Oxford Union Society Debate: Religion Helps/Harms society

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think the world is moving in the opposite direction. I value personal experiences, but I think it will become increasingly difficult to interpret them the way they have been interpreted in the past, especially in light of ever-accumulating scientific knowledge about the brain.

So you think that contrary to all of the evidence that the world is moving away from Postmodern Relativism? Interesting, and here we've spent the last twenty years watching Modernity crumble under its own arrogant certainty.

You are certainly much better equipped to discuss intricacies of theology... but I have explored it enough to learn the arguments. I would enjoy hearing a new one. I understand that my objections are typically addressed by (in my view) unimpressive arguments about "free will" and "mysterious ways".

So which do you prefer:

1) a god that commands all things and denies free will to humanity, and is thus not only culpable for natural evil, but is responsible for all evil because all things are under this god's direct command.

2) a God that sets people free and allows creation to operate on its own.

My guess is that you'd object to a god that denies you freedom, while at the same time you'd deny a god that grants freedom to you unless that god denied it to everyone you disagreed with or might act in ways you don't like.

BTW, you don't get to have it both ways.

[alexey]

...

2) a God that sets people free and allows creation to operate on its own.

...

am I free to surprise god?

[AsburySkinsFan]

am I free to surprise god?

A God who transcends time or one constrained by time? My guess is that you're working with the framework of the latter when you need to be thinking about the former.

Seriously, if there is a point you're driving at this will all be much easier if you just make it because playing cat and mouse games only prolongs this whole thing.

[alexey]

A God who transcends time or one constrained by time? My guess is that you're working with the framework of the latter when you need to be thinking about the former.

Seriously, if there is a point you're driving at this will all be much easier if you just make it because playing cat and mouse games only prolongs this whole thing.

Discussions about freedom and "free will" are difficult because the terms are poorly defined.

From a naturalistic perspective, I understand "free will" in terms of deliberation, decision making, volition, etc. This kind of "free will" is constrained by nature, nurture, and the environment. I do not know how to understand "free will" from a theological perspective.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Discussions about freedom and "free will" are difficult because the terms are poorly defined.

Maybe, or maybe it's just that you don't fully understand the terms. Either way, think of free will in terms of what it isn't, and how it is understood as an objection to determinism; where everything around you is absolutely determined by god and that you have no real choice or freedom if your own since such a freedom could thwart the divine authority of god. As we talk about free will we do so with the understanding that yes our environment, up-bringing, culture etc all help shape us and for the most part limit what we would choose to do in any given scenario. Yet, at the same time we recognize that even in that dynamic we are still free to make a radical and unexpected choice or change.

From a naturalistic perspective, I understand "free will" in terms of deliberation, decision making, volition, etc. This kind of "free will" is severely constrained by nature and nurture. If I were created by a god, then he is responsible for the way that I am, circumstances in which, i find myself, and my decisions. I do not know how to understand "free will" from a theological perspective and how it reconciles with an all-knowing creator god.

The key to understanding free will with an all knowing creator God lies within the construction of space time. It used to believed that time was constant and seperate from space, however science is now showing us that space and time are tied together and we cannot have one without the other. Under the old model where time transcends space the idea of an all knowing god who's knowledge does not remove the choice of the individual is a logical absurdity because such a god is also subject to time as it is a universal constant. Now, given that we know that model to be incorrect we are free to explore how God can be all knowing and yet still allow for free will and the answer lies within the fact that if God is creator of space then that means God is also creator of time and thus transcends space/time itself as both together are the created order.

So how does God transcending space/time allow for God to be all knowing of past/present/future while still maintaining free will? The key to that lies in a football game. No, I'm not joking. First we must remember that God transcends space/time which means that God experiences both space and time much as the carpenter experiences the house he has built. Which means that God experiences past/present/future simultaneously rather than linearly as He would if He were contrained by time as in the old model where time is constant. Now imagine three TV sets all tuned to last year's Washington/Baltimore playoff game. The one in the middle is showing the present, the one to the left shows the past (10 seconds behind the present), and the one on the right shows the future (10 seconds ahead of the present). [Past present, future all being relative to God, but more defined in our experience] so now we're watching RGIII's play where he injures his knee. If we look to the right we see him injured, if we look to the left he is walking up to the line of scrimmage pre-snap, and in the center we see him at the moment he decides to dive for extra yardage. Now, as we watch those three screens play out does RGIII in the present lose his choice to dive because we see the result in monitor three? Hardly, the fact that we observe something does not remove the choice the person has made.

