a pup-tent for a St. Bernard, and you dont' see one, it's reasonable to assume one isn't there. If you look in a pup-tent for a flea, and don't see one, there still might be one there.
I've never been impressed with Plantinga's analogies and this one doesn't change that thought. I don't know what the original context of this analogy was but let's say it's morals since that's how you present it. I absolutely agree that just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there. However, there are two problems with this analogy. One) Just because something might exist despite your inability to see it doesn't mean you should go ahead and believe that it exists. Unicorns might exist, even though you've never seen one. That doesn't mean you're a fool for not believing in unicorns. Two) Fleas don't exist in the same way that a good reason for something exists. Fleas have clearly defined features that can be observed. Good reasons are a matter of opinion. For example, I killed someone and for good reason. I just didn't like them. That might be good reason for the murderer, but not for anyone else.
Cont...
ReplyDeleteDarwin himself expressed his theories were born out of a rascist belief that whites were superior to negros.
Wrong. Here's a couple of quotes from Darwin himself.
This one is from a letter written in 1834 before he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
"I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies."
Now here's a letter he wrote in 1873 after publishing On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
"My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed."
As for the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin did not use the word "race" in the way you're implying. He only used the word "race" a few times in the book and only when referring to plants and animals, like in the following example:
"Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock." [emphasis mine]
@IoA
ReplyDeleteI thank you for the compliment, I'm enjoying your inputs in the discussion. I think I've finally found through trial and error how to have a good discussion of these kinds and realize how quickly they can disintegrate into quibbling.
I think I can make the coercion argument a little stronger. By the nature of mankind our only means of survival is our ability to reason with the environment (social, ecological, and economical) around us. Therefore it is necessary that people, in order to live, must exercise reason.
This also means, in my morality, that to act irrationally is immoral (which brings up the question, what is it to be irrational). I will exercise some force to protect someone from themselves and others if I reason that they are acting in an irrational manner. Similarly I can justify the use of force, if it is used first against me. I think this answers when coercion can be good.
So with those exceptions in mind, I find that it is immoral to coerce another reasonable person because you essentially take away the only means they have of achieving life and happiness. It is on the level of, to borrow Ayn Rand's analogy, breaking a bird's wings.
Now Hume (and Nikko) would argue that this is all based on my gut feelings and passion for living, freedom, and happiness (and they are right), but I still apply logic to my values in order to maximize the values I wish to achieve giving my morality a level of validity.
On the point of relativity, if someone has other values they wish to achieve, say social justice, they can feel free to achieve that, but again, if they wish to achieve it by means of coercing me we aren't going to get along. Two reasonable people can disagree on morality based on their own values and experiences. I think that my morality has more respect for that difference of opinion seeing as how I'm not going to prevent people from living on communes, but I'll just stop them from taking my production to their communes.
IoA said, "At the same time, by using the epicurean example, you've set the individuals pleasure as the chief purpose in life. Do atheists adhere to anything more concrete?"
ReplyDeleteDo note that my morality is my own. I can honestly say that my lack of belief in God has not in any way shaped my moral beliefs. If you talk to me about morality and then Nikko, you'll find he is much more of a subjectivist and I'm more of an objectivist. You can't really generalize atheists and say, "They believe in..." because atheism is a position of disbelief in a concept rather than a belief in any principles or concepts.
I know it was only an example, and maybe not your personal belief, but living for pleasure while striving for the absence of pain isn't logical. How does that account for the sacrifice of self?
First we have to define self sacrifice. A sacrifice is the exchange of one value for that of a lesser value. If someone were to die rebelling against a tyrant, it may not be a sacrifice since that individual valued living in freedom more than living in tyranny. If someone were to give all his money to the needy and then had no money to buy food for their family, that would be a sacrifice of self. The first person in my opinion is noble, the second is contemptible. So I do not value self sacrifice, but do still value altruism and generosity, and it does make me happy when I do good for others.
The self sacrifice example might have been extreme and not what you meant, but I just wanted to make sure it was clear what we were talking about.
Is there anything more concrete you can give me that isn't dependent on the relativity of man's reason?
No. All I can do is argue for my position and my values. For the first you have to evaluate my logic in coming to the position I have and reject it if it's faulty. The second, you have to decide if you share those same values, and if they are worthy of being the foundation of a moral code. If you disagree it doesn't mean either of us are unreasonable, just different.
Nikko and Matthew, both great responses. I have to finish writing a program due tonight other wise I'd jump back into this.
ReplyDelete@Nikko - I will do some more research on Darwin. Clearly I've been using an extremely biased reference, but I'm not ready to say he didn't have an ulterior motive yet.
Nikko - I agree, I hate letting convos get away from me (especially on your own blog)...nevertheless, a couple thoughts on all of this. I feel that this conversation is very good but the heart of the issue is not being addressed. Matt, you mentioned that our minds can understand and have reason and logic, so why can't we understand morals too. Here is the problem, an empirical, naturalistic worldview that removes God and says all of this universe is a result of random chance mutations ordered by natural selection - such logic and reason and morals do not exist. We all would agree that we have morals and truth and logic and reason, the question is, why do we if we live in the worldview you suggest? We simply cannot in your worldview. Your worldview says your reason and logic is simply the result of synapsis firing in your brain which are controlled ultimately by the genes of DNA that exist from random mutations with no set purpose or order in mind. How then can we have logic and reason? Your logic is the result of chemicals influenced by genes of random chance in a universe devoid of regularity and constancy. There is no truth in a world devoid of any basis for truth to rest upon.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that morals are what provide happiness and survival, this suggests values. Your worldview has no values. In your worldview, life has no purpose or goal in mind. Therefore, death has no greater value than life. Humans no greater value than fleas. Living organisms from non-living organisms. In your worldview, everything is merely chemicals with some more advanced than others, but all still merely chemicals. Even arguing for morals being subjective cannot exist in your worldview. Who cares what a society agrees upon. If one man says he feels led to kill, on the basis of your worldview, no one should stop him. It is nonexistent in your worldview because death is no greater than life.
