08 May 2011

Reconciling God’s Sovereignty, Mercy, and Justice With Our Free Will

Religious 82 Comments

An ambitious post title, to be sure. When I would get a really hard question in grad school, often I could “get inside the head” (actually the mind) of the professor and guess “what the answer would look like,” even though I couldn’t actually compute the answer as the Japanese guys could.

I feel a similar way when some of you post excellent criticisms of my Christian views every week on this blog. I understand why you are unsatisfied with my attempted responses, but at the same time I am still confident that I am right and that one day, this will all make perfect sense. In the present post, I want to sketch what the answers will probably “look like.”

For starters, I want to note that atheists/agnostics often present me with two contradictory complaints. On the one hand, they demand that I explain every last action of the God of the Bible, and justify it, rather than simply accepting “on faith” that God is good by definition. On the other hand, whenever I talk about the nature of God, they tell me I am incredibly arrogant for thinking I could possibly understand the mind and attributes of such a being, if He existed.

There is no problem here for the Christian. I haven’t deduced the Christian worldview from reflecting on the nature of existence and the human condition. No, doing that can lead you into despair.

On the contrary, the reason we Christians think we know a thing or two about God is that He told us.

Remember, one of my primary arguments in my first “Why I am a Christian” post was that I would never have designed Christianity. It does sound absurd when you first encounter it, and process it using the standards of this world. When I was an atheist and was getting ready to write the definitive treatise, I thought I had a pretty snappy argument that would go like this:

Let’s put aside all of the physical impossibilities of the Biblical accounts–Jesus walking on water, feeding 5,000 people, and so on. The thing that’s really nonsensical about Christianity is the motivations of the chief characters. We can suspend disbelief and watch The Matrix or some other movie, so long as the characters’ actions make sense. But the God of the Bible behaves completely irrationally. He starts out, furious at humans for their sinful ways, and is going to cast them all into eternal hellfire. But, after He sends His Son and we murder Him, then God forgives us our sins and lets us into heaven. That doesn’t make any sense.

I recently went to a Bible study where an Eastern Orthodox guy led the presentation. The next day, three of us (who were all Protestants) were discussing the worldview of these folks, because I had no idea of the various sects and their tenets. (Note that I am just reporting what my friend told me; I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the description.) My friend said that these guys, though Christian, nonetheless rejected (our interpretations of) the doctrines of Original Sin, of predestination, and of salvation through faith alone.

I pointed out that this was internally consistent. In other words, if you rejected the idea that we are all guilty sinners by our very nature because of Adam and Eve’s transgression, then it makes sense that each person has to earn his or salvation through works, and we can’t know who will get a passing grade until after we observe the person’s actions in life.

This issue of consistency affects the atheist/agnostic critics of my worldview as well. I think a lot of people would argue like this, “Holy cow those fundamentalist Protestants are out there. Not only do they think rapists and murderers can get into heaven, so long as they ‘accept Jesus’ two seconds before they die, but they also think that a guy who ate a forbidden fruit thousands of years ago, somehow affects my guilt or innocence. Talk about compounding error with yet more error!”

But actually, these two views go hand-in-hand. It’s precisely because of Original Sin, that you can’t try really hard and live a life pleasing to God. By your very nature, you were born a corrupt, sinful being. And that’s why only Jesus’ work can save you.

Taking the God Hypothesis Seriously

Sometimes I get frustrated arguing with atheists/agnostics because they don’t take my worldview to its logical conclusion. For example, some libertarians keep trying to prove to me that God is a thief, murderer, etc. because of His actions in the Old Testament in particular.

But hold on a second. If God really did create the entire physical universe de novo, then by standard libertarian ethics He owns everything. (I have never been convinced by attempts to prove self-ownership as the default position. I agree that they sound nice and intuitive with regard to human beings vis-a-vis each other, but ultimately every such argument I’ve seen is ad hoc. Indeed, Gene Callahan and I pointed out that this is one of the reasons Hoppe’s celebrated argument fails: He doesn’t deal with the possibility of a God creating everything.) And note that this doesn’t work at the human level: Your parents don’t own you, because they really didn’t create you in the same sense that Christians believe God created everything. (Also, their parents would own them, and so on.)

