Is God Hiding?
In the comments of last week’s post, Gene Callahan and I argued that some of the “unexpected” features of mathematics–such as the expansion of e, or how often pi pops up in nature–are surely evidence of the existence of an intelligent Creator of the universe and the structure of our minds.
In contrast, various agnostics (such as Daniel Kuehn) offered the (common) view that if a God did exist, He had withdrawn Himself from view. To that, I wrote:
In my view, the God of the Bible exists. He has given us a wealth of evidence in the natural world that He exists, and on top of that, He personally inspired a whole book about His nature. Then He became a human being and performed a bunch of miracles, such that people all over the world still daily attest to His existence and nature.
And [agnostics] are still saying, not merely that [they] reject this evidence, but that God has withdrawn Himself from our scrutiny.
In response to my comment, someone else came along and wrote:
I can’t speak for Daniel, but if there was an all-powerful god that wanted everyone to believe in it, that would be trivially easy to accomplish.
For starters, it could speak to everyone at the same time, saying, “I am god, I exist, and I am in your head”. Then, it could make the sun, the moon, and the stars dance around in the sky, turn day into night and back again repeatedly, faster and faster, while playing techno music.
Then, it could launch everyone into space and take them on a one-minute tour of the solar system, bring them back to earth, plunge them into a volcano, take them to the molten core, teach them Austrian economics, and put them back where they started unharmed.
Contrast the above with “the ‘unexpected’ appearance of pi in different spots” and mathematics applying to the material world.
1. Which strategy would an intelligent being be more likely to pursue: Magical Mystery Tour or Blues Clues?
2. Why would an all-powerful being that wanted humans to believe in it not make its existence more obvious?
3. What kind of god would try to convince people of its existence by inserting pi into places where humans would not expect it to be?
4. Why would this god that wants humans to believe in it limit the evidence for its existence to that which would only be appreciated through the intuition of uniquely perceptive mathematicians (or economists)?
I wanted to take this challenge head-on, because I think I would have laughed out loud at the above, back in my days as an atheist. In other words, I would have thought the guy who wrote the above, had really blown up the ridiculous arguments for the existence of God.
Naturally, I no longer think that. So let me walk through a few points in response:
* God does make the sun, moon, and stars dance around the sky. And He puts on an occasional laser light show that blows Disneyworld out of the water. But agnostics don’t appreciate that, because it’s “nature.”
* If the Christian Bible is true, then God did do all sorts of things besides the clues in nature, mathematics, etc. Specifically, He directly manifested Himself to plenty of people, He inspired a rather famous book to tell His side of things, and He actually came down in human form, told everyone who He was, and gave us instructions on how to live.
* Now what my critic above means, of course, is, “Why doesn’t God directly reveal Himself to me? Why am I supposed to do all this work, when (say) Moses saw a burning bush, or the apostles saw a resurrected Jesus?” Well, for one thing, I note that even if God did do all the stuff above–techno music, tour of the solar system, etc.–then at best there would be a lot of new theists for a few generations. But our great-grandkids would think we all had mass hallucinations, or that aliens had played a trick on us, etc. Eventually our stories of techno music and seeing the molten core of the earth would be dismissed as religious balderdash–modern science would have proven that people can’t survive a plunge into lava, duh.
* Finally, the question boils down to: Why doesn’t God directly appear personally to every single person who ever lives, so that there is absolutely no doubt about His existence? Well I’m not sure, exactly; that ranks up there with, “Why do bad things happen?” But I think maybe part of the answer is contained in my critic’s own joke: Why do we humans use Blue’s Clues when teaching our children? Once you answer that, then maybe it will make more sense that God uses a similar approach with His children.
“Why do we humans use Blue’s Clues when teaching our children?”
I can’t speak for others, but, if I had a child, I would try to be as clear as possible when explaining stuff to him.
Certainly. The expression “as clear as possible” indicates that there are limitations either to our ability to teach our (theoretical, in this case) children, or their ability to understand us and what we are trying to explain — usually both. Accepting for the sake of argument the existence of the Christian God — omnipotent, omniscient, etc. — the problem would be in the latter category as regards His teaching man, not the former.
So, is it not possible that just as parents choose less direct methods of teaching their children out of consideration for the children’s nature, God chooses less direct methods of teaching man out of consideration for man’s nature?
Before you wrote that, I was going to write the following:
“On the other hand, if we sometimes do play Blues Clues with our children, I am wondering why we do so. Could it be because we know we would not have answers to the ultimate “why” questions they would ask us? But God presumably does have those answers, so once again it seems he would have no reason not to be as clear as possible with us.”
As you see, it didn’t occur to me that we would not give a clear answer because _they_ would not be able to understand, as you suggest.
But that seems just wrong to me. If they don’t understand something, it is because we haven’t decomposed the explanation into steps that are small enough and easy enough for them to understand. So why couldn’t we do just do that?
We’re getting somewhat afield now, but children below a certain age simply cannot understand certain concepts or reason in certain ways. More abstract concepts in particular, such as time, are beyond them until a certain stage of development. I don’t know how much of that is because of biology and how much comes down to experience, though – i.e., part of it is probably that they simply haven’t developed the basic framework of data and tools necessary for complex thought yet. We all need practice reasoning and data to use as a starting point.
I understand what you mean. Like parents do not explain things clearly because (small) children are not capable of understanding, God does not reveal Himself clearly because we are not capable of understanding. The questions then becomes: why did He create us incapable of understanding?
Maurizio,
(The blog wouldn’t let me nest this comment underneath your most recent one.)
A fair question, and one to which I don’t have a ready answer. Our ability to understand things, or lack thereof, stems from our nature as free beings that exist temporally and have the basis of learning in the material component of our nature (through sense experience, which is then processed by the intellect). But that notion, even if correct, would only push the question back one step further.
If you had a child, I predict patricide.
Uh, thanks for the contribution?
When I question God’s existence I just go back to the 10 commandments. Short, sweet, to the point, no extra silly rules (eat meat on Fridays,where a hat, etc). I think these ten rules to lead a wonderful life seem truly divine. Runner up is the Lord’s prayer. I think it just that simple.