In a way, this is my response to the statements back on my blog - which I will try to respond to, but I just wanted to throw that in this. We can discuss the branching ideas of our worldviews, but the heart of this is the foundation.
so why can't we understand morals too?
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I completely understand my morality. I understand the nature of morality. I as a living organism have two options in my existence, to survive or to die, and survival is preferable to death. To achieve survival I must attain food and water so I must understand how to obtain it, to do this I must hold reason as a value. I must also live amongst other people, therefore I must hold human life as a value. My survival is dependent on my valuing these things, and seeking out a way of living that maximizes my obtaining these values. As rational beings our survival is not automatic, we must choose our actions. This is where morality begins, because morality is a choice. If we choose the destruction of human life or our reason we act immorally, to deny that as immoral is to deny the value of survival, the denial of life.
It is only a world where life and survival are valued that we can exist and subsequently have morality. So in regards to your statement,
Your worldview has no values.
My worldview of valuing life over death, is the only means of both existing and having value. We are now at the point of our survival where we can do more than just survive and achieve happiness. So in regards to your assertion,
In your worldview, life has no purpose
is false. My purpose in life is to achieve happiness in accordance with my values.
How then can we have logic and reason?
This is certainly an interesting question. A question I'll be happy to say I don't have an answer for. But why does it satisfy you to simply state God as the cause, with no further inquiry?
But let me apply some of your statements to your worldview:
ReplyDeletein your worldview death is no greater than life.
This is because in your worldview, your life is lived for riches to be received upon death. You await your death and your actions are chosen in life to prosper when you no longer live. Where my worldview and morality seeks to achieve the happiness possible in life and holds it as it's highest value, yours seeks value in death.
Humans no greater value than fleas.
As I argued above, my worldview and my morality demand that I value human life. Your worldview damns man by his nature. You call Man a sinful being, and say Mankind is only worthy of an eternal punishment and pain beyond any that can be felt in life. In your worldview, destruction is the value that Man justly deserves.
And on justice...
To damn man for his sins, and to define his nature to be sinful is a mockery of justice. For an action to fall under the label of being moral and be open to questions of justice, there must be a chosen action. Man has no choice in his nature, and to demand someone to repent of something that they did not choose of their own volition under threat of eternal suffering is a crime whose cruelty is unrivaled in all the atrocities the tyrants and deviants of man have done to others.
When I damn someone, I damn them on their actions. If I hold their actions to be in contempt, I refuse to interact with them. If their actions harm others, I seek justice. No matter how I feel about their nature, I withhold judgment for their actions.
In your worldview death is the value you seek, and your existence is the burden you must relieve.
(If it seems like I'm grillin' you I am. You do your fair share of grilling too, and I think you probably like the challenge as much as I do. ;) )
@Lane
ReplyDeleteThere is no truth in a world devoid of any basis for truth to rest upon.
I addressed this more fully on your blog but you can't make a statement like that with certainty. At best you could say that a random universe makes it hard to discover the absolute truth, but you can't say the truth doesn't exist.
A couple thoughts (hardpressed for time so I can't go in full as I would like)...but Matt, you keep assigning value to life and base that as your morality. Your life has no value on the basis of your worldview. You can't use reason to say life has value and base morals on life over death. It doesn't. You are chemicals. Your thoughts are mere chemical reactions. You have no basis or anything for your values to point to. In your worldview, there is nothing that assigns values and therefore there is no authority or basis behind such values. You can claim to have values, but if your worldview is the correct view, then they are merely claims that have no foundation for no foundation exists in such a universe. And I do not come to the conclusion that God is the cause and that's that. God is the culmination of everything that I see around me. Ethics. Morals. Truth. Purpose. Existence. Science. Etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd I appreciate your grilling, but your grilling is not directed towards Christianity. That grilling is directed towards religion. Christianity does not look to death as ultimate to free us from this life. Again, I don't have time to go into detail, but in Christ, victory is already won. His Kingdom is already here. As believers, we strive to make the realities of Jesus and His Kingdom known in part now which will be made fully known when Christ returns. We pursue the realities of His Kingdom rather than those of this world which are fleeting (and by that, I do not mean this physical world - for that is good and will be restored in Christ). Rather, that is reference to the sin and corruption that exists.
And a couple additional thoughts, yes, man deserves judgment and punishment for sins that we willingly choose to commit. Our nature is our free choosing. But our end is not the doom and gloom you suggest because Christ has redeemed that. We can now experience life as we are meant to experience it in Christ. Yes, we can't in our own doing, but we can now do so in Christ. So, life has reason. Life has purpose. Death is not the end. Life is. We do not face death. Death has no hold on us. What we do now is merely to make the realities of the future known today and pursue the "riches" of knowing Christ and storing up such "treasures" of knowing Him more deeply.
Nikko, I responded to your thoughts on my blog....
Your life has no value on the basis of your worldview.
ReplyDeleteHow so?
You can't use reason to say life has value and base morals on life over death.
Who says I can't? What you're trying to do is challenge my arguments by saying I'm not allowed to use reason to argue them. This is like me challenging Mike Tyson to a boxing match where he isn't allowed to use his arms. He offers a physical threat to me, so I get around it by making a stipulation that he can't possibly attack me.
"You are chemicals."
Trying to reduce the value my existence to just chemicals is like scoffing at the great wall of china simply because it's made out of rocks. "The whole is often greater than the sum of the parts" is the poetic and philosophic rebuttal to this argument.
Your thoughts are mere chemical reactions.
As are yours. This is demonstrable thanks to Neuroscience, chemistry, and biology. So if you're going to argue my thoughts are valueless due to this being the case, you're arguing the same for yourself. And again we come to the sum/decomposition problem you ran into earlier. So to discredit my ideas in such a way is faulty to begin with.