For a specific illustration, consider Avram’s rejection of my views of heaven and hell in a comment on a previous post. He wrote (edited slightly):

Let’s say some really cool kid, who is otherwise really nice and does all these great things decides to have a party. Rumors start circulating that it’s gonna be the best party ever. When you get to the kid’s house with some of your friends the kid says, “I have just created the best party ever known to this world, now before you come in you have to declare me as the best person ever, your owner, your sovereign and king for all eternity, now say I am your god.” Well you’d think this guy has problems, because that’s a pretty petty way to get people to say nice things about you.

Well I think the same about your god, Jesus. If he were really a merciful god, he would leave the doors to heaven open for anyone to come in as they like. When they are in there they would have to do by his rules of course but there is no (good) reason to restrict access to people who don’t announce you as their ruler, that’s just petty.

Notice the part I put in bold. Avram totally concedes that when you are on Jesus’ property or “in His house,” you have to abide by His rules. Avram has no problem with that. But Avram seems to think that when you are on earth, you are on territory where God’s rule have no jurisdiction. Yet God created the earth too. You are always on God’s property, living as a guest at His pleasure, and thus subject to His rules–even according to standard libertarian principles.

Furthermore, the reason the hypothetical kid sounds like a jerk is that the kid is not our ruler or god. But if the kid instead said, “In order to come into this house, I expect that you call me by my name Bill–rather than calling me Jake, which for some reason a lot of people do–and don’t go around to the other guests saying I don’t really exist,” that might be a little odd, but it wouldn’t sound as bad as Avram’s hypothetical kid.

Well, if Jesus actually IS our savior and we actually DO need Him for our salvation, then it’s not obviously petty for Him to expect us to utter true statements.

God as Author

Lately I’ve been thinking through these apparent paradoxes by an analogy to a fiction author. Quick: Who is the architect for Winston’s torture in 1984? Why, it’s O’Brien of course, or perhaps Big Brother if you want to look at it that way.

Ah but are you so sure? The person who actually decided to have Winston tortured was George Orwell. In the context of the story of 1984, O’Brien had free will. He chose to commit many crimes. But it’s also a true statement to say O’Brien was an instrument mechanically carrying out the will of George Orwell, who was trying to teach people something with his tale.

That’s “how the answer will look,” I submit, when we die and all things become clear. Our minds right now can’t comprehend the actual nature of our existence and of God, for obvious reasons. But after death, for those of us who choose to be in communion with the Lord, we will see exactly why He told His story (history) the way He did. And of course it will be a beautiful, incredible story, infinitely better than anything humans could create–for the simple reason that all human stories are subplots within God’s overarching story, in the same way Stephen King sometimes has his characters write novels inside his novels.

Last point for today: On the issue of salvation, I stand behind what I said before:

…I disagree strongly that an agnostic who helps little old ladies across the street and doesn’t use the f-word is “a good person.” Yes, he might be good compared to most other humans, but he’s far from perfect. And until you contemplate the life of Jesus, and the standard He set for us (both in His commands and His actions), you don’t even realize how badly you are playing the game of life.

So this is why the most important “act” or “work” you can do in this life, isn’t to refrain from homicide (as I think many agnostics believe). Rather, the most important thing is for you to humble yourself and admit you have a problem. Then you can start improving, and ironically you will end up living a much better life (even according to conventional standards) once you do that.

I think in God’s value system, somebody who did something really bad, but has sincerely repented and understands just how bad it was, is a “better person” at this moment than the person who did a litany of lesser offenses, but now offers no apology for them and in fact is outraged at the very idea that a God might hold him in judgment. And I have to say that this seems eminently fair to me.

I think I found a good way to make my case. Consider the following clip, and I want you to actually watch it through (there are some surprises to keep you interested):

Now then: If Vader hadn’t been injured, and escaped with Luke back to Endor, I agree that he would have to face the legal consequences of his actions. Luke couldn’t just say, “It’s OK everybody, my father is back. All is forgiven.” No, there would be lots of problems with a legal system that worked like that, such as the problem that humans can’t really judge the hearts of others, and so wouldn’t be able to distinguish genuine repentance from a cynical ploy to escape punishment.