So can we surprise God?

In a sense yes, but only so much as He is surprised at the moment of our choice. In the same way we would be surprised watching those monitors. Maybe surprised is the wrong term, for the purposes of our discussion of free will and the problem of evil in the world we should be asking can we go against God's will? Absolutely, because God's will is not some pre-determined path we are forced to walk, but is instead God's will is a desire for our lives, just as a parent has a desire for their child's life.

[alexey]

Maybe, or maybe it's just that you don't fully understand the terms. Either way, think of free will in terms of what it isn't, and how it is understood as an objection to determinism; where everything around you is absolutely determined by god and that you have no real choice or freedom if your own since such a freedom could thwart the divine authority of god. As we talk about free will we do so with the understanding that yes our environment, up-bringing, culture etc all help shape us and for the most part limit what we would choose to do in any given scenario. Yet, at the same time we recognize that even in that dynamic we are still free to make a radical and unexpected choice or change.

This is an interesting perspective for me because I view "radical and unexpected" as being somewhere on a range between perfectly predictable on one side and perfectly random on the other. This range seems to contain what we understand as "free will", yet it cannot be found on either end.

From a naturalistic perspective, I do not see "free will" as something that you can either have or not have. Rather, I see it as an ability to exercise choices. Different people have different levels of it, it can be improved with training and education, socioeconomic status, and so on. If I win the lottery tomorrow, I will get more "free will" as a result. If I get a brain tumor, my "free will" would be reduced according to which part of the brain is affected.

...

So how does God transcending space/time allow for God to be all knowing of past/present/future while still maintaining free will? The key to that lies in a football game. No, I'm not joking. First we must remember that God transcends space/time which means that God experiences both space and time much as the carpenter experiences the house he has built. Which means that God experiences past/present/future simultaneously rather than linearly as He would if He were contrained by time as in the old model where time is constant. Now imagine three TV sets all tuned to last year's Washington/Baltimore playoff game. The one in the middle is showing the present, the one to the left shows the past (10 seconds behind the present), and the one on the right shows the future (10 seconds ahead of the present). [Past present, future all being relative to God, but more defined in our experience] so now we're watching RGIII's play where he injures his knee. If we look to the right we see him injured, if we look to the left he is walking up to the line of scrimmage pre-snap, and in the center we see him at the moment he decides to dive for extra yardage. Now, as we watch those three screens play out does RGIII in the present lose his choice to dive because we see the result in monitor three? Hardly, the fact that we observe something does not remove the choice the person has made.

From a naturalistic perspective, "free will" is a decision making process that takes place in the brain. This process unfolds in time. Therefore I can only understand "free will" in the present. I think RGIII is exercising his "free will" when he is making decisions in the present but not in replays on DVR.

So can we surprise God?

In a sense yes, but only so much as He is surprised at the moment of our choice. In the same way we would be surprised watching those monitors. Maybe surprised is the wrong term, for the purposes of our discussion of free will and the problem of evil in the world we should be asking can we go against God's will? Absolutely, because God's will is not some pre-determined path we are forced to walk, but is instead God's will is a desire for our lives, just as a parent has a desire for their child's life.

If my children are facing death or injury as a result of their choices, I am not sitting back and letting that play out. I am doing everything in my power to help them.... So no, god is not like a parent..

If I were all powerful, I'd give my children freedom to fly and eat sunlight, freedom to choose between a paintbrush and a book, apples and oranges, guitar and the piano. They do not need the freedom to get sick, cause death or injury, or anything like that. I am a parent and I am nothing like god. Don't say god is like a parent because he is not. Parents prevent their children from killing each other, if they can. Just say it's a mystery.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is an interesting perspective for me because I view "radical and unexpected" as being somewhere on a range between perfectly predictable on one side and perfectly random on the other. This range seems to contain what we understand as "free will", yet it cannot be found on either end.

That can work too, if we understand the range as being the various degrees with which we exercise free will.

From a naturalistic perspective, I do not see "free will" as something that you can either have or do not have, but as a kind of a skill. Different people have different levels of it, it can be improved with training and education, socioeconomic status, and so on. If I win the lottery tomorrow, I will get more "free will" as a result. If I get a brain tumor, my "free will" would be reduced according to which part of the brain is affected.

I see free will as the ability to choose, therefore if I win the lottery I don't get more free will, I just have more opportunities and choices to exercise my free will.

From a naturalistic perspective, "free will" is a decision making process that takes place in the brain. This process unfolds in time. Therefore I can only understand "free will" in the present. I think RGIII is exercising his "free will" when he is making decisions in the present but not in replays on DVR.