If you spend all your time trying to “clearly explain stuff” to your child, your child won’t learn too much in the long run. The lessons that stick with you are the ones you learn through investigation and experience. We use clues with our children to help them down that road.
Why is the god of the bible so evil in the old testament? If he is perfect, all-just, all-benevolent then why did he allow his supposedly chosen people to commit genocide and not at least scold them about it? I can’t be certain if there is a Creator, but I think that calling Him the same entity as the god of the Bible is insulting. I might believe in Christ as well, except for the fact that he refused to condemn the evils in the OT. I cannot believe in a God that would do such a thing, and if He exists, I do not want to worship Him. Not to be insulting, but I do not see how anyone does. Preach his love all you want, I’ve even heard people say Christ repudiated the OT, but he said no such thing in the only source anyone has about him. If “love thy neighbor and love thy God” was supposed to be the revision of Mosaic law, and he even denigrated all human punishments required by it (the stoning). Why would he not repudiate the myths written about God, and even the Hebrew people throughout the OT?
Though the common claim that the God portrayed in the Old Testament was cruel and violent appears true when only portions of Scripture are considered (usually those few passages chosen by supporters of the argument in question), when the whole of Scripture is considered, it becomes clear that there is no discrepancy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. The portrayals in both were of a God both just and merciful.
Here is an excellent and (fairly) brief essay — one of many written on the subject by scholars and apologists — which addresses some aspects of this issue very well: http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster
I highly recommend that you read it to see the other side of the question.
This particular argument against the God portrayed in the Old Testament works basically works by selecting one portion of the text and leaving out the rest of the relevant information. Think about it this way: if somebody told you that a group of people had seized someone and thrown him in a cage, to be held there for years, would this not appear exceedingly cruel? But then what if you found out that the person jailed had committed many vicious crimes – brutal rapes, sadistic murders, etc. – and that was why he was imprisoned? His incarceration wouldn’t seem so cruel anymore, would it? That’s exactly how the argument in question here works. (If you read the above-linked article, you’ll see what I mean.)
Really enjoying this series of posts. Lots of great debate. Keep it up!
“Finally, the question boils down to: Why doesn’t God directly appear personally to every single person who ever lives, so that there is absolutely no doubt about His existence?”
One explanation is that though God *could* manifest Himself directly and unmistakably to every person of every age, He has chosen a less direct route because the former would essentially override the free will with which He chose to endow man. Though it would achieve the objective of getting people to recognize His existence, it wouldn’t achieve the objective of getting people to love Him, at least not as fully as does the indirect route for those who choose to acknowledge it, since love is by nature a voluntary act. Were God to directly to reveal Himself to man, the knowledge of His nature would be so overwhelming that man would have no choice in the matter.
“He has chosen a less direct route because the former would essentially override the free will with which He chose to endow man. ”
I would question that, because you are using a definition of “free” which is not the libertarian/Rothbardian definition. According to this definition, freedom is the absence of invasion (or of threat of invasion). So, if God revealed to us explicitely, and we chose to love Him because of that, that would still be a _free_ choice on our part, because we would not be under threat of invasive acts.
So my question to you is what you mean by “free”.
I have no problem with that definition for our present purpose. The idea I had in mind was something like this: were God to allow us to know Him directly, the perfection of His being would be so powerful that we would have no choice but to desire eternity with Him (i.e., heaven) above all else. In Austrian terms, our subjective valuation would basically be hijacked. We would be incapable of wanting anything else. That seems more or less like coercion to me. No, there is no physical force or that of physical force involve, but I think the principle stands.
Say that someone discovered a picture that, when viewed, caused the viewer to be incapable of wanting or seeking anything but hot dogs. Would it not be coercive for someone, knowing the image’s power, to show it to someone else? That’s basically what I have in mind here, with God being the hot dog and the picture being clear and immediate knowledge of Him. Silly example I know, but I needed something simple to help clarify my position. I may also be hungry.
Thanks for the clarification.
Make sense?
You ask me if it makes sense. Well, I understand what you mean (if we saw God clearly we would not be capable of wanting anything different), but it seems to me that, when you add the fact that God created us this way, your point does not seem to make a lot of sense. I mean: first God creates us in such a way that we would have no choice other than love Him, should He reveal Himself clearly to us; then he refrains from revealing Himself clearly to us, because, if He did, we would have no choice other than loving Him. Don’t you feel there’s something wrong?
Why is it so important to you whether other people agree with you on this. I don’t want to challenge you, I’m just trying to understand what motivates you. Do you use these discussions to find truth for yourself or do you see yourself on some kind of mission to convince or save people.
I also happen to believe in god, but I never cared whether other people do as long as they let me do what I wanted to do. I never felt a need to argue with atheists. And I am curious to learn why other religious people do feel such a need.
If I had a child I would be crystal clear about the existence of his father.
You avoided the argument Anon made. There are amaizing things in the world non of them directly refer to the existence of god.
(Not that I think this is a main argument for atheism)
Two other things I had written, if I recall:
1. Why is seeing math in nature so amazing and unexpected? We derive our basic mathematical axioms from how we experience nature so wouldn’t we expect to see derivations of those aximos flourishing in nature? It’s beautiful perhaps, but I don’t see why this is cited as evidence for God. I would have thought it would be more unexpected if we didn’t see math in nature.
2. Why aren’t you a Muslim? They have a book that was inspired that has miracles in it. They attribute the motions of the sun and the moon and the aurora borealis to Allah. Nothing you write here really gives any reason for someone to be a Christian as opposed to a pagan, a Muslim, a Mormon, etc. Muslims and Mormons had their revealations and miracles more recently. What test has the Bible passed that the Koran has failed? In other words – you agree with the agnostic and atheist logic against the case you have made for Christianity in this blog post when Islam or Mormonism make the same claims for themselves. We have explained (and I think fairly reasonably) why math and the sun and the aurora borealis don’t lead to any religion for us. In the words of Laplace, that hypothesis is not necessary. What I’m still extremely unclear on is how these things lead you to Christianity and not some other religion.