However, since Vader died, that’s not the issue. At the end of the movie, we see that the spirit of Anakin Skywalker is in communion with his old friends, Yoda and Obi Wan. Clearly, the message is that at the last moment, Anakin turned back to good. He renounced his horrible crimes, he realized the awful things he had done because of his seduction by the Dark Side, and he turned his life around before it was too late. So that’s why he gets to spend eternity hanging out with the good guys.

Are you agnostics and atheists telling me that this strikes you as repugnant? Do you think George Lucas is being too soft on murderers here? Don’t forget, Vader blew up a whole planet and tortured Han Solo.

82 Responses to “Reconciling God’s Sovereignty, Mercy, and Justice With Our Free Will”

  1. Yosef says:

    “Notice the part I put in bold. Avram totally concedes that when you are on Jesus’ property or “in His house,” you have to abide by His rules. Avram has no problem with that. But Avram seems to think that when you are on earth, you are on territory where God’s rule have no jurisdiction. Yet God created the earth too. You are always on God’s property, living as a guest at His pleasure, and thus subject to His rules–even according to standard libertarian principles.”

    Perhaps it is my misunderstanding of libertarian principles, but do you have to abide by the rules of a house in which you were forced into? If the earth is God’s property, then we have no choice but to be on it. Add to this the fact that we did not choose to be born, and you again see that we are forced to be on this property. If you are held hostage somewhere do you have to follow the rules of the owner, or are you allowed to try and smash a window and make some noise?

    Your use of 1984 reminded me of a point I thought of when reading a previous religious post of yours. You invoke the idea of “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord”, i’d like to offer an extended version of that: Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Lucifer (for the sake of alteration). Not claiming this is an original idea, but doesn’t it seem consistent? (liar is more in the sense of a human making things up, Lucifer instead is purposeful creating a false religion to further lead people astray). To be convincing, Lucifer would have to offer some profound teachings that sound good to us humans [but are different from the true religion], throw in a couple of “miracles”. Vanquish some demons? Nothing easier (for that matter, nothing easier than making sure that demons are encountered and say their lines about being the son of God). Finally, have a confrontation with “the devil” to show that even he knows who you are.

  2. Michael J. Green says:

    “Are you agnostics and atheists telling me that this strikes you as repugnant? Do you think George Lucas is being too soft on murderers here?”

    Err, I always thought the repugnant part was that Han Solo – who sees the Force as superstitious mumbo-jumbo – would suffer for all eternity. I for one don’t care if murderers get to hang out in heaven; that seems perfectly consistent with Christ’s teachings, which I greatly admire. But I don’t like the idea that men who did their darnedest should, essentially, be punished. Surely Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and many others deserve to chill with JC up in the clouds.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Michael wrote:

      Err, I always thought the repugnant part was that Han Solo – who sees the Force as superstitious mumbo-jumbo – would suffer for all eternity.

      It’s ironic that you went that way with it. You DO think that George Lucas is a bad guy then. They don’t make anybody but the Jedi appear in this way. E.g. Luke’s copilot Dak (who felt he could take on the whole Empire by himself) died in the second movie, and was fighting for the good guys, yet we don’t see him appear.

      And remember everybody, I think hell is indeed the worst thing imaginable, but only because you end up spending eternity with yourself, rather than in communion with God.

      • Michael J. Green says:

        Well, if we have to stick with the mythology, only Quigon, Obiwan, Yoda and Anakin achieve bluey afterlife. Other Jedi suffer the same fate as Han and Dak. Whether or not that’s some kind of hell, or just nothingness, I don’t know. Clearly the Star Wars analogy really starts breaking down around this point.

        As for this concept of hell, will I really be spending it alone, or do I at least get the company of the many interesting, brilliant and otherwise good-natured people who doubted (or were completely unaware of) Christ’s divinity?

        • Anon says:

          Good question. Are we allowed to go to Mises and Rothbard lectures in hell?

  3. Anon says:

    “I understand why you are unsatisfied with my attempted responses, but at the same time I am still confident that I am right and that one day, this will all make perfect sense.”