And this view is what I would expect from someone viewing the events from within space/time, because the dvr implies a recording of an event from real time. Yet, if you read what I wrote you'll notice that all three TVs are playing in real time, none are recordings.

If my children are facing death or injury as a result of their choices, I am not sitting back and letting that play out. I am doing everything in my power to help them.... So no, god is not like a parent.

If I were all powerful, I'd give my children freedom to fly and eat sunlight, freedom to choose between a paintbrush and a book, apples and oranges, guitar and the piano. They do not need the freedom to get sick, cause death or injury, or anything like that. I am a parent and I am nothing like god. Don't say god is like a parent because he is not. Just say it's a mystery.

First, God is God, parent is a metaphor we use to help us understand certain aspects of God's revealed nature. There are several metaphors that we use to help us, and none are absolute, just as no analogy is absolute, so God is like a parent in some respects, and yet not like a parent in others.

Judge, shepherd, king, friend, parent, advocate, son and so on form the tapestry of what we understand about God's character. However it is a mistake to take one metaphor and allow it be be absolute because after all each reflects but a portion and each is incomplete since analogies are by their nature.

Your problem rests in the fact that you want to only grant free will to do right, but that isn't free will at all, free will must if it to be truly free, allow for doing wrong.

[alexey]

I see free will as the ability to choose, therefore if I win the lottery I don't get more free will, I just have more opportunities and choices to exercise my free will.

I do not see a distinction there. For example my choices, and therefore my ability to choose, is limited by my financial situation. I need to provide for my family, and therefore I do not have the ability to choose reading books all day.

And this view is what I would expect from someone viewing the events from within space/time, because the dvr implies a recording of an event from real time. Yet, if you read what I wrote you'll notice that all three TVs are playing in real time, none are recordings.

I cannot make sense of past, present, and future all taking place simultanously in real time.

I understand the concepts but cannot apply them to reality. Flow of time and past, present, future are fundamental aspects of our decision making processes.

First, God is God, parent is a metaphor we use to help us understand certain aspects of God's revealed nature. There are several metaphors that we use to help us, and none are absolute, just as no analogy is absolute, so God is like a parent in some respects, and yet not like a parent in others.

Judge, shepherd, king, friend, parent, advocate, son and so on form the tapestry of what we understand about God's character. However it is a mistake to take one metaphor and allow it be be absolute because after all each reflects but a portion and each is incomplete since analogies are by their nature.

I can make sense of individual metaphors, but cannot reconcile them. I understand that a healthy dose of "mystery" and "faith" are typically needed to make it work.

Your problem rests in the fact that you want to only grant free will to do right, but that isn't free will at all, free will must if it to be truly free, allow for doing wrong.

We may disagree on what it means to be "truly free". I think "truly free" at a minimum requires not having to worry about getting shelter, food, or healthcare for you and your family. It means having a good education, a healthy family environment, and so on. I do not see how "truly free" individuals will choose to do wrong.

My freedom to make choices is not granted by god but ensured by our secular government. Freedoms that we enjoy were secured by blood and brains of great people. This is the freedom that matters, and most people throughout history did not have it.

[JMS]

i don't define morals, I just do my best to reason about what's moral and what's not.

I do not see how concepts of morality can be applied to forces of nature.

 

Morality are rules which effect an individuals code of conduct.   They can sometimes be effected by groups that indivudual belongs too..   religions,  unions,  companies  etc  but ultimately they  ( morals )  reflect personal beliefs....

 

So yes literally you do define which morals apply to you and most people apply reason to afix morals....    And forces of nature absolutely can affect morality....    the environment one is born into either nurturing or harsh effects one's own personal code of conduct.

 

It's one reason why folks like Glen Beck who complain about Moral Relativism are idiots.. because all morals are relative.    What morality do you share with a Visagoth,  a Roman,  or a dark ages Viking besides the fact you all judge yourselves moral based upon the environment you were born into?

[alexey]

...

It's one reason why folks like Glen Beck who complain about Moral Relativism are idiots.. because all morals are relative. What morality do you share with a Visagoth, a Roman, or a dark ages Viking besides the fact you all judge yourselves moral based upon the environment you were born into?

I agree with moral judements only making sense relative to the environment, but I would also distinguish between moral principles and moral conclusions.

An example of a moral principle would be "all men are created equal". An example of a moral conclusion would be actually freeing the slaves.

Moral conclusions are relative and depend on the environment, but not necessarily moral principles.