“Why aren’t you a Muslim?”
Good question. And, for that matter, why do you choose some parts of the Bible, while conveniently ignoring the less palatable portions of the Christian Bible?
True, although I think it’s fair enough to allow for a cultural context for a text. Even if it was inspired it’s reasonable to think that an inspiring God would have allowed for a cultural context. That doesn’t mean we can’t still be uneasy about a few parts or remark on the acrobatics necessary to consider it a consistent revelation. But I wouldn’t press that point personally. The claim is that it’s a revelation spread out over a couple thousand years, and then re-translated over several thousand more. That will take its toll on the fidelity of the message.
“Why is seeing math in nature so amazing and unexpected? We derive our basic mathematical axioms from how we experience nature so wouldn’t we expect to see derivations of those aximos flourishing in nature? It’s beautiful perhaps, but I don’t see why this is cited as evidence for God. I would have thought it would be more unexpected if we didn’t see math in nature.”
That’s a really good point. Allow me to rephrase: if it is true that evolution created our brains, and the logical and mathematical rules that are innate in our brains, it should not be a suprise that those rules reflect the rules that actually hold in the real world; the reason is simply that those brains whose logical rules did not reflect those of the real world have not been able to survive enough to reproduce.
In other words: a possibility is that evolution randomly created a lot of different brains with different mathematics, but only those with the correct mathematics survived. (or at least those whose with the better math)
And I don’t think anyone argues that our brains are pre-programmed with math. What they can do is understand concepts like distance in the section of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can observe. You take the awareness of distance and a few more other simple observations and with a little abstract thought you have the axioms from which you can build mathematics. Evolution gave us brains to process what we observe and to think abstractly because that was evolutionarily fit.
A truly surprising thing that would make you second guess evolution and consider another author of creation would be if you didn’t see math hold consistently throughout the universe.
“In other words – you agree with the agnostic and atheist logic against the case you have made for Christianity in this blog post when Islam or Mormonism make the same claims for themselves.”
Oh, come on, this is nonsense. If a whole bunch of people describe an elephant slightly differently, you are going to take this as evidence that there is no elephant?!
Well, if you claim that there is one God that all the religions are describing, I agree with you that that is considerably more plausible.
But my understanding has been that Bob has been embracing “the God of the Bible”, and citing his Christianity at several points now.
If he said “I follow a Christian tradition but I think all religions are essentially describing the same phenomenon”, I would still say there’s no reason to think there’s any God, but that his position is starting to make considerably more sense.
But he doesn’t say that. It’s the special claims about the God of the Bible that introduce the complications, not me. If he’s going to assert the special claim I have a right to be curious about why he rejects other faiths that could make the same claim (revealed scripture, past miracles, a God that gives us the sun and the aurora borealis and math, etc.).
And it might be easy for a Christian to say “close, but no cigar” to Islam, but I don’t think this ecumenism can be as easily extended to paganism, Hinduism, etc. that can also stake a claim to revelation and a pantheon that orders the natural world.
Do you know that Hinduism is, at its high levels, essentially monotheistic? The more philosophically minded of the sages generally viewed the multitude of gods as expressions of Brahman. And the Greek pagan tradition ultimately led to the monotheism of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
True, although it’s really the “people of the book” element that makes Islamic ecumenism plausible for Christians – that’s what makes some Christians willing to say Allah is the same as Yahweh, and that the Muslims just got some stuff wrong. It’s not the monotheism – it’s the Abrahamic tradition – that makes this limited universalism possible. I don’t think Bob is even talking about that universalism, much less a more general universalism (although I could be wrong).
To be fair, my definition of “slightly” might be slightly different from your’s. ;o)
Not to butt into Kuehn’s argument here, but if one person describes the elephant as pink with purple and yellow spots, while another describes it as green with glowing red eyes and a vengeful nature, while a third still describes it as white with Pegasus wings and a unicorn’s horn and loves everyone, I might suspect the elephant is a figment of their imaginations.
God is a wildly different character depending on which book you read and in at least one case (Old vs New Testament) wildly different a book.
That should have read: “wildly different within a book.”
By all means butt in, I think you’ve put the point quite clearly!
I’m all for dealing with vagueish universalists. Kind of like deists I suppose. That’s one thing. That’s sort of a romanticist version of the agnostic’s comfort with an ordered universe. But I don’t think that’s the argument that Bob is putting forward.
But Michael, the actual situation is a problem for atheists, not for theists: yes, at the vulgar level, we find all sorts of weird traditions, tales, legends, etc. But the more sophisticated, intelligent, and sensitive the religious practitioner, the more we see their descriptions of the divine converging. Now, I am hardly the first to point this out: this observation is the basis of the idea of “the perennial philosophy.”
In any case, the Hindu sages would get a good chuckle out of your complaint that “God is a wildly different character” as He appears to different people at different times and places: “So,” they would ask you, “you think the infinite, un-tameable energy that creates the universe should settle down and behave like your house cat, so that you can get a good handle on it?”
It also converges on a version of God that becomes less disconcerting for atheists and more disconcerting for, say, traditional Christians.
This sort of universal convergence is more of a romanticized, spiritualized agnosticism than anything else – an acknowldegement that we can’t know him or attribute any of these crazy stories to him but that the universe sure is wondrous and perhaps even worth personifying at times.
That sort of convergence, I think, is not friendly to traditional religion and it’s certainly not threatening to most agnostics (there are some, of course, who would revolt against it more than others – but for every atheist like Christopher Hitchens that would get his panties in a twist over this sort of universalism, you can find ten Christians that would).
I’m not sure what you mean that this a problem for atheists (or agnostics, in my case).
There are many objections that can be made to perennial philosophy. That separate, rational minds can come to the similar (at a very high level) conclusions is not uncommon. Steel, for instance, was discovered twice at virtually the same time by two different individuals. In same way, rational minds can come to similar conclusions about what constitutes fair play independent of one another. That this coincidence exists is hardly evidence of divine intervention.