    This appears to be an admission that your views are primarily faith-based rather than logic-based. I would just point out that, if faith was an effective means of arriving at the truth, there would be much more consensus than actually exists among the faithful of all faiths.

    And if your beliefs are faith-based, on what basis can you claim that your faith is a more accurate indicator of truth than the faith of those who hold contradictory beliefs?

  4. Major_Freedom says:

    For starters, I want to note that atheists/agnostics often present me with two contradictory complaints. On the one hand, they demand that I explain every last action of the God of the Bible, and justify it, rather than simply accepting “on faith” that God is good by definition. On the other hand, whenever I talk about the nature of God, they tell me I am incredibly arrogant for thinking I could possibly understand the mind and attributes of such a being, if He existed.

    I can’t speak for others, but I can say that my criticisms are not, as far as I can tell, contradictory.

    First, I am not asking you to explain every last action of the God of the Bible and then justify them, only to then reject everything you say about God because it would be arrogant to do so. I am asking you to explain the particular actions of God that contradict your particular arguments concerning the Biblical God. You say God is X. I ask you to explain God doing Y, because Y contradicts X.

    The only way that my demanding that you explain God’s actions, and my claim that it is arrogant to know the mind of God, can appear contradictory is if we drop the assumption that the concept of God is itself logical. But if that is the case, then we would actually be arguing over a meaningless concept. I am not asking for you to explain biblical God in general. That would be silly, because the Bible is full of contradictions. I just want you to square one contradiction at a time, assuming of course that God is logical. If God is not logical, then NO ARGUMENTS can be made at all, because arguments require logic to even make sense. On a side note, I didn’t see you square any of the contradictions mentioned in the last post.

    Second, when I said that it takes arrogance to claim that one can understand the mind of God, that is an independent assessment, one that relates to knowledge of the human mind and its alleged ability to know and understand the motives of supernatural, omniscient beings that are not of observable (or comprehensible) reality. Here, the arrogance results from first assuming the claims made in the Bible are true, and then claiming that one’s beliefs about Gods are correct because one’s beliefs are consistent with what is written in that ancient text. You first accused non-believers of being arrogant, when it is not arrogant at all to argue that even supernatural propositions be subjected to the same logical, rational criticism as all “Earthly” propositions.

    There is no problem here for the Christian. I haven’t deduced the Christian worldview from reflecting on the nature of existence and the human condition. No, doing that can lead you into despair.

    Only if you consider an entity (us humans) not having God-like attributes, i.e. to have reason, finite lifespans, capability of feeling pain, capability of being wrong, to be cause for “despair.”

    I would argue that it takes despair to feel a need to believe that we have attributes that we don’t in fact have. Many thinkers throughout the ages felt the same despair in contemplating the nature of humanity. The more they learned about the nature of humans, the more they learned what humans are not. This made them feel trapped, isolated, oppressed, cut off, and alienated from the rest of reality. This metaphysical physical “alienation” is what drove, and still does drive, many humans to think about transcendent concepts, so that they don’t feel so alone and trapped. If human bodies are going to be limited, and if humans are going to have a nature, which of course leads to psychological separation and isolation, then let the mind wander free from all restraints. Let the mind be free, to escape “the cave.”

    But since the mind is of this world, some of those transcendent thoughts were given an attribute of physical existence. This is God. God is the human mind’s thoughts of transcendent, non-existent concepts, imposed onto existent reality, where reality can be more “open” and “free.” This drive is brought about by the human mind knowing little of reality, in combination with the requirement of having to choose what to do. The less the human mind knows, the more difficult reality becomes. With barely any knowledge at all, reality becomes terrifying. The more knowledge we acquire, the less terrifying reality becomes, and with enough knowledge, reality starts to become an absolute pleasure to exist in, because there is so many things humans can do to better themselves, and with more knowledge, the more we can satisfy our desires.