[JMS]

I agree with moral judements only making sense relative to the environment, but I would also distinguish between moral principles and moral conclusions.

An example of a moral principle would be "all men are created equal". An example of a moral conclusion would be actually freeing the slaves.

Moral conclusions are relative and depend on the environment, but not necessarily moral principles.

 

I think both one's concepts of morality and ones practices of morality are directly influsenced if not entirely based upon ones environment.....    Is it moral to steal?   Hey your kid want's that new iphone...   moral yes no?      How about if your kid is starving to death and you are eyeing a piece of bread?      Do you think the father who steals the crust of breads compromised his principles?

 

Certainly not....    there are many morals which are simple luxeries we grant outselves both through our ability to provide for ourselves adiquately enough and based upon the age of bounty we find outselves in....    Morals which would certainly disappear tomorrow if the age of bounty changed.     Maybe you or I would not change our morality if our ability to provide was taken out of our hands,   but as we were replaced by the children who grew up in that new age,  the understandinf of what was morally acceptable certainly would change..

[alexey]

I think both one's concepts of morality and ones practices of morality are directly influsenced if not entirely based upon ones environment..... Is it moral to steal? Hey your kid want's that new iphone... moral yes no? How about if your kid is starving to death and you are eyeing a piece of bread? Do you think the father who steals the crust of breads compromised his principles?

By moral principles I mean logical constructs like the golden rule. From that perspective, you would only compromise your principles if you thought it were ok for you to steal but not okay for another person to steal in the same situation.

Certainly not.... there are many morals which are simple luxeries we grant outselves both through our ability to provide for ourselves adiquately enough and based upon the age of bounty we find outselves in.... Morals which would certainly disappear tomorrow if the age of bounty changed. Maybe you or I would not change our morality if our ability to provide was taken out of our hands, but as we were replaced by the children who grew up in that new age, the understandinf of what was morally acceptable certainly would change..

You are describing a break up of commerce, large societies breaking up into smaller ones, smaller in-groups, tribalism, basically going back in time. What to do? Well we should stabilize society, create coalitions and governments, ensure government monopoly over violence, set up checks and balances on the government, build commercial ties, cultural ties, allow intermarriage, focus on similarities and avoid demonisation of the "other", literacy, education, and so on. We know how to do this, we did it before...

[AsburySkinsFan]

I do not see a distinction there. For example my choices, and therefore my ability to choose, is limited by my financial situation. I need to provide for my family, and therefore I do not have the ability to choose reading books all day.

You certainly do have the ability to read books all day, however you've chosen that certain priorities and committments need to be maintained and as a result in maintaining those committments and priorities you have found that it is not practical to choose to only read books all day long.

I cannot make sense of past, present, and future all taking place simultanously in real time.

I understand the concepts but cannot apply them to reality. Flow of time and past, present, future are fundamental aspects of our decision making processes.

You can't make sense of it because you are thinking about yourself "in time", however if you think of space/time like a giant expanding bubble and you are on the outside looking in then you then transcend time, past present and future aren't experienced in linear fashion as we currently experience them.

I can make sense of individual metaphors, but cannot reconcile them. I understand that a healthy dose of "mystery" and "faith" are typically needed to make it work.

That's probably because you want every metaphor to be active and absolute in every situation and that IS irreconcilable, but then in doing so you're abusing the metaphors by asking them to do something that they aren't designed to do.

We may disagree on what it means to be "truly free". I think "truly free" at a minimum requires not having to worry about getting shelter, food, or healthcare for you and your family. It means having a good education, a healthy family environment, and so on. I do not see how "truly free" individuals will choose to do wrong.

It seems more like you are describing liberated rather than free will. Liberated means you are free to do what your heart desires, free will is all about the ability to chose for yourself in any given situation.

Liberated: released from social constraints, freed from traditionally socially imposed contraints, freed from enemy control.

Free Will: power of independent action and choice, the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomus being soley as a result of compulsion.

My freedom to make choices is not granted by god but ensured by our secular government. Freedoms that we enjoy were secured by blood and brains of great people. This is the freedom that matters, and most people throughout history did not have it.

That really is nonsensical, government cannot take away your freedom to choose to act as an autonomous being. They can impose consequences, but they cannot remove the choice. Again, you're confusing free will and liberation. The Buddhist monks that set themselves on fire in protest of the South Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War exercised their free will because they were not liberated to live freely as they wanted.

[alexey]

...