The Hindu sage may chuckle all he likes. If he askes me to accept a God that is both vengeful and loving, jealous and forgiving, and any set of his other contradictory characteristics, he must also accept that ice must be both freezing and molten. No rational mind can accept two mutually exclusive propositions at true.
The case for God rests, as it always has, and always will, with the theist.
“The Hindu sage may chuckle all he likes. If he askes me to accept a God that is both vengeful and loving, jealous and forgiving, and any set of his other contradictory characteristics, he must also accept that ice must be both freezing and molten.”
Wow, Michael, and he might even have to accept that sometimes the same person can be at one moment vengeful and at another loving, at one jealous and another forgiving, and one moment honest and at another lie… Aaaaargh! No rational mind could ever deal with such a bizarre conundrum.
Gene, snark is unbecoming, and you aren’t very good at it. If you’re going to contribute, please do so professionally.
Plato fairly well demonstrated, in Republic I believe, that a god must be perfect or else be something other than a god. It is, in fact, in many of their religious texts that God is perfect and unchanging. A rational mind can surely apply these conflicting emotions to any imperfect individual, especially if they’re considering a time series, but when you consider a being that must be perfect, such radical change begins to conflict with His supposed nature. How can a perfect being change? How can a perfect being improve His own knowledge? These are questions that many theists, Christians especially in my experience, have difficulty answering.
If a Hindu, or Christian or Muslim, is okay with worshiping a divine being that on the one hand advocates forgiveness and on the other murdering the first born children of Egypt (remember His quarrel was with pharaoh, not Egypt’s children), or the murder of non believers and women who don’t keep their heads fully covered, the thing the worship is not a god but a devil.
That’s not really snark, Michael – that’s essentially what I was thinking too. I would think God would be LESS real if he only had one disposition. Wouldn’t it be weird to come across a person like that?
Daniel, God isn’t a person. He’s a timeless, unchanging, omnipotent being. This isn’t my proposition–it’s the theist’s.
I’m not suggesting that God have only one disposition. I’m saying that his behavior should be consistent across the New and Old Testaments–it isn’t.
How can the same God who advocates love, peace and forgiveness in the New Testament be the same one that murdered innocent Egyptian children in the Old?
I don’t know Michael, I don’t think it’s quite fair to chain them to a monotone God. They dig enough holes for themselves by inventing attributes as it is. I don’t recall them ever suggesting that he can’t act in different ways under different circumstances and stages in the unfolding of history.
Omnipotent, omnisicient, the uncaused cause, etc. are plenty to work with. This personality point strikes me as a little gratuitous.
Daniel, it’s a minor point. I’ve only been discussing it because I’ve been responded tp–it’s only polite.
I’m not so much concerned with his personality as I am with supposed actions–that’s why I keep citing the passover.
The goal, or at least my goal, is to demonstrate to the theist the inconsistency in their narrative; to demonstrate that is, in fact, only a narrative.
These are the kinds of discussions that led to competing books, messianic figures, and control nexi declaring their superior knowledge of god.
What makes you think god cares if you believe or not? If it’s one of the above reasons, then I believe a good part of your life is a wasteland.
[I]f there was an all-powerful god that wanted everyone to believe in it, that would be trivially easy to accomplish. For starters, it could speak to everyone at the same time, saying, “I am god, I exist, and I am in your head”. Then, it could make the sun, the moon, and the stars dance around in the sky, turn day into night and back again repeatedly, faster and faster, while playing techno music.
I take it he’s never heard of the Miracle of the Sun.
What’s your take on this miracle, Blackadder? What do you think it was?
Daniel,
I believe that what happened at Fatima was actually miraculous (I am a Catholic).
The last part of that link is pretty amazing. I expected to find at least one skeptic with a plausible explanation but found nothing that was in the least bit convincing.
“In addition to the Miracle of the Sun, the seers at Fatima indicated that the lady prophesied a great sign in the night sky which would precede a second great war.[39][40] On January 25, 1938, bright lights, an aurora borealis, appeared all over the northern hemisphere, including in places as far south as north Africa, Bermuda and California.[41][42] It was the widest occurrence of the aurora since 1709[43] and people in Paris and elsewhere believed a great fire was burning and fire departments were called.[44] Lucia, the sole surviving seer at the time, indicated that it was the sign fortold and so apprised her superior and the bishop in letters the following day.[45][46] Just over a month later, Hitler seized Austria and eight months later invaded Czechoslovakia; these too have been interpeted as fulfillments of the prophecies.[47][48]”
“Finally, the question boils down to: Why doesn’t God directly appear personally to every single person who ever lives, so that there is absolutely no doubt about His existence?”
The only logical answer (I can think of) is that this theoretical god does NOT want every human to have the evidence that would allow them to make an informed judgment about its existence. That comports well with the god described in the Christian bible that praised blind faith and scorned reasoned skepticism.
But…
1. When one of the primary sources of the world’s ills is flawed thinking, why would a benevolent being condemn rationality and the evidentiary standards it implies?
And…
2. When one of the primary sources of the world’s ills is ignorance, why would a benevolent being perpetuate ignorance by failing to reveal the true nature of the reality humans inhabit?
3. What kind of god would RIDICULE evidence-based reasoning, but then PROVIDE evidence for its existence, but provide it in a form that would ensure it remained CONCEALED from the vast majority of humanity?
“Why do we humans use Blue’s Clues when teaching our children?”
This appears to be a rhetorical question, but I’d like to know your answer, as it will provide a deeper insight into your views.
Why doesn’t God directly appear personally to every single person who ever lives, so that there is absolutely no doubt about His existence?
One possibility would be that God doesn’t fully reveal His presence to us because we can’t take it. The Bible, for example, says repeatedly that no one can see the face of God and live. It also says that God is like a consuming fire. If you stand too close to a fire the heat will become overwhelming. Given human sinfulness, the fact that God does not reveal Himself directly but rather tries to bring us around gradually might just be an example of Him being merciful.