You have no basis or anything for your values to point to.
What you've done here is removed the target. I've demonstrated that your argument for reducing my life to having no value is faulty. Since I've done this I will reiterate, "My life and existence is what my values are rooted in."
there is nothing that assigns values and therefore there is no authority or basis behind such values.
I assign my own values according to my reason and the basis is my existence. Why do we need to appeal to authority for values, especially when the authority you appeal to may not exist?
if your worldview is the correct view, then (your values) are merely claims
Yes they are. So point out what is faulty with my claims and I'll change my values accordingly.
Is it because I'm genetically programmed to value these things? So what? At least I know serotonin, dopamine, and genetics determine my values and reason is the evolutionary (which is proven, despite your personal incredulity) advantage that allows me to achieve my values. You have the existence of a God to prove first.
Or are you arguing you can't justify the efficacy of human reasoning with human reasoning?
ReplyDeleteHey Lane, I just wanted to make a little more formal of an argument against your rebuttal of a (For lack of a better term) Naturalist morality. The formal name of the fallacy you're using to reason is called 'The Fallacy of Composition'. It goes like this:
ReplyDeleteObject A is composed of object B. Object B satisfies property X, hence object A also satisfies property X.
So your statement:
You are chemicals. Your thoughts are mere chemical reactions. You have no basis or anything for your values to point to.
In proper syllogistic structure is:
Humans are made of chemicals. Chemicals haven't the capacity to value something or have moral reasoning, hence Humans should not have these capabilities. Therefore we have a contradiction, since Humans do have these capacities.
But your contradiction is arrived at through fallacy. An example of why this reasoning is fallacious would be this:
Every sentence in my essay is well written. Therefore my essay is well written.
My essay could be filled with factual inaccuracies, tangents, and fragmented logic, so my essay may very well be poorly written despite every sentence being well written.
You made the same fallacy earlier as well (at first I didn't understand what your argument was, since you didn't have it in a syllogistic form.):
Humans no greater value than fleas. Living organisms from non-living organisms. In your worldview, everything is merely chemicals with some more advanced than others, but all still merely chemicals.
Again living organisms have much different qualities than non-living organisms despite having similar composition, so your argument is fallacious. Just from using the qualifiers 'living' and 'non-living', your argument is self contradictory.
Do you accept that this form of reasoning is invalid?
"If loving God means that I have to accept what happened to that little boy, if saying that it was 'OK' on any level is a consequence of loving God, then I want no part of it.
ReplyDelete- Also, I really really disagree with the idea that God let that guy do those things because it would glorify God. I think that's bad theology. The ends never justify the means. God can use evil for good, sometimes, but that doesn't make them glorious. I don't think loving God means you have to accept evil in the world. I think it should mean that you absolutely abhor evil and injustice. I think it means never being complacent. So...in order to love God, you wouldn't have to think there's a good reason for that.
I think the classic defense would be to say that God lets these things happen because he gave his creation freedom, including the freedom to do terrible things to one another. Think of the book A Clockwork Orange - when Alex only has the ability to do good, he is no longer really "good," he just is. It makes some sense under the operating assumption that freedom is good and necessary, even if there are some terrible costs. In America, we allow freedom of speech even though there are awful consequences, like Ann Coulter. We can't step in when we'd like to, sometimes. God allows us the freedom of action and will. God didn't make a man so he would do evil, God made man so he would have freedom. Taking Matthew's ideas from Classical Liberalism, if coercion, then God (if he exists) coercing us to only do good would also be wrong, no? Thus God allows free will.
And Matthew, you have a problem with the idea that man is sinful. But according to your morality that coercion is bad, doesn't your morality suggest man is sinful too? I think (perhaps) we can agree that man has a large and repeating tendency to coerce other men to increase his success at survival and such. We didn't choose this tendency, but we are, to some extent, morally responsible for it. If I am an alcoholic, I didn't choose that inherent tendency, but I am responsible for my actions (if I hit a pedestrian) even if I am drawn toward them to some extent.
ReplyDelete"It is a very self effacing and contradictory argument to say we can't trust our minds to reason." But we can't trust our minds to reason all the time - anyone with a mental illness knows this. I can see how our collective minds might be more accurate and trustworthy...maybe...but my individual mind, I am not so sure (although I do operate on the assumption I am not wrong for the sake of practicality).
"Why do we need to appeal to authority for values, especially when the authority you appeal to may not exist?" I have never met a human being who does not, to some extent, defer to authorities for values.
Here are some relevant quotes from a Clockwork Orange: "It may not be nice to be good, little 6655321. ... It may be horrible to be good. And when I say that to you I realize how self-contradictory that sounds. I know I shall have many sleepless nights about this. What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some ways better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? Deep and hard questions…"
ReplyDelete"Choice," rumbled a rich deep goloss. I viddied it belonged ... to the prison charlie. "He has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, fear of physical pain, drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice."
"These are subtleties," like smiled Dr. Brodsky. "We are not concerned with motive, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime--"
"But the not-self cannot have the bad, meaning they of the government and the judges and the schools **cannot allow the bad because they cannot allow the self.** And is not our modern history, my brothers, the story of brave malenky selves fighting these big machines? "
So...I think maybe the "problem of evil" is more of a question of "if we have free will (and I think the post assumes we do, since it sees a particular choice as bad), is it good?" To have free will without evil would not be free will. The reason someone could even choose not to love God (supposing God exists) is the same reason someone could choose to harm children. Is our ability to rationally choose only good when it's used toward good purposes?
If, hypothetically, we had a pill that people could take to make them only choose good, would we be morally culpable if we did not force them to take it? It seems we, societally speaking, hate limiting other's free will, and that is why inflicting harm, murder and slavery are morally unacceptable. If this is so, we can't prevent the bad guys from diminishing other's free will by diminishing the bad guy's free will. That's what God would have done if he intervened everytime someone was about to hurt someone.