You can't make sense of it because you are thinking about yourself "in time", however if you think of space/time like a giant expanding bubble and you are on the outside looking in then you then transcend time, past present and future aren't experienced in linear fashion as we currently experience them.

This does help visualise it, but in general terms. I still cannot apply this view to the descision making process, a process that necessarily takes place "in time".

That's probably because you want every metaphor to be active and absolute in every situation and that IS irreconcilable, but then in doing so you're abusing the metaphors by asking them to do something that they aren't designed to do.

I understand metaphors about god, arguments about god, descriptions of god, but I still cannot understand what the word "god" actually refers to in reality. As far as I understand, it refers to this collection of metaphors/arguments/descriptions/experiences.

Those things just do not come to a coherent understanding of "god" for me. Understanding god is supposedly not possible by definition, so maybe my desire to create an understanding out of those things is not applicable.

...

You certainly do have the ability to read books all day, however you've chosen that certain priorities and committments need to be maintained and as a result in maintaining those committments and priorities you have found that it is not practical to choose to only read books all day long

...

It seems more like you are describing liberated rather than free will. Liberated means you are free to do what your heart desires, free will is all about the ability to chose for yourself in any given situation.

Liberated: released from social constraints, freed from traditionally socially imposed contraints, freed from enemy control.

Free Will: power of independent action and choice, the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomus being soley as a result of compulsion.

That really is nonsensical, government cannot take away your freedom to choose to act as an autonomous being. They can impose consequences, but they cannot remove the choice. Again, you're confusing free will and liberation. The Buddhist monks that set themselves on fire in protest of the South Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War exercised their free will because they were not liberated to live freely as they wanted.

Looks like you are right, we are talking about different kinds of "free will".

I do not want to discount our abilities to make decisions based on our environment. It is an important and a fascinating topic. However, it is also a basic function of a brain. All animals with brains have this capacity, to a degree. Cats make decisions, dogs make decisions. Decision making alone is not what makes us special. In my view, we are special because of what kinds of decisions we can make. Building societies, learning about the world, trying to make it a better place.

Therefore, when i talk about "free will", I am talking about people's ability to maximize their potential, to maximize that which makes them human.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This does help visualise it, but in general terms. I still cannot apply this view to the descision making process, a process that necessarily takes place "in time".

You're right you can't apply it to our decision making process because it is about God and how God experiences those activities which occur within space/time.

I understand metaphors about god, arguments about god, descriptions of god, but I still cannot understand what the word "god" actually refers to in reality. As far as I understand, it refers to this collection of metaphors/arguments/descriptions/experiences.

Those things just do not come to a coherent understanding of "god" for me. Understanding god is supposedly not possible by definition, so maybe my desire to create an understanding out of those things is not applicable.

The word god doesn't refer to a collection of metaphors/arguments etc, god is a divine being and creator of all, the metaphors etc just point our attention and knowledge toward God.

Looks like you are right, we are talking about different kinds of "free will".

I do not want to discount our abilities to make decisions based on our environment. It is an important and a fascinating topic. However, it is also a basic function of a brain. All animals with brains have this capacity, to a degree. Cats make decisions, dogs make decisions. Decision making alone is not what makes us special. In my view, we are special because of what kinds of decisions we can make. Building societies, learning about the world, trying to make it a better place.

Therefore, when i talk about "free will", I am talking about people's ability to maximize their potential, to maximize that which makes them human.

I never said that free will is what makes us special, instead we were talking about the reality of free will as a characteristic of humanity given by God which explains that people are responsible for the evil they bring into the world and not God part of which you chalked up to God being capricious and mean.

[alexey]

You're right you can't apply it to our decision making process because it is about God and how God experiences those activities which occur within space/time.

Sounds good. I kind of see how you make sense of it. I cannot say this works for me, though... I cannot say that a thing has free will if I created it and I know exactly what that it will do, but then again I'm confined to present and I'm not god.

The word god doesn't refer to a collection of metaphors/arguments etc, god is a divine being and creator of all, the metaphors etc just point our attention and knowledge toward God.

I'm having a hard time making that jump from a collection of concepts to an actual being. I see it as just another property in the collection - omnipotent, omnipresent, creator, actual being, etc. These just do not mesh into a coherent concept for me, but I suppose it is not expected to mesh without faith.

I never said that free will is what makes us special, instead we were talking about the reality of free will as a characteristic of humanity given by God which explains that people are responsible for the evil they bring into the world and not God part of which you chalked up to God being capricious and mean.

I find it hard to exempt an all-knowing omnipotent creator god from responsibility about what happens within his creation.