    This is, in my view, why religion started out early in human history, when humans were barely able to know enough about reality to ensure that their bellies were full and their bodies were sheltered from the elements, but knowledgeable enough to learn that they knew things but did not know other things. Religion I think can only start when the mind becomes aware of knowing some things but not everything, which in other words means when the human mind becomes aware that it is a thinking mind. Proto-man, I am guessing, didn’t have any religion, because they did not know that they were a thinking species, so they could not perceive any limitation in what they know. Once humans developed reason, that is when they became aware that they were a thinking species, and knowing that they think means knowing what they do not think, and that is the wall that humans hit that made religion possible.

    Alongside this, even those who are otherwise brilliant secular thinkers, can feel the need to transcend what they know about physical reality, because they too know that they do not know a lot about reality. I think religion can be accepted in only one way, with varying degrees. One must have to find reality so intolerable on a foundation of lacking enough knowledge to deal with reality *the way you would like to deal with reality*. I think this is why religion can be adopted by the most unintelligent mind all the way up to the most brilliant minds on the planet.

    The religious mind is a mind that feels contemplating about the existence of a physical world and only a physical world to be too intolerable to accept.

    On the contrary, the reason we Christians think we know a thing or two about God is that He told us.

    Unless you expect others to accept that it is possible that a God can speak to people in their minds, then the only rational source of what the biblical God says is through the bible. Since the bible is there for everyone to see, and not just Christians, then we *people* “can know a thing or two about the biblical God” because the bible says so.

    Remember, one of my primary arguments in my first “Why I am a Christian” post was that I would never have designed Christianity. It does sound absurd when you first encounter it, and process it using the standards of this world.

    Do you see the implications of what you just said there? By admitting that using the standards “of this world” make Christianity appear absurd, you just admitted Christianity is absurd. You as a human, with a human mind, and human body, and human logic, and human reason, can ONLY process anything using the standards of this world. You are NOT God. You are HUMAN. Thus you cannot claim to know the logic inherent in anything that is forever alienated from human logic by definition. Even by pretending to think like God, to think what logic God might use, to think about the logic of God, to use “other worldly” logic, you are in fact using Earthly logic and ONLY Earthly logic. Just like a computer will not be able to do what it is not programmed to do, you are not programmed to think in any way other than how a human would think. You cannot claim to be using other worldly logic. Everything you think about requires human logic to even be meaningful and sensible. This may seem like a “limitation,” but it’s really just logically separating what is (namely you) from what isn’t (namely everything else). This is my answer to the question “Why am I a Christian.” You not being other things is a limitation that is you, and so there is a perceived need, at least mentally, to transcend that limitation. This body is limited by time on Earth? Then I’ll think of timelessness. This body can die? Then I’ll think of immortality. A body dies and doesn’t immediately disappear? Then I’ll think that a part of him is non-physical that was reason for his life. People that are otherwise good and moral nevertheless die? Then I’ll think of him getting rewarded in some way. We can’t see the other side of a mountain with our naked eye? Then I’ll think of a being that can. Every human has a parent, and all humans live for a finite time? Then I’ll think of a being that started that process for us. Etc.

    When I was an atheist and was getting ready to write the definitive treatise, I thought I had a pretty snappy argument that would go like this:

    Let’s put aside all of the physical impossibilities of the Biblical accounts–Jesus walking on water, feeding 5,000 people, and so on. The thing that’s really nonsensical about Christianity is the motivations of the chief characters. We can suspend disbelief and watch The Matrix or some other movie, so long as the characters’ actions make sense. But the God of the Bible behaves completely irrationally. He starts out, furious at humans for their sinful ways, and is going to cast them all into eternal hellfire. But, after He sends His Son and we murder Him, then God forgives us our sins and lets us into heaven. That doesn’t make any sense.

    You’re right, it doesn’t make any sense, and not just in the way you describe, but also in what you yourself are assuming in this pseudo-straw man of the atheist knock down argument. When you say “we killed Jesus”, I hope you don’t mean anyone other than those who actually killed him. I mean, that’s a pretty epic guilt by association. Do you cringe when you hear the statist proclaim “We are government”? Yeah, well, the statement “We killed Jesus” is just as cringe worthy.