I'd love to hear a response to this, so have it at, guys!
Great comments Anne! I'll offer Nikko's response:
ReplyDelete"Determinism"
Just kidding, that was a long debate that I'll have to live again.
On coercion, I don't think I was clear when I defined nature. Nature in the manner I was using, is something that is not a choice. For example, the fact that when I see an attractive woman I want to have sex with her, is not my choice, but rather my nature. Coercion is a choice. I don't just randomly force people to do my bidding unconsciously.
But we can't trust our minds to reason all the time
True, but I can say with some confidence that right now I can make intelligent rational statements about morality. Why doubt my ability to reason about moral questions when I'm in a healthy mental state? Let's give the human mind some credit.
Also, even the collective mind can often times do worse than the individual. Just look at riots and gangs. Studies show that people will lose their sense of morality to the herd.
On Values, we do often get them from parents, teachers, and other authority figures, but we can throw suspicion on the values they instill on us and choose whether or not they should be accepted. God and the bible on the other hand are authorities that many theists fear questioning and so will often times lose a rational morality and justice. Not too long ago I was speaking with someone who even got it in their mind that babies are evil, in their attempts to rationalize god killing children. 0_o
"Coercion is a choice. I don't just randomly force people to do my bidding unconsciously." But people certainly has the tendency to choose coercion, which would be a tendency toward immorality, right? And if God chooses to coerce everyone into doing good, that would be bad, right?
ReplyDelete"Let's give the human mind some credit." This is a hard view for me to hold. Sure, science and progress are beautiful testaments to the human mind. But that's a small percentage of minds. Most people are irrational and illogical and it shows from the way things are run to what hot topics are in the media.
And you say when most people get values from authority, they have the option of being suspicious of them, as opposed to God. I would submit that most people also don't question their values, whatever their religious beliefs are. Therefore, theists fearing questioning is just part of a larger problem of human behavior.
I question everything, though, it's an annoying habit I have. But that's why I'm a Christian. I was raised in a pretty secular home but I came to question the Enlightenment-esque values of that. With the Bible and God, I question them all the time. :P Nothing says we can't. Jesus didn't put the smackdown on St. Thomas - he helped him out and gave him a reason.
Most people are irrational and illogical and it shows from the way things are run to what hot topics are in the media.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that society functions begs to differ. When you look at economics and how this whole thing called society works you realize that we are for the most part rational beings. You are making a hasty generalization, and I can't really accept an 'exceptional cases' argument to keep from deriving a general moral rule.
Maybe I speak too much from my own experiences but I've come to respect and admire the human mind. I studied math and physics in college and it's always amazed me the clarity, imagination, and profound insights the human mind is capable of. In fact I would go out on a limb and say I know the human mind more than most psychologists do (at least in as far as it's capabilities are concerned). I would also say this is not as small a percentage as you think. We only here of the Pasteurs and Einsteins but there are many lab technicians, project directors, mechanics, electricians, carpenters, farmers, and computer programmers that are all of scientific mind. They may not study things as profound as relativity, but they all are triumphs of reason.
But people certainly has the tendency to choose coercion, which would be a tendency toward immorality, right?
When is the last time you were being coerced? When is the last time you were coercing someone? The last time I was confronted with coercion was five years ago, I certainly can't call that a tendency of the average person to coerce one another.
And if God chooses to coerce everyone into doing good, that would be bad, right?
Absolutely.
I question everything, though, it's an annoying habit I have. But that's why I'm a Christian...With the Bible and God, I question them all the time.
You know I was actually brought up very Christian, but once I started questioning the bible I just stopped believing it, kind of like Santa. I'm curious as to why you think of all the possible ways god would exist, it would be as the Christian god, one that is so anthropomorphic and petty?
wow, I again let this one get away from me lol don't have time to throw in a bunch of responses, just posted my latest post (http://lane923.blogspot.com/2010/04/understanding-skeptic-painting-on-black.html) - but a little clarification for Anne 'cause I really appreciate your comments and didn't want you to misunderstand my position ('cause I definitely do not support the theology you got out of my comment, so I don't want you to think that is the case) - I in no way am saying that evil is glorious. I am saying that because we can trust God is sovereign and in complete control, that such evils that exist God will ultimately direct the circumstances of life to maximize His glory (the greatest evil being the butchering and murder of Jesus Christ for the willful rebellion humanity committed against Him and the greatest representation of His glory being the resurrection and gift of salvation offered to His enemies - so the Gospel is the key example of this truth). This terrible thing to this boy God is appalled by and He hates (His wrath is a representation of how much He hates evil and His response against evil). My point was that evil is not a surprise to God - He's sovereign and ultimately such evils will be held accountable by God who will judge justly on the Day.
ReplyDelete@Anne - I don't buy the free will defense of evil either. For starters, as Matt humorously pointed out, I don't believe in free will. The obvious question then is "how can I believe in evil?". I'll get to that. First, my criticism of loving God in the presence of this evil is only under the assumption that God exists. If God exists then he presumably had the power to stop this evil. Otherwise he's not the God everyone says he is. However, you're saying that he didn't stop this evil because, gosh darnit, he just can't bring himself to interfere with free will. If that is true (and there's reason to question that logic) then I still don't want to love him. If a police officer had the opportunity to stop a murder but neglected to because he didn't want to interfere with the free will of the criminal or the victim, I wouldn't love him either. I don't see why God should get away with that reasoning. Also, to say that God is incapable of interfering with human endeavors because of free will puts a limitation on his abilities which means he's not omnipotent.
ReplyDeleteAs for my being deterministic while also labeling something as evil, it comes down to phenomenological free will. I don't believe free will actually exists but I believe that the appearance of free will exists. Because of this, I believe that the appearance of things being evil and good also exists. I also believe that I was determined to feel as though certain things are evil or good. So, while that means what happened to that little boy ultimately isn't evil or good, it just is, I can't avoid feeling that it is evil. So, from my deterministic standpoint, it still feels like evil to me and I can't stop feeling that way. And if you could show me evidence of free will then I'd especially think it was evil and still not love God.