I am a non-believer and I only see natural forces in this world. They are not sentient, and so they just are. There is no responsibility to be claimed for millions and millions of years of evolution, full of untold horrors of increasingly conscious animals eating each other and fighting with each other. If you introduce an omnipotent creator, suddenly all this suffering was not just there, it was actually created by something on purpose.

[PeterMP]

I find it hard to exempt an all-knowing omnipotent creator god from responsibility about what happens within his creation.

 

This is an argument that if you willingly have kids and they cause other people suffering (which realistically is unavoidable if your kids live very long) that you are responsible.

 

And then the rest of the argument flows from there- you had the kid, you had the power, knowing that they were going to have free will in time, and then cause suffering.

 

Your teenage child breaks cheats on a girl/boy friend and breaks somebody else's heart, and you are responsible.  You shouldn't have created them.

 

While I guess you could argue that you weren't aware of that specific suffering, I think it isn't realistic to claim that you'd have kids and they'd never cause anybody to suffer.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Sounds good. I kind of see how you make sense of it. I cannot say this works for me, though... I cannot say that a thing has free will if I created it and I know exactly what that it will do, but then again I'm confined to present and I'm not god.

That's fine, but this is where Christianity is coming from in the way it understands God,

I'm having a hard time making that jump from a collection of concepts to an actual being. I see it as just another property in the collection - omnipotent, omnipresent, creator, actual being, etc. These just do not mesh into a coherent concept for me, but I suppose it is not expected to mesh without faith.

Pretend for a moment you're born blind and someone is trying to describe what fireworks look like, this is a lot of what's going on here only we're all blind and we are trying to explain what we cannot see. So we explain it based on our personal experience, reason, our tradition, and from a source that has proven trustworthy that contains descriptions that seem to fit well the phenomenon of God.

I find it hard to exempt an all-knowing omnipotent creator god from responsibility about what happens within his creation.I am a non-believer and I only see natural forces in this world. They are not sentient, and so they just are. There is no responsibility to be claimed for millions and millions of years of evolution, full of untold horrors of increasingly conscious animals eating each other and fighting with each other. If you introduce an omnipotent creator, suddenly all this suffering was not just there, it was actually created by something on purpose.

So because you build a house and raise a family you are then responsible for everything that happens within that house and family? This is the whole point with free will, God has either given it to us and WE are responsible for the horrors we create or god has denied us free will and god is responsible.

Although, I'd like to press you further here;

There is no responsibility to be claimed for millions and millions of years of evolution, full of untold horrors of increasingly conscious animals eating each other and fighting with each other.

Because it sounds as if you're saying that Hitler and Stalin and the atomic bomb are just the result of millions of years of evolution and are no different than a lion killing a gazelle, thus no responsibility they are just actions devoid of inherent value. Or did I miss read you?

[alexey]

Pretend for a moment you're born blind and someone is trying to describe what fireworks look like, this is a lot of what's going on here only we're all blind and we are trying to explain what we cannot see. So we explain it based on our personal experience, reason, our tradition, and from a source that has proven trustworthy that contains descriptions that seem to fit well the phenomenon of God.

Makes sense. I understand this way of putting it from a personal experience perspective. Obviously fireworks can also be explained as physical processes, but the personal experience of watching fireworks cannot be transmitted.

So because you build a house and raise a family you are then responsible for everything that happens within that house and family? This is the whole point with free will, God has either given it to us and WE are responsible for the horrors we create or god has denied us free will and god is responsible.

I try to make sure there is no starvation and murder in my house... but I get the freedom thing, you gonna let it play out if you're really into letting it play out.

Although, I'd like to press you further here;

Because it sounds as if you're saying that Hitler and Stalin and the atomic bomb are just the result of millions of years of evolution and are no different than a lion killing a gazelle, thus no responsibility they are just actions devoid of inherent value. Or did I miss read you?

The "free will" explanation of evil works for people, but I wanted to describe a place where pain and suffering still exist but freedom of choice does not. Evolutionary history if full of pain and suffering, but the thing we call "free will" does not emerge until much later.

From the big picture perspective, it seems that a god that does not get involved is very similar to a god that does not exist.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Makes sense. I understand this way of putting it from a personal experience perspective. Obviously fireworks can also be explained as physical processes, but the personal experience of watching fireworks cannot be transmitted.

Exactly, as Christians we are attempting to do the same thing using personal experience, reason, our traditions, and what we understand to be a trustworthy source in scripture that seems to account well for how we experience the world around us.
 