If I went up a mountain, came down and approached you with a story and a stone tablet that said “Blackadder must provide me with the means to acquire an Aston Martin convertible” you would, I’m guessing, tell me to go play in the freeway. Why would you assume that Moses, engaging in the equivalent behavior, was being truthful and worthy of your respect? Why wouldn’t you have the same reaction? Is it the passage of time or that millions of people believe it to be true? Both?
It is interesting to note that God always appears (through the means of burning bush or angel) to a prophet – or Mary and Joseph, for that matter – individually. God never appears before a group with revelation. This is very convenient for those claiming the mantle of divine direction.
The idea that we accept as “Gospel” a pre-literate, oral tradition which is historically inaccurate (the Exodus, Noah, Samson, Jonah, etc.) should give one pause as to its authenticity, relevance and power to command. Having said that – there are obviously good life lessons in the Bible – but the same could be said of the Odyssey and other heroic poetry or books of antiquarian wisdom (see Alistair MacIntyre – After Virtue – for instance).
If I went up a mountain, came down and approached you with a story and a stone tablet that said “Blackadder must provide me with the means to acquire an Aston Martin convertible” you would, I’m guessing, tell me to go play in the freeway.
Why would you assume that Moses, engaging in the equivalent behavior, was being truthful and worthy of your respect?
I wouldn’t.
It is interesting to note that God always appears (through the means of burning bush or angel) to a prophet – or Mary and Joseph, for that matter – individually. God never appears before a group with revelation.
That would be interesting, if it were true. But it’s not. I cited the Miracle of the Sun earlier, and since it fits here as well I might as well do so again, but it’s hardly the only case.
You can send me the money for the Aston Martin in care of a Nigerian prince. Do you or do you not believe that Moses was telling the truth? If so, then you must believe me when I tell you that you need to give me an Aston Martin.
If this were indeed a miracle that occurred in 1917 why is it that this is the first time I – and I assume many others here – have ever heard of it? I don’t buy the Catholic invention of miracles in quest of canonization or anything else. The church needs to “look” for the miracles of Mother Theresa and John Paul II? Shouldn’t they be widely known by now – kind of like the “miracle” of the sun you seem to find authoritative? As Hume so rightly pointed out are you going to believe in supernatural causation or perhaps that the “miracle’s” cause was something about which you are incorrect or mistaken. In other words, is it easier to believe that the natural order has been suspended or that you are wrong? I think the answer must always be that you are wrong absent some massive proof to the contrary. The “miracle” of the sun doesn’t qualify as that proof.
BTW – loved the Blackadder show – brilliant.
Do you or do you not believe that Moses was telling the truth? If so, then you must believe me when I tell you that you need to give me an Aston Martin.
Let’s review the Biblical story. Moses shows up in Egypt and tells Pharaoh to release his Jewish slaves. He turns the Nile river to blood, makes hail, locusts, frogs, fall on the city, etc. When Pharaoh does allow them to leave, he parts the Red Sea so the Jews can pass, then closes it again on the pursuing Egyptian army. Only after all this does he go up on the Mountain and when he comes back down the commandments he don’t say “Give Moses all your money,” but rather “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
If you want, you can say that the entire story never happened. But let’s not pretend that this is somehow equivalent to you saying that God wants me to buy you a car.
If this were indeed a miracle that occurred in 1917 why is it that this is the first time I – and I assume many others here – have ever heard of it?
I don’t mean to be rude, but the fact that you haven’t heard about something before doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen or that it wasn’t important.
In any event, the reason I mentioned the Miracle of the Sun is that, if you’ll recall, you said that claimed instances of divine revelation was always made to lone individuals. The Fatima case shows that that’s not true.
The church needs to “look” for the miracles of Mother Theresa and John Paul II? Shouldn’t they be widely known by now
I don’t want to get off on a tangent, but I think you misunderstand the process of canonization. The miracles that serve as verification for sainthood don’t occur until after the person’s death, so obviously it would make no sense to look for them before then.
As Hume so rightly pointed out are you going to believe in supernatural causation or perhaps that the “miracle’s” cause was something about which you are incorrect or mistaken.
As Chesterton points out, a religious person is free to accept or reject the claim that a given event is miraculous based on the evidence. An atheist, on the other hand, *must* deny that the event was miraculous, regardless of the evidence.
“Let’s review the Biblical story. Moses shows up in Egypt and tells Pharaoh to release his Jewish slaves. He turns the Nile river to blood, makes hail, locusts, frogs, fall on the city, etc. When Pharaoh does allow them to leave, he parts the Red Sea so the Jews can pass, then closes it again on the pursuing Egyptian army. Only after all this does he go up on the Mountain and when he comes back down the commandments he don’t say “Give Moses all your money,” but rather “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
I say that none of that happened. The point was that he received the revelation alone. How are we to know that a) it took place and b) that it is accurate. Leaving aside the question of whether or not murder was immoral prior to the alleged revelation.
“In any event, the reason I mentioned the Miracle of the Sun is that, if you’ll recall, you said that claimed instances of divine revelation was always made to lone individuals. The Fatima case shows that that’s not true.”
I don’t mean to be rude either but apparently you don’t understand the distinction between a “miracle” and “revelation.” The sun miracle, as you claim, may have been just that – a miracle. It reveals nothing to us. Did the sun miracle instruct us how to live or inform us of God’s wishes? That is what revelation is for – is it not?
“I don’t want to get off on a tangent, but I think you misunderstand the process of canonization. The miracles that serve as verification for sainthood don’t occur until after the person’s death, so obviously it would make no sense to look for them before then.”
You cannot be this dense. The whole point of the “miracles” is that their very status as miraculous events decries their need to be sought out. If John Paul II was responsible for the “sun miracle” we wouldn’t need to investigate and dig up his “miracles” right? The whole Catholic thing about sainthood is facially ridiculous but, like you, I don’t want to get off tangent.
“As Chesterton points out, a religious person is free to accept or reject the claim that a given event is miraculous based on the evidence. An atheist, on the other hand, *must* deny that the event was miraculous, regardless of the evidence.”