@Matt: I don't know, I think the idea that humans are very rational is an equally hasty generalization - I look at mass psychology and group behaviors. Totally irrational. anyway, especially this part: "When you look at economics and how this whole thing called society works you realize that we are for the most part rational beings." look at all the waste the market produces. look at the entire discipline of marketing thing *to* people (hint: you're not appealing to their rational sides). look at instability/market failure. I mean, this stuff riddles human history.
ReplyDelete"They may not study things as profound as relativity, but they all are triumphs of reason." Okay, I don't think the progress of reason is good in-and-of itself.
"When is the last time you were being coerced? When is the last time you were coercing someone?" By the law? the government? social structures that require my participation or threaten force? that seems pretty coercive. and you are also, I assume, a male living in America (or at least a wealthy western country). I think coercion comes out of people depending on their position. You don't feel people are coercive because you're in a good position on this planet, but you can't take your experience to be representative (Stanford prison experiment, anyone?)
"I'm curious as to why you think of all the possible ways god would exist, it would be as the Christian god, one that is so anthropomorphic and petty?"
Well, easy. I don't find him anthropomorphic and petty. Sometimes I find the authors of the Bible petty, but I think God is larger than Scripture. If you'd like a longer explanation, I can supply one. Were you raised in an Evangelical-type protestant tradition? it sounds like the way you were raised placed a lot of emphasis on the Bible as being true, whereas the Bible just informs my faith.
@Nikko: Yeah, I waver between whether I buy free will. But today I do!
ReplyDelete"If a police officer had the opportunity to stop a murder but neglected to because he didn't want to interfere with the free will of the criminal or the victim, I wouldn't love him either." I don't think that's a good analogy because you're talking about free will as an action. Whether or not the criminal is stopped, he can still can *choose* the wrong choice (even if the actions/consequences of said choice aren't carried out). That's why I used the Clockwork Orange example - I think divine intervention would be more analogous to a chip that prevents violence. And with consequences of actions removed, idk, that'd certainly mess with our idea of causality.
"Also, to say that God is incapable of interfering with human endeavors because of free will puts a limitation on his abilities which means he's not omnipotent." I think omnipotence is sort of a loaded term when used by both atheists and christians, particularly when not defined. 'cause depending on what you mean, I might say "sure, he's not omnipotent if that's what you mean."
and why do you feel it's evil? why is it meaningful to use those terms?
plus, I don't get the whole not-loving-god thing in that situation (assuming God exists in this scenario). what's the benefit in not loving God? it would result in no change and wouldn't benefit anyone. it just seems like stubborness (like when I want to hit someone with my car because they're making an illegal maneuver "for the principal of it" but I know it'd just screw me over)
if there is a God and he is evil, all the more reason to not be on his bad side? Not loving/not worshiping him in protest won't have much effect.
@Anne
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's a good analogy because you're talking about free will as an action. Whether or not the criminal is stopped, he can still can *choose* the wrong choice (even if the actions/consequences of said choice aren't carried out). That's why I used the Clockwork Orange example - I think divine intervention would be more analogous to a chip that prevents violence. And with consequences of actions removed, idk, that'd certainly mess with our idea of causality.
Who says God can't interfere with the actions rather than the choice? Divine intervention needn't only be analogous to a chip that prevents violence. Why couldn't God fly around like Superman and step-in when needed? He supposedly came down in human form and walked on water. Flying around the world is too much for him?
And I wouldn't buy that stopping the action is the same as stopping the choice. God allegedly can, and does, cure cancer miraculously, despite cancer often being a product of poor life choices.
I think omnipotence is sort of a loaded term when used by both atheists and christians, particularly when not defined. 'cause depending on what you mean, I might say "sure, he's not omnipotent if that's what you mean."
If God isn't omnipotent then there isn't a Problem of Evil as I've presented it. But the Christian God is presented as omnipotent. He created everything we see, he can pause the sun in the sky, he can take human form and perform various miracles, he can give someone leprosy and then take it away, he can heavily influence someone's decisions (hardening Pharaoh's heart), he can wipe out an entire society for their wickedness, etc. Even if that doesn't mean he is omnipotent, why would stopping a man from harming his child be too much for him?
and why do you feel it's evil? why is it meaningful to use those terms?
What is evil other than something utterly terrible? I suppose I could call it something else, but in the context of God's existence I don't see a problem with labeling certain things evil. Regardless, even if evil doesn't exist as a supernatural force from a secular viewpoint, there is nothing wrong with using "evil" as a descriptor for certain human actions.
plus, I don't get the whole not-loving-god thing in that situation (assuming God exists in this scenario). what's the benefit in not loving God? it would result in no change and wouldn't benefit anyone. it just seems like stubborness (like when I want to hit someone with my car because they're making an illegal maneuver "for the principal of it" but I know it'd just screw me over)
if there is a God and he is evil, all the more reason to not be on his bad side? Not loving/not worshiping him in protest won't have much effect.
This is, in different terms, Pascal's Wager. I should love God if only to avoid punishment. But this is not a reason to love God. This can only ever be a reason to want to love God. However, I don't want to love someone that would allow such terrible things to happen. We don't love people because they threaten us with punishment or because they will give us things for loving them. We love people because they deserve it. Creating the world and life isn't deserving enough. You aren't obligated to love your parents because they brought you into the world. You love them because they are good parents and you don't, or shouldn't, if they are bad parents. Not because it'll change them or the past, but because you have a right to say when you don't accept something.
To interfere with the consequences of a choice (smoking gives you cancer) would mean God would have to sort of filter our actions and disable all harmful actions (whether he do it in-person or remotely). I think this would take away from the weight of our decisions and I think that would be problematic. But again, I can't really speak from a deterministic-framework. "God allegedly can, and does, cure cancer miraculously, despite cancer often being a product of poor life choices." Yeah, I would be pretty skeptical of such claims.