    I didn’t kill Jesus. I wasn’t even alive when he was allegedly alive. One can’t kill another unless that one exists in the first place. This is why the premise behind the doctrine of “original sin” is extremely irrational, dangerous, and, when used in other contexts, anti-liberty and oppressive. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy for a reason.

    So your definitive treatise is not really definitive at all, which I am guessing is your intended goal, so that you can pretend that such treatises would have to be silly.

    I recently went to a Bible study where an Eastern Orthodox guy led the presentation. The next day, three of us (who were all Protestants) were discussing the worldview of these folks, because I had no idea of the various sects and their tenets. (Note that I am just reporting what my friend told me; I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the description.) My friend said that these guys, though Christian, nonetheless rejected (our interpretations of) the doctrines of Original Sin, of predestination, and of salvation through faith alone.
    I pointed out that this was internally consistent. In other words, if you rejected the idea that we are all guilty sinners by our very nature because of Adam and Eve’s transgression, then it makes sense that each person has to earn his or salvation through works, and we can’t know who will get a passing grade until after we observe the person’s actions in life.

    This doesn’t make sense, even if we assume Christianity is true.

    If one rejects the idea that all humans are guilty sinners by our very nature, then it does NOT make sense that each person has to earn their salvation. For if we do not sin by nature, then we do not have to necessarily require salvation!

    This issue of consistency affects the atheist/agnostic critics of my worldview as well. I think a lot of people would argue like this, “Holy cow those fundamentalist Protestants are out there. Not only do they think rapists and murderers can get into heaven, so long as they ‘accept Jesus’ two seconds before they die, but they also think that a guy who ate a forbidden fruit thousands of years ago, somehow affects my guilt or innocence. Talk about compounding error with yet more error!”

    But actually, these two views go hand-in-hand. It’s precisely because of Original Sin, that you can’t try really hard and live a life pleasing to God. By your very nature, you were born a corrupt, sinful being. And that’s why only Jesus’ work can save you.

    How can all this affect the atheist’s position that humans are NOT born with “original sin”? You say “it is precisely because of original sin that…” as if original sin were true. I notice that every time you are called upon to square your arguments, you just assume they are true, or ignore them altogether and move on to some other Christian argument and assume it is true. In this case, you did the latter. You didn’t actually even answer the criticism of God admitting murderers and rapists into heaven while peaceful and kind atheists go to hell. Saying that “we’re all guilty so there!” is not really a valid response.

    And you slipped in the rather glib “2 seconds before they die” comment as if THAT is when it would not make sense to admit murderers into heaven while peaceful atheists go to hell. That is not what the Christian religion states. The Christian religion states that if you ask for God’s forgiveness, if you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and all the rest, then you will go to heaven.

    How can you explain a murderer and rapist who does all of that and still gets into heaven, while a peaceful atheist who treated his fellow mankind kindly goes to hell? You didn’t actually respond to the criticism of your particular belief about who goes into heaven and who goes into hell.

    Ah, that’s why you keep finding offense at atheists’ questioning. You think that what you believe is out of bounds to criticism because “you didn’t make this up, God did.” You believe it, but that doesn’t mean you have to answer for your beliefs. We atheists have to take it up with God, right? Well, the atheist will only say that this is evasion pure and simple. If you say you believe in Christianity, then you have to stand prepared to answer questions concerning Christianity, and not fall back on general mystical orthodoxy of “God is good by definition.” Heck, Plotinus thought the same thing. But you’re talking about Christianity in particular.

    Sometimes I get frustrated arguing with atheists/agnostics because they don’t take my worldview to its logical conclusion. For example, some libertarians keep trying to prove to me that God is a thief, murderer, etc. because of His actions in the Old Testament in particular.

    But hold on a second. If God really did create the entire physical universe de novo, then by standard libertarian ethics He owns everything. (I have never been convinced by attempts to prove self-ownership as the default position. I agree that they sound nice and intuitive with regard to human beings vis-a-vis each other, but ultimately every such argument I’ve seen is ad hoc.

    Indeed, Gene Callahan and I pointed out that this is one of the reasons Hoppe’s celebrated argument fails: He doesn’t deal with the possibility of a God creating everything.)