I try to make sure there is no starvation and murder in my house... but I get the freedom thing, you gonna let it play out if you're really into letting it play out.

Exactly, without the choice to do evil there can be no real free will.

The "free will" explanation of evil works for people, but I wanted to describe a place where pain and suffering still exist but freedom of choice does not. Evolutionary history if full of pain and suffering, but the thing we call "free will" does not emerge until much later.

True, humanity is a fairly recent blip on the grand historical radar, as for natural phenomenon that creates pain and suffering some call those things natural evils, but I don't like using the term evil there because we mostly reserve evil as something that is done with the force of will. Therefore if there is no actual will then for me there is no evil; i.e. rape is evil, a volcano eruption is not. Murder is evil, a lion killing a gazelle is not.

From the big picture perspective, it seems that a god that does not get involved is very similar to a god that does not exist.

Ahhh but the error is in thinking that because God allows free will then that means God is not involved. For instance, you allow free will in your home, and so your daughter points a loaded gun at a baby and is threatening to shoot that baby as she talks to you on the phone. Uninvolved means you don't do anything, involved means you try your best to influence her decision while trying to influence others near her to intervene.

[alexey]

...

True, humanity is a fairly recent blip on the grand historical radar, as for natural phenomenon that creates pain and suffering some call those things natural evils, but I don't like using the term evil there because we mostly reserve evil as something that is done with the force of will. Therefore if there is no actual will then for me there is no evil; i.e. rape is evil, a volcano eruption is not. Murder is evil, a lion killing a gazelle is not.

Exactly, and so it makes a difference whether this world came about with or without an act of will. If it was created by god with an act of will, then we can say god carries at least some responsibility for suffering that takes place in it.

 

Ahhh but the error is in thinking that because God allows free will then that means God is not involved. For instance, you allow free will in your home, and so your daughter points a loaded gun at a baby and is threatening to shoot that baby as she talks to you on the phone. Uninvolved means you don't do anything, involved means you try your best to influence her decision while trying to influence others near her to intervene.

So it looks like there is a range between being completely uninvolved (not trying to influence at all, same as not existent) and completely involved (in complete control, no freedom).

I see it as a gradual move from full freedom to no freedom. I do not see how you can figure out which things god can do without compromising our freedom. Also, isn't god undeniably true in revealing himself to some people, thus compromising their freedom to choose non-belief, while remaining hidden from people like me?

[The Sisko]

so for gods to exist there must be no suffering,disease or death?

 

No. However for the self-proclaimed merciful God of infinite love to exist I'd say it would be kept to a minimum. I'm an agnostic so I don't profess to really know whether God(s) exist or not, though I think there's very little, if any evidence he does. However IF God(s) do exist, and allows as much suffering to happen as does while having the power to prevent it, then he/they are a....well, out of respect I'll change what I usually say to "not a very nice guy".

 

What would you really think of me if I had the power to prevent your child from walking into the path of an oncoming car and I simply sat and watched it happen? It would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that I'm a callous, heartless putz. Hell, I'd think that of myself were I to do such a thing. God does it thousands of times a day across the globe and yet people give him a pass by saying it's all a "part of his plan" or "God knows best". Frankly, I'm underwhelmed by such a being's "mercy" and "love" so IF it turns out that God(s) do in fact exist, I'll gladly walk into his hell, flip him off and spit in his eye on the way in. I'd much prefer that to spending eternity with such a callous being.

 

I think Epicurus put it best...

 

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

 

 

So you think that contrary to all of the evidence that the world is moving away from Postmodern Relativism? Interesting, and here we've spent the last twenty years watching Modernity crumble under its own arrogant certainty.

So which do you prefer:

1) a god that commands all things and denies free will to humanity, and is thus not only culpable for natural evil, but is responsible for all evil because all things are under this god's direct command.

2) a God that sets people free and allows creation to operate on its own.

My guess is that you'd object to a god that denies you freedom, while at the same time you'd deny a god that grants freedom to you unless that god denied it to everyone you disagreed with or might act in ways you don't like.

BTW, you don't get to have it both ways.

God doesn't need to deny free will to be merciful in many instances. As an alleged omnipotent being, all he need do is say "be" and it's taken care of. In fact, I think the Bible says as much. So for example, he doesn't need to use you like a puppet to feed hungry people in Haiti. All he has to do is snap his finger (to anthropomorphise it) and *POOF* they're fed. Such a deed would almost certainly inspire faith in him. It would certainly convert me, both from my lack of belief and my reasonable conclusion as stated above that he/it isn't such a nice guy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Exactly, and so it makes a difference whether this world came about with or without an act of will. If it was created by god with an act of will, then we can say god carries at least some responsibility for suffering that takes place in it.