ReplyDeleteDoing all the things the Christian God does in the Bible might not make him omnipotent if omnipotent means being able to do all things, for example.
"What is evil other than something utterly terrible?" To me evil has a moral implication. Terrible things are not necessarily evil. "Regardless, even if evil doesn't exist as a supernatural force from a secular viewpoint, there is nothing wrong with using 'evil' as a descriptor for certain human actions." Sure, but if it comes down to what someone -feels- is abohorrant or terrible it seems like a preference rather than some value judgment. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I just don't think I'd use it.
"We love people because they deserve it."
Well, in Christianity, one loves people whether they deserve it or not and that's the whole point.
Loving someone when they deserve it is terribly practical. Love is not practical or easy. If someone just loves me based on conditional things, they don't really love -me- in any total sense, they love the me that performs good actions and such.
I don't know Anne, I guess it all boils down to different views of human nature. To be honest I don't really buy into the 'White Male advantage' thing. I know a girl who scored less than 10% on the physics GRE subject exam and has been admitted to PhD studies.
ReplyDeleteI want to throw fuel on the fire of the free will vs. determinism thing, from a biblical view.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Jeremiah 29:11-14
11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,"
Your salvation is of your own Free will (crowd applause)
Romans 9:16-18
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Ephesians 1:4-8
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
Salvation is deterministic...(crowd boos)
I just wanted to throw those verses out there to both of you since you both seem interested in determinism, free will, and the christian god's relation to it. Yes I was brought up Christian, but rebelled in my teens. Actually one day I brought these versus to a pastor for clarification. He just looked at me and said," I don't know matthew, I don't know". He was giving his sermon later and broke down into tears saying he can't do it anymore and ran from the church. His actions were unrelated to my questions but I sure felt bad for a week.
@Anne
ReplyDeleteDoing all the things the Christian God does in the Bible might not make him omnipotent if omnipotent means being able to do all things, for example.
I believe the ability to do all things is including in the definition of omnipotent, but you ignore my point. If the Christian God did in fact do all those things, specifically wiping out whole cities due to their wickedness, it would appear to be in the realm of his abilities to stop one man from harming one child.
To me evil has a moral implication. Terrible things are not necessarily evil.
That's why I said "utterly terrible" to emphasize the severity. And I also think "evil" has moral implications, where morals are defined as actions, behaviors, and codes of conduct.
Sure, but if it comes down to what someone -feels- is abohorrant or terrible it seems like a preference rather than some value judgment. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I just don't think I'd use it.
Then don't use it, but I will. From where I stand "preference" is indistinguishable from "value judgments".
Well, in Christianity, one loves people whether they deserve it or not and that's the whole point.
Loving someone when they deserve it is terribly practical. Love is not practical or easy. If someone just loves me based on conditional things, they don't really love -me- in any total sense, they love the me that performs good actions and such.
I think that loving everyone unconditionally dilutes love to a point of being meaningless. I think love is special when it's reserved for those that are worthy of it. Which is not to say unconditional love doesn't have its place, but it's especially rare and more meaningful as a result. You may call that "terribly practical" but I think love is healthiest when it is practical and I think how you present love is terribly impractical and makes it easy for people to take advantage of you. However, I also think that what you would call "love for everyone" I would call "equal rights for everyone". What you would call "loving" a murderer I would call "desiring basic human rights while in prison for" a murderer. What you would call "loving" your fellow man I would call "ensuring basic necessities are provided for" your fellow man. You don't have to love someone to wish the best for them.
@Matt: "To be honest I don't really buy into the 'White Male advantage' thing." Well, my point is a fish doesn't know its in water. A person who isn't coerced doesn't see coercion. I'm not just talking about women being paid less, I'm talking about the amount of sexual abuse, rape and domestic violence in *this* country - much less worldwide. I can't look at that and say coercion isn't all around us, sorry. All I have to do is read the news or listen to people's experiences. (and I'd question the prestige of that PhD program).
ReplyDeleteI'm not one for looking at random Bible quotes to prove random things - it needs to be looked at holistically, it wasn't written with verses. Jeremiah, for example, has a pretty specific context but Christians slap it all over t-shirts and stuff.
@Nikko: "I believe the ability to do all things is including in the definition of omnipotent." Well, the dictionary definition yes, the theological definition, no. That's why I asked. And I'm not disputing that God could possibly have interfered, I'm just saying that if we operate under the set of assumptions that come with a Christian God (which you seem to be operating under to say he is omnipotent), then I think there's more to think about than God stopping one action.
ReplyDeleteAnd I was more clarifying/understanding your use of "evil" rather than making an argument about it either way. I don't mind you using it.
"I think that loving everyone unconditionally dilutes love to a point of being meaningless."
Loving people unconditionally doesn't mean loving them the same way, though. Love doesn't mean giving someone everything or allowing them no boundaries (to me), so I don't think my view of love is particularly open to being taken advantage of. But yes, I think how I love is not very practical - it's pretty paradoxical, like Derrida's view of gifts...an expenditure without expectation of return, though the circle of return is there.