    How is that a “failure”? If God created us, then who created God owns God. If you claim with certainty that God doesn’t have an owner, then it’s not wrong to claim with certainty that humans don’t have owners.

    Your argument that Hoppe’s argument fails because he doesn’t consider God owning everything is not a failure because that would require you to prove that God exists. By your logic, if an economics argument you make doesn’t take into account flying pink unicorns magically being able to possibly overturn economic laws, then your argument “fails.”

    Have you read Stephen Kinsella’s rejoinder to your and Gene’s article? He points out some misunderstandings you have with what Hoppe actually argued.

    And note that this doesn’t work at the human level: Your parents don’t own you, because they really didn’t create you in the same sense that Christians believe God created everything. (Also, their parents would own them, and so on.)

    To the atheist, ownership follows from consciousness, not what or who created the consciousness.

    If a human created another human by piecemeal, Frankenstein style, and the being had consciousness and reason, then he would own himself.

    Which reminds me, if a human created another human Frankenstein style, from scratch, so to speak, and humans have free will, then did God create that human?

    For a specific illustration, consider Avram’s rejection of my views of heaven and hell in a comment on a previous post. He wrote (edited slightly):

    Let’s say some really cool kid, who is otherwise really nice and does all these great things decides to have a party. Rumors start circulating that it’s gonna be the best party ever. When you get to the kid’s house with some of your friends the kid says, “I have just created the best party ever known to this world, now before you come in you have to declare me as the best person ever, your owner, your sovereign and king for all eternity, now say I am your god.” Well you’d think this guy has problems, because that’s a pretty petty way to get people to say nice things about you.

    Well I think the same about your god, Jesus. If he were really a merciful god, he would leave the doors to heaven open for anyone to come in as they like. When they are in there they would have to do by his rules of course but there is no (good) reason to restrict access to people who don’t announce you as their ruler, that’s just petty.

    Notice the part I put in bold. Avram totally concedes that when you are on Jesus’ property or “in His house,” you have to abide by His rules. Avram has no problem with that. But Avram seems to think that when you are on earth, you are on territory where God’s rule have no jurisdiction. Yet God created the earth too. You are always on God’s property, living as a guest at His pleasure, and thus subject to His rules–even according to standard libertarian principles.

    Hahaha, no. Suppose I kidnap you, or make it physically impossible for you to leave my property. Are you obligated to obey my rules? No, you’re not. Not unless I abstained from subjecting you to physical force if you attempted to leave.

    With your conception of God owning Earth, indeed the entire universe, then there is no physical way any human can choose to “leave.” To use the inability of humans to exist in another dimension as justification for claiming that humans have to abide by your make believe God’s rules because we’re on God’s alleged property is a pretty vicious and twisted version of “standard libertarian principles.” Libertarian principles are based on the fact that humans can choose to own their own property, and thus can “escape” the rules of other property owners. If a world emperor conquered and then declared himself owner of the planet, then would the human race be binded to obey his rule? No. Why? Because his claim to ownership is not justified according to the libertarian principles of original appropriation or free trade. What if this emperor were a Christian and imposed Christian laws? Would other humans be compelled to obey him? After all, in the bible it says that every government was placed there by God and we are to obey all governments placed by God. My guess is that you will say we ought not obey the emperor.

    Furthermore, the reason the hypothetical kid sounds like a jerk is that the kid is not our ruler or god.

    BINGO!!!! And the atheist’s reason for why God sounds like a jerk because your God is not *our* ruler or god.

    But if the kid instead said, “In order to come into this house, I expect that you call me by my name Bill–rather than calling me Jake, which for some reason a lot of people do–and don’t go around to the other guests saying I don’t really exist,” that might be a little odd, but it wouldn’t sound as bad as Avram’s hypothetical kid.

    Yeah, well what if the hypothetical kid said that if you do go around saying he doesn’t exist, then he will subject you to eternal punishment? Does that sound bad? It should, but that’s what your God is allegedly going to do.

    Well, if Jesus actually IS our savior and we actually DO need Him for our salvation, then it’s not obviously petty for Him to expect us to utter true statements.

    There you go again. If Christianity is true, then Christianity is true.