According to Christian teaching evil (which we understand as acting in a way that God does not want us to act) came about because of humanity. Is God responsible? Only insofar as God chose to give all of humanity free will. Does that make God culpable? Only as culpable as you would be if your daughter pulled the trigger.
 

So it looks like there is a range between being completely uninvolved (not trying to influence at all, same as not existent) and completely involved (in complete control, no freedom).

Sure, completely univolved is how Diesm describes the divine which is "first mover" meaning that the divine put everything into action then stepped away. Complete control is how Calvinists understand the divine in that they stress the utmost importance on God's sovereignty and as such if God is sovereign then nothing can happen outside of His divine will. Most Christian teaching exists somewhere between those two.
 

I see it as a gradual move from full freedom to no freedom. I do not see how you can figure out which things god can do without compromising our freedom.

Well, at what point in your influencing of your daughter does your influence compromise her freedom?

 

Also, isn't god undeniably true in revealing himself to some people, thus compromising their freedom to choose non-belief, while remaining hidden from people like me?

Give me an instance in Christian scripture of God undeniable revealing Himself to someone. As I understand it the only case would be Adam and Eve and most mainline Christian teaching understands that couple to be a figurative "first couple". So whose next? Abraham, surely he never saw anything that couldn't be argued away as something other than God, especially by today's scientific standards. Moses...the prophets? Which one of their experiences couldn't be explained away as hallucinations, coincidence, manipulation, or environmental phenomena? The closest we have would be Moses on the moutain top, and Elijah in the cave where God apparently passed by, but those could have been hallucinations right? I believe that God revealed Himself in such a way as they still needed faith to believe in what they were seeing/experiencing, but no person has "seen God", such a thing would be an impossibility. That said, has God revealed Himself to some more than others? Certainly. To the extent where they were no longer able to choose non-belief? No.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yusuf06

 

God doesn't need to deny free will to be merciful in many instances. As an alleged omnipotent being, all he need do is say "be" and it's taken care of. In fact, I think the Bible says as much. So for example, he doesn't need to use you like a puppet to feed hungry people in Haiti. All he has to do is snap his finger (to anthropomorphise it) and *POOF* they're fed. Such a deed would almost certainly inspire faith in him. It would certainly convert me, both from my lack of belief and my reasonable conclusion as stated above that he/it isn't such a nice guy.

So your conclusion is that God isn't a nice guy even though God created a world in which it is possible that no person would need to go hungry, gifted us with minds and skills to be able to ship food and resources around the globe, and so because we as a people have thwarted what God wants for the people of Haiti...i.e. to be fed it's God that isn't nice? So by your thinking, people can abuse their free will and hoard the world's resources and because they sin God should then step in and create miracles to fill the gaps made by human greed and gluttony? Again, the problem is not God....the problem is humanity.

[alexey]

According to Christian teaching evil (which we understand as acting in a way that God does not want us to act) came about because of humanity. Is God responsible? Only insofar as God chose to give all of humanity free will. Does that make God culpable? Only as culpable as you would be if your daughter pulled the trigger.

I can agree evil is caused by free will... What about suffering?

Well, at what point in your influencing of your daughter does your influence compromise her freedom?

I do not think I can answer this complex question in these terms. Freedom can mean so many different things. At one extreme, you could say that any influence compromises freedom. At the other extreme you could say that taking away her ability to carry out really bad choices actually gives her more freedom.

Give me an instance in Christian scripture of God undeniable revealing Himself to someone. As I understand it the only case would be Adam and Eve and most mainline Christian teaching understands that couple to be a figurative "first couple". So whose next? Abraham, surely he never saw anything that couldn't be argued away as something other than God, especially by today's scientific standards. Moses...the prophets? Which one of their experiences couldn't be explained away as hallucinations, coincidence, manipulation, or environmental phenomena? The closest we have would be Moses on the moutain top, and Elijah in the cave where God apparently passed by, but those could have been hallucinations right? I believe that God revealed Himself in such a way as they still needed faith to believe in what they were seeing/experiencing, but no person has "seen God", such a thing would be an impossibility. That said, has God revealed Himself to some more than others? Certainly. To the extent where they were no longer able to choose non-belief? No.

God did not reveal himself to me in any way. I do not see evidence for god. Belief cannot come without evidence, and so I am not free to choose faith.