I don't think it is equivalent to equal rights or basic necessities. Those things are "basic" and "rights" - they're the baseline for treatment of people. To me, love is wanting beyond that for people...I guess I would say *both* wanting "self-actualization" for people (beyond basic needs) and doing my best to help everyone I know reach that (and mere wanting without action is pointless. (although also, in greek, there are several different "types" of love)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Anne
ReplyDeleteYou said the following:
"You don't feel people are coercive because you're in a good position on this planet, but you can't take your experience to be representative"
"Well, my point is a fish doesn't know its in water. A person who isn't coerced doesn't see coercion. I'm not just talking about women being paid less, I'm talking about the amount of sexual abuse, rape and domestic violence in *this* country"
So what you're trying to say is that since I'm a white male living in America I'm unable to recognize coercion when it happens to people. IF this is the case and the structure of your argument it's invalid as I'll illustrate below:
If I were to make the argument that because you're a woman living in a western culture you can't understand why it's alright for muslim men to beat the hell out of their wives, you would realize just how unfair such a retarded argument is. It pretty much says, you're X so you can't understand or have an argument about Y. It's not an argument that defeats your opponents by reason, but intimidates and invalidates them based on things they have no choice over. Your argumentation is just as unfair as Lane's, and also just as fallacious. If this is the course of argument you want to take go to (1), if not go to (2)
(1)There is nothing left to say.
(2)Thank you for the concession that that reasoning is not a valid argument
Plus is that the general dynamic of male and female interactions? Maybe in your personal experience it is, but it is not the case. If you're going to illustrate a predominate coercive nature with sexual abuse of women it is very weak. Do people act irrationally and coercively? Yes. Is that the exception rather than the rule? I would argue yes since I'm not running around raping people and I don't force people to do things they aren't willing to do. Your argument is rape happens, sometimes, so what?
Also when you do look at the bible holistically I think it becomes pretty obvious that it is written by a bunch of people with conflicting views on the character of god. If God were personally involved with these people they would know if God's salvation is deterministic or driven by man's will. Since there is such a distinct conflict I can conclude that none of the authors knew of that god, so it is reasonable to assume that god doesn't exist.
A couple thoughts as this discussion has again gone way ahead of where I last posted (darn school lol).
ReplyDeleteI do not see where the determinism/free will is in conflict. It's not. We have free will. Free will enables us to be held accountable by God (just look at Romans 1-3 and it's full of the fact that we are free as moral agents so that at judgment, we are held accountable for our lives). You and I choose whether to believe or not. You present the argument with Pharaoh and that his heart was hardened, that's definitely true, but we still chose and Paul answers your question after the passage you presented in Romans 9...and yes, Paul will then write in Romans 9 how some are destined to vessels of glory and some to vessels of wrath - so to argue that different authors wrote different things makes the Bible faulty is a faulty argument when the same author in one book uses both positions. God is sovereign. Therefore, He is sovereign over salvation, but, we retain a free will so that we are responsible for the lives we live.
See, we fail to see that God is sovereign and controls all things within the confines of free will because we are failing to address that God is sovereign and has predestined everything because He is not confined to time and space - He is separate from it. We think in terms of time, God doesn't. Right now, I can think and choose to do one thing or the other. Therefore, I am responsible for my life...but God is sovereign and has orchestrated all of human history to still see His purposes through - yet within that, I think and have being. My actions and life is governed and ultimately controlled by God, but I am not a robot, I make choices. I choose what I will do as God is still orchestrating my life according to His purposes so that when I seek Him and call to Him, He rejoices in that because I have still chosen that. But ultimately, God has purposed who will come and who will reject Him.
Before us are two parts of God's will - His revealed will and His decreed will. God wants all to embrace His revealed will as seen in Scripture and in Scripture, He reveals His response to those that call and seek Him...but that does not negate His decreed will, His hidden will, that He has predestined before Creation. Therefore, Hebrews 11 is an example of what God's revealed will is...what He has revealed to man that He wants everyone on earth to do...but this does not remove His hidden will like that of Romans 9.
I am always amazed at peoples' sense of entitlement. Especially non-Christians. Here we have Nikko, who because he doesn't understand why something is allowed to make him feel sad/angry, is going to take his ball and go home. He didn't exist for thousands of years, but now that he's here he's making all kinds of demands about life and justice, and then he'll die, and thousands of years may go by...and nothing of this will have ever mattered. Is that what athesits think about as they fall asleep, how meaningless their efforts are?
ReplyDeleteWhat I love about all of this is how useless the logic of written words are. Nikko, Matthew...there is nothing you could ever say to make me think you were real. Ever. Short of meeting you in person and getting that existential experience, you can't possibly be real. I'm talking to a computer, or a Hindu, or a fish...but not Nikko and Matthew. So what do you expect to get out of any of this? You're not going to believe unless God chooses to let you believe, and until then you are just bags of flesh waiting to return to dust. All the glory of your minds, the wonder they behold and how amazing they are because you think you can think...all gone. It's nothing. You can't expcet us to really convenve you to love God, but you do, because that's the whole point of this string. You just need to ask God, even while you don't think he exists, what He is trying to tell you. The rest of this is just throwing pearls to swine.
I love atheists because they remind me how lucky I am to be Christian.
@IofA
ReplyDelete???
Was that meant to be evangelical, or an argument about a point?
I go to bed at night thinking about S&M and Michael Vick drowning dogs, just like every other atheist.
Honest question, honest answer.
Haha, good laugh man. No, I was just tired and didn't have the energy to compose myself like a proper person ought to...i guess. But after awhile talking in circles gets old... Lane and Anne have both done a good job of expressing their points, as have you, and even though I know God is real we can't use His created logic to move you to believe. Free will exists, but in the reformed faith, you cannot come to God freely. He must call you before you can have a mind to believe in Him.
ReplyDeleteI guess this is my evangelical side coming out. I don't think anyone does a better job of using reason and logic to explain God than CS Lewis, and he was an atheist for a long time, so what does that say? Nothing. Unless God opens the individuals heart to recieve His word, it is absolutly impossible for them to accept Him. I wish He would reveal Himself to you in the way He has to me or Lane or Anne, and I even prayed for that today. Maybe one day it will happen.
You are justified to admire how well our intellect was made. I almost think God did to good a job. Look at how hard it is to convence someone to change their mind about something they believe is right.
Again, thanks for the laugh.
Hahaha. No problem.