Huh? The religious are free to accept or reject the claim – how nice for them. The unexplained can then be of two varieties – natural order or miracle. If you can explain the appearance of the Madonna on a waffle it is natural order, if you can’t, “it’s a miracle” – said in hushed tones. Give me a break. It’s ironic that so little evidence exists for miracles and yet the atheist is supposed to be put in the position of denying the evidence. What evidence? Where is the proof that –
“Moses shows up in Egypt and tells Pharaoh to release his Jewish slaves. He turns the Nile river to blood, makes hail, locusts, frogs, fall on the city, etc. When Pharaoh does allow them to leave, he parts the Red Sea so the Jews can pass, then closes it again on the pursuing Egyptian army.”
There is none because it didn’t happen.
The point was that he received the revelation alone.
Suppose that the purported revelation was made to a group of people (as in the case of Fatima) rather than just Moses. Would that make a difference to you? If not, then what is the point?
I don’t mean to be rude either but apparently you don’t understand the distinction between a “miracle” and “revelation.” The sun miracle, as you claim, may have been just that – a miracle. It reveals nothing to us.
The typical purpose of a miracle is to validate the authority of a given person’s claims about the divine. Someone claims to have received a revelation from God, and to show that he isn’t just a crank he performs miracles (which he would not be able to do if he was just a crank).
You cannot be this dense. The whole point of the “miracles” is that their very status as miraculous events decries their need to be sought out.
Apparently I am that dense, because I have no idea what you are talking about.
The typical miracle involved in canonization is a miraculous cure, where a person has some illness or disease, prays for intercession to a particular person, and then is cured.
Suppose this were to actually happen. A woman in Ohio has terminal cancer. All treatments have failed. She prays to John Paul II, and immediately feels restored; when she goes to the doctor the cancer is just gone. Is it your view that the Vatican is supposed to just know all this somehow?
Give me a break. It’s ironic that so little evidence exists for miracles and yet the atheist is supposed to be put in the position of denying the evidence. What evidence?
Take the Miracle of the Sun example. Tens of thousands of people saw it happen, including neutral reporters, atheists, agnostics, etc. It didn’t happen some distant past where you can say the whole incident was made up. There is, so far as I know, no halfway plausible natural explanation for what occurred. If you can dismiss all this out of hand (because you’ve never even heard of the incident before), then it really isn’t an issue of evidence.
You cannot be this dense. The whole point of the “miracles” is that their very status as miraculous events decries their need to be sought out.
“Apparently I am that dense, because I have no idea what you are talking about.
The typical miracle involved in canonization is a miraculous cure, where a person has some illness or disease, prays for intercession to a particular person, and then is cured.”
Agreed – you are that dense. Contemporaneous certification of John Paul’s healing power would be needed as well as his volition within the miracle context. After all, I could pray to Mr. Potato Head and be “cured” – did Mr. Potato Head cause the miracle? Likewise, merely praying to JP without his intervention does not constitute a miracle by your own definition which is a positive action to show that the person claiming revelatory power is not a crank. If JP claims a revelation but “performs” a miracle by satellite – which is something Jesus never did – meaning that he is not physically there to lay hands, etc. – then he is not participating in the miracle.
I am highly dubious of, in particular, these Catholic miracles. There was an instance like this in Lubbock, Texas not dissimilar from the Fatima “miracle” which the Church denied. Apparently, there is some schema that the Church uses to judge the worthiness of said miracles which I am not able to fathom. In the Lubbock case the Church denied the miracle because it was “ongoing” and not finite in time – therefore it was capable of being disproven. I have a guess that the miracles the Church agrees to are those which are limited in time and scope and for which no documentary evidence exists – your supposed Fatima example notwithstanding.
I am continually bombarded with “miraculous healing” stories of the kind you mention with the woman in Ohio example – anyone who has spent 15 seconds in a church will have heard them. The fact that there is an unexplained healing is not proof of miracle – it is an example of unexplained healing or misdiagnosis which goes to my point about religious people having the epistemological best of both worlds. If it can be explained it has a natural cause, if it can’t it is a miracle. What sophisticated analysis.
“The only logical answer (I can think of)…”
Well, that’s that then. No sense actually investigating and seeing what the many brilliant thinkers who have addressed this over the ages thought. No, your puerile musings arrived at after 10 seconds of contemplating an Internet post are surely the final word on the matter.
I’m interested in what the many brilliant thinkers thought. Perhaps you could summarize their views for us (or at least provide a link).
Yes, anon, two thousand years of tradition can be absorbed by following a link.
Or, if you wanted, you could start by reading Augustine and Aquinas. But I know you’re not about to do that, and so do you. You’re not a serious person — you want a set of quick soundbite views you can spout at a bar, and you want me to feed you soundbites so you can devise soundbite responses.
Seriously, Gene, relax. Be courteous. There’s no justification for rudeness like this in civilized discourse, but *especially* if your objective is to convince somebody you’re right about something, then being insulting is the wrong approach.
I’m not particularly impressed by your personal attacks. Why not try presenting an actual argument?
Here’s mine:
This theoretical god we are discussing does NOT want every human to have the evidence that would allow them to make an informed judgment about its existence. If it did want every human to be able to make an informed judgment, it would provide the necessary evidence.
Perhaps you can point out a flaw in my reasoning…
“Finally, the question boils down to: Why doesn’t God directly appear personally to every single person who ever lives, so that there is absolutely no doubt about His existence?”
Perhaps He wants faith only if it results from the pursuit of virtue and wisdom. Perhaps He wants it to be a test, to be difficult. Perhaps He doesn’t care about popularity.
If you ask him to reveal himself to you, I’m sure he would oblige.
… but not if you challenge him to, as a way of proving himself to the skeptical.
Disclosure: I’m a practicing Catholic… or at least a bad Catholic.
It may be possible to refute Kuehn’s (very interesting!) argument with some concepts from praxeology. [I can already imagine a future Krugman post “I heard that these guys try to deduce libertarian ethics, the nature of God, and (most bizarre of all) free market principles from human action. And it’s true!”]