ReplyDelete@Matthew: I think you're creating a strawman argument out of my assertion since I agree that would be very silly reasoning. But that's not what I'm putting forth. Maybe I should not have used gender as an example, since you seem to be feeling personally attacked (which was by no means my intention). I am simply saying that when an issue affects someone, they are much more likely to be aware of a situation. You are statistically very unlikely to be raped, for example, so you probably aren't as likely to interpret it in your day-to-day schema as say, a skinny girl living in a rough neighborhood with a high crime rate. That doesn't mean you can't *become* aware, it simply means you're less predisposed to being aware. No one can be aware of all things at all times.
ReplyDeleteRape is an extreme example, although I think the fact that you don't go around raping people proves nothing. 1) that's deriving from your personal experience 2) people don't need to go around raping and murdering to be coercive, they're obviously extreme behaviors.
I think your living in America probably has more to do with your perception of coercion than being male, though. The vast majority of people on this planet live in places where coercion is part of daily life. "Free" societies, factually speaking, are indeed the exception - now and especially when you take into account history. I think I can make a well-founded argument that people act irrationally and coercively a pretty large amount of the time and especially among the average person.
Your argument seems to be that people's bad behavior is an exception rather than a rule. Everything I've read on the human mind and human behavior says differently (with tons of observational evidence). As far as famous psychological studies go, I'll start with citing Milgram and then leave the ball in your court.
"If God were personally involved with these people they would know if God's salvation is deterministic or driven by man's will."
What is your reasoning behind this assertion? Why would knowing God personally necessitate that knowledge?
"Do people act irrationally and coercively? Yes. Is that the exception rather than the rule? I would argue yes..."
ReplyDeleteAlso, do you find Christianity (which is mostly Catholic) and Islam to be coercive and irrational?
If so, I don't see how you reconcile this with your belief that those things are merely exceptions to a rule since it would follow that most people are members of coercive/irrational religions that they either 1) outright agree with/support or 2) are complicit with.
I really don't get where the argument is going. As far as where my morality comes from and who some of the forefathers of it are:
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill
John Locke
Voltaire
Kant
Rand
Rothbard
and others. My arguments may not be as strong as theirs but they've stood the test of time. These people also have many different cultural backgrounds so, in regards to you trying to attack my arguments by attacking my background... go ahead and try to culturally dissect the above listed. To be honest I find most arguments from cultural criticism to be a form of argumentation without much intellectual merit.
I don't think you can say the Milgram experiment shows that people are in general irrational (note how there is authority playing a part in this).
People living in horrible conditions under coercion? Note again that there is an authority behind this.
Your argument in these examples leave the realm of a discussion of average human nature and stray into a socio-political argument. When you have a gilded authoritarian figure many people will follow from fear and not understanding. Also sociopaths are much more likely to hold high offices in the government, so abuse in the government will not be a good indicator of human nature.
Yes religion is irrational, but people are brought to religion by being brainwashed when they are young, or by a traumatic experience in their life later, a vast majority of the time. I don't think you'll find a secularist at the age of 30 pick up a bible read about the garden of Eden and say, 'yep that sounds about right' or read about Jesus feeding the hungry and saying 'Oh right, I never thought that that could be a nice thing to do. Jesus must be the son of god for coming up with such a good idea'. So religion is pervasive but I don't think religion is so much a part of human nature as it is an infection in human nature.
ReplyDelete@Anne - I also would like to see everyone achieve self-actualization and I believe having basic rights greatly aids in that goal. I also will help people when and where I think it's a worthwhile effort. For example, I'm not going to give all my money to a homeless person, but I might give them a dollar. But not always because there are a lot of them and it would tax me very quickly. Anyway, the point is, I wouldn't call that love. It's just a desire to do good things for others. You can call that love, if you want, but like I said before, you're diluting the word love. You say that you can love everyone unconditionally but not love everyone the same way, to which I would say that the different kinds of love would then be conditional. I have a condition for romantic love. You must be a woman. Likewise, you also have conditions as well. I'd venture to guess you wouldn't love someone romantically that beat you. So, love is conditional even if you love everyone.
ReplyDelete@Lane - I don't know how else to say it, and I don't mean to be rude, but I think you're playing mental gymnastics to mix free will and determinism. You're not alone, though. I've heard this type of argument before and it just doesn't convince me. Something can't be both determined and free. However, it's possible for the universe to be determined materially but undetermined for the "soul". Of course, you'd have to demonstrate this "soul" to me if you want me to accept that free will exists.
@Adam - Wow. I have to say, that's really not the best way to win me over to your side. Brushing away my criticisms by attributing a "sense of entitlement" to me is not only a poor argument but a fairly rude one. But to be clear, it's not a sense of entitlement that compels me to turn away from God in this scenario anymore than it's a sense of entitlement that you would want to see evidence if you were put on trial. I could argue against you in the same mocking way, "Oh look at me! I wasn't alive for thousands of years and now I want evidence for why I'm going to prison. Boo-hoo!!" Perhaps I'm right, but I've done nothing to convince why that's the case and you would only feel annoyed.
As for the thing about evidence for my existence over the computer or lack thereof, you're more than welcome to question that (and that could be reason to label you paranoid), but it's hardly the same thing as me questioning the existence of God. We have evidence, and you have existential evidence, that people can and do post things online. There is no evidence, and I have no existential evidence, that God exists.
@Matthew: "people are brought to religion by being brainwashed when they are young, or by a traumatic experience in their life later, a vast majority of the time."
ReplyDeleteI think that's an unsubstantiated claim resulting from your personal bias.
"go ahead and try to culturally dissect the above listed." It wouldn't be hard. It's your pretty standard Western Enlightenment student fare, not some radically new cultural thing. tons and tons and tons of people just happen to have the same intellectual influences as you so I think you are just as susceptible (or not) to intellectual suggestion as religious people.
You say you don't like cultural criticism, but don't you do the same thing when you say religious people are only religious because of their cultural background? My point isn't to attack *your* background but say that you are being inconsistent.