Many Christians believe that one of God’s ends is to give humans free will (which I like to think of as the capability for human action). There may be certain constraints (constitutive means) that God must use to achieve this goal. Many writers (Hoppe, Long, Mises) have argued that human action would not be possible in a world that did not have some notion of causality. Actions need not have deterministic, error-free effects, but the actor must have *some* expectation that his act will bring about a perceived better state.
So we have:
– God prefers a state of affairs in which humans act over a state of affairs in which they don’t act
– Humans (by the way they were designed) need causality to act
– For God to achieve His end of human free will, He must preserve (at least some of) the functional relationships that exist in the universe
– The Solar System tour would be too big of a violation of these functional relationships (although turning a few casks of water into wine may not be too big)
The point is that any “surprise” from God would disrupt the functional relationships that people need to act, and therefore, He may want to use these sparingly. Also, suppose that God tried to work around this. Rather than interrupt us at some random time, suppose he picked us up for the annual Solar System tour on April 1st of each year. An athiest would still be justified if he objected:
“No you idiots, this is not some tour arranged by God. It should be studied as an application of the “periodic tour relationship” that Tycho Brahe (or whoever) documented in the 1500s and Newton described in elliptic-orbits-with-periodic-tours equations.”
“you either got faith, or you got unbelief,
and there ain’t no neutral ground…”
Glad you have some. Good luck with that.
I don’t.
This is a bit off topic, but not too much. Dr. Murphy, you mentioned at the end of your post that “Why do bad things happen?” is one of the great theological mysteries.
I do not believe I have a complete answer to that question, but I do have an idea that may send us in the right direction. The other day, I got into a bike accident and got some pretty nasty scrapes on my knee and on my back. Obviously it could have been a lot worse, but clearly it falls under the category of “bad.” Almost immediately after I got up and started assessing the damage, some hikers in the area came to check on me and offered help (I politely refused, seeing that I was still able to ride to my building). Later on, when I returned to my building, my friends and fellow residents showed great kindness and helped me treat the wounds. One person even gave me some medical supplies for later. Almost everyone I ran into asked how I was doing and wished for me to get well soon.
My point is that in the absence of this (relatively mild) suffering, I never would have seen such compassion and kindness from my friends or even from strangers. Perhaps God allows us to suffer so that we humans may learn the virtues of compassion, kindness, and perhaps even love for one another.
“Why doesn’t God directly appear personally to every single person who ever lives, so that there is absolutely no doubt about His existence? Well I’m not sure”
I do not think the Christian God makes sense if he is unveiled to the world via some universally observable method, for instance via a repeatable scientific experiment or universal public revelation.
If he was: what would be the point? As it stands we have, according to Christians, free will and the ability to choose to find God. That, as far as I can tell, is the Christian purpose of life.
If finding him was too easy then there would be no doubt and hence no free choice. So, why even bother with this earth bit, why not just skip to assigning us to saved or not saved or whatever other conclusion.
The claim is that He has provided enough light that the honest seeker has or will find him. Matthew 7:7 seems relevant.
Obviously people may complain that it is too difficult to find him, but there are about 2 billion Christians and another billion or so Muslims (who believe in the God of Abraham). Do not forget all the believers from the past nor the future.
Besides, when did God claim it was easy? Matthew 7:13.
I’m putting this down here because I’m afraid it will get lost above. DK wrote:
And I don’t think anyone argues that our brains are pre-programmed with math. What they can do is understand concepts like distance in the section of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can observe. You take the awareness of distance and a few more other simple observations and with a little abstract thought you have the axioms from which you can build mathematics. Evolution gave us brains to process what we observe and to think abstractly because that was evolutionarily fit.
A truly surprising thing that would make you second guess evolution and consider another author of creation would be if you didn’t see math hold consistently throughout the universe.
As usual Daniel, this is why it’s so fun/exasperating to debate you. Gene and I mention things that are very particular–like the even integers appearing methodically in the decimal expansion of e–and you are making it sound like all we’ve pointed out is that cubes make a sturdy thing to sit on.
You’re telling me that if e did NOT have that property in its decimal expansion, that Christopher Hitchens would be at a loss?
Also, I must object to your final sentence, where you extrapolate from what evolution leads us to “expect,” as if your views on this were falsifiable. For example, suppose our brains and sensory organs had evolved such that people in the desert thought they saw water, when in fact it turned out to be nothing but an illusion. Would you then believe in a God?
Of course not, that would in fact be further evidence to you that evolution explains things. In fact, you would say, “If God designed our bodies, why do we see optical illusions, mirages, etc.?”
So that’s what I mean about evolutionary “predictions” being non-falsifiable: when something works, it’s proof that evolution did it. When something doesn’t work, it’s proof that God didn’t do it. No matter what, evolution did it, and we walk away thinking we just learned something from empirical observation.
re: “You’re telling me that if e did NOT have that property in its decimal expansion, that Christopher Hitchens would be at a loss?”
Well this is a funny way to put it, Bob – no one instance proves anything, and the loss of one instance of seeing neat math in the universe likewise doesn’t prove anything. But if you take all of it together – would you expect an evolved universe to be based on a lot of math or a created universe to be based on a lot of math. Both could be, but I would think an evolved universe could not be random and not pervaded with math (whereas a created universe has that option). That’s all I’m saying. Math pervading the universe doesn’t strike me as proof of anything. I know it gives you and Gene goosebumps or something, but you still haven’t explained why one would not expect to see that in an evolved universe.
I don’t get your mirage point at all. Our senses aren’t perfect. Before we attribute anything to anything I think it’s worth being aware of that, right?
I’m not saying the math in the universe proves anything. I’m just saying it’s not surprising at all if we were evolved, and I’m surprised you all are latching on to it. You’ve approached these posts as if it’s obvious that the God of the Bible could be “proved”. I’m highly suspicious of those claims (1.) because we’d see a lot more Christians if that were true, and (2.) because the Bible itself suggests that he can’t be “proven”.
re: “When something doesn’t work, it’s proof that God didn’t do it. No matter what, evolution did it, and we walk away thinking we just learned something from empirical observation.”
I’m not of this view. You know my gig from the 1920-21 paper. I think claims that we can “prove” things conclusively are hugely overrated in most fields. What we can do is a lot of corroboration and best-fitting. In this case all I’m saying is that I’m surprised you’ve latched onto the math thing because there is no reason why that necessarily leads to God.
re: “As usual Daniel, this is why it’s so fun/exasperating to debate you.”
And I don’t see why you and Gene are the exasperating ones here! You just churn out these supposed ace-in-the-holes and all I do is say “how is that proof”? I’m the one that has to reassure you there’s nothing surprising to me about math in the universe. It’s like on the Mises forums where you have to walk them back and reassure them “yes, I actually do think savings is a good thing”, “yes, I actually do think prices coordinate”, “no, I actually don’t think the economy can’t ever recover without the government”. You can’t place absurd expectations on me, have me say “well that’s not really an argument against me”, and then claim that you’re the exasperated one! If you don’t want to be exasperated, stop making goofy arguments like that math in the universe oughta lead someone to God!
God never claimed math in the universe oughta lead anyone to God, after all!
🙂
Echoing Daniel, you haven’t actually provided an argument for WHY math in the universe is evidence of an intelligent creator. So far, all you’ve said is that it’s “unexpected”, but I’m still unclear on how finding something unexpected in nature is evidence for, let alone proof of, an intelligent creator. You must have something deeper and more compelling up your sleeve than “we can’t figure out why that’s there, so it must be god” which is really just an appeal to ignorance.
Or, conversely, your argument could be “the ONLY possible (or likely) explanation for math in the universe is god”, but you’ve yet to justify such a claim.
“the God of the Bible exists”
Given the many religions that man has invented over the ages why do you believe in this one particular variant?
A very wise question that as far as I can tell is still unanswered.
Whenever they do debates on these issues, the question is always “Does God Exist?”, and the debater on the pro side always insists that he doesn’t have to explain why the Christian God exists – that that’s not his task tonight. For once I’d like to see members of specific religions defend their own faith.
The case for theism that has been made in these posts is extremely weak, which isn’t surprising – this is something you believe out of faith, not proof, after all! How the theists get from theism to their particular religion is still a mystery to me.
That’s a long answer. Knowledge and experience tell me that rule-making doesn’t work to change people’s behavior. They must want to do good in order to do good with consistency. Love your neighbor as yourself, if you will.
Because of that, I find Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism to be hard to swallow given that they appear to simply be a set of rules passed down from God. Not that many legalistic Christians don’t obstensibly believe the same thing, but I do my best to correct them.
Others are less rigorous – Taoism I honestly just don’t understand. Buddhism isn’t appealing since God has no personality. Hinduism prevents me from eating meat, which is self-apparent crappiness.
If he exists, why doesn’t the God of the Bible reveal himself fully and completely to every human being in a direct manner?
There are a few potential answers for this question. If we look at the Genesis account of the fall of man, we see a story of man choosing to turn his back deliberately away from God. He moves from a state of perfect, direct communion with God to an antagonistic, adversarial position. God gives us signs to find him if we choose, but it is an act of free will that requires that we use our intellect, emotions and our body to seek after him. Throughout the bible there are calls that we utilize our rational mind as we seek to worship God and we must use it to seek after him.
The biblical view of man as sinner is such that we are incapable of direct observation of God, so if he were to choose to fully reveal himself to us as has been suggested for the “Tour of the Solar System” it would of course reduce the thresh hold to believe, but at the same time it would destroy, an outcome that would be incompatible with God’s justice. By leaving an indirect revelation in nature we are all able to follow the path toward God without the destructive side-effects.
Also, as a perfect being God’s characteristics are so far above our ultimate understanding that it makes a newborn infant attempting to learn calculus seem easy compared to one of us fully comprehending every thing about God. In the same way that a parent starts with teaching counting before they teach addition, God starts with things we can comprehend now before he moves on to the next stage. While I am not capable of going to a hospital nursery and successfully teaching calculus to the assembled infants younger than 7 days old, God could theoretically teach us all instantly everything about him, but it would take a fundamental change in the way our brains work that would render us as something other than human. Progressive revelation enables each person to grasp that part of God that he is ready to understand before moving on the the next chunk. Not everyone chooses to pursue that knowledge, but it is there for the taking for all who are willing to devote their thoughts to it.
Being able to find God requires humility; we must first accept that God is God and we are created by Him. We are creature. This is where Adam and Eve fell down. They wanted to be God so that they could decide what is good and what is evil.
Jesus is God, yet He humbled Himself and became human, humbling Himself so far that He laid down His life to save us.
God does want us all to be saved. Catholics believe that we do not know if any human being is in hell. Not Judas, not Hitler. We just don’t know because of the mercy of God.
God did tell us that there is a way for everyone to know Him:
Jeremiah 29:11-14a
For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope.
When you call me, when you go to pray to me, I will listen to you.
When you look for me, you will find me. Yes, when you seek me with all your heart,
you will find me with you, says the LORD, and I will change your lot…
Matthew 7:7-8
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
As to how He will change our lot: if we come to Him, he will get us out of a life of sin. It doesn’t happen overnight, and it requires a lot of work on our part, but He will free us from the slavery of sin.
Humble yourself and go seek God. You will be happy that you did.
May God bless you and make His face to shine upon you.
I was surprised a while ago to find out that you blogged about your religious views and was (and still am) very happy to see it. I think you did pretty well with your answer.
I think someone you would really enjoy reading or listening to is Dr. William Lane Craig, btw.
One thing I wanted to add is if God appeared to each individual person or if he did the spectacular demonstration mentioned above then while this would prove God existed it would do little to draw people into a personal loving relationship. God does not want us to have proofs of His existence nearly as much as He wants us to be in a personal relationship with Him.
On another note, and this is personal, I first began studying Austrian Economics and reading Libertarian such as on lewrockwell.com and Thomas Woods before ever coming close to looking into religion. This actually caused me to look into religion in the first place. I am incredibly glad I did because it lead to me humbling myself and having a personal relationship with Christ.