    Lately I’ve been thinking through these apparent paradoxes by an analogy to a fiction author. Quick: Who is the architect for Winston’s torture in 1984? Why, it’s O’Brien of course, or perhaps Big Brother if you want to look at it that way.

    Ah but are you so sure? The person who actually decided to have Winston tortured was George Orwell. In the context of the story of 1984, O’Brien had free will. He chose to commit many crimes. But it’s also a true statement to say O’Brien was an instrument mechanically carrying out the will of George Orwell, who was trying to teach people something with his tale.

    That’s “how the answer will look,” I submit, when we die and all things become clear. Our minds right now can’t comprehend the actual nature of our existence and of God, for obvious reasons. But after death, for those of us who choose to be in communion with the Lord, we will see exactly why He told His story (history) the way He did.

    If you admit that our minds can’t comprehend the actual nature of our existence and of God, then how in the world can you claim to be doing just that?!?!? You are claiming to know “we will see exactly why the bible was written…” after we die, and yet you have no proof of that claim. The bible is not proof.

    Last point for today: On the issue of salvation, I stand behind what I said before:

    …I disagree strongly that an agnostic who helps little old ladies across the street and doesn’t use the f-word is “a good person.” Yes, he might be good compared to most other humans, but he’s far from perfect. And until you contemplate the life of Jesus, and the standard He set for us (both in His commands and His actions), you don’t even realize how badly you are playing the game of life.

    But if you repeat this, then it’s still subjected to the same criticisms made the last time you made that argument, and you have not responded to those criticisms.

    I still stand by my argument I made before: The agnostic that helps little old ladies cross the street and who abstain from murder, rape, and theft, are still FAR, FAR better people than those who don’t and yet they pray to imaginary men in the sky.

    Kind atheists are morally superior to unkind Christians. Period.

    Nobody here is claiming that atheists are “perfect”. We know that you Christians reserve that attribute to God. Atheists attribute it to nothing. That atheists are not attributing the concept of perfection to God does NOT mean that we are seeking to attribute it to ourselves, or any other humans.

    So this is why the most important “act” or “work” you can do in this life, isn’t to refrain from homicide (as I think many agnostics believe).

    You forgot refraining from believing in imaginary men in the sky.

    Rather, the most important thing is for you to humble yourself and admit you have a problem. Then you can start improving, and ironically you will end up living a much better life (even according to conventional standards) once you do that.

    One does not have to believe in God in order to be humble, and admit that we make mistakes and are not infallible. It does not follow. I can say that I am fallible, and I can not believe in God.

    You Christians seem to think that humble murderers and rapists who admit they have a problem and pray to God are morally superior to humble atheists who do not murder or rape others and who admit they are fallible. It’s the exact opposite. Those who treat each other immorally are worse people than those who treat each other morally, regardless of one’s spiritual beliefs.

    I think in God’s value system, somebody who did something really bad, but has sincerely repented and understands just how bad it was, is a “better person” at this moment than the person who did a litany of lesser offenses, but now offers no apology for them and in fact is outraged at the very idea that a God might hold him in judgment. And I have to say that this seems eminently fair to me.

    Only if your conception of fairness is extreme prejudice against those who are otherwise friendly, but just so happen to not believe in make believe men in the sky.

    Answer this:

    What about a person who has committed only a few lesser offences, not a litany, and who has apologized to his victims for what he did, and has given them restitution, and finds it illogical and against one’s sense of reason to hear those wanting him to believe in imaginary fairy tales like God?

    Should this person go to hell, while the rapist thief baby killer who prays to God gets to heaven?

    What about a person who is born on an island that has never been exposed to the bible and who thus does not believe in the biblical God?

    What if a person was born in a society where he was indoctrinated during his youth with another religion besides Christianity?

    What if a person was born into a family where his parents are atheists, taught their children atheism, and the children thus became atheists? Should this child go to hell on account of their parent’s “mistake”?

    I think I found a good way to make my case. Consider the following clip, and I want you to actually watch it through (there are some surprises to keep you interested):

    Now then: If Vader hadn’t been injured, and escaped with Luke back to Endor, I agree that he would have to face the legal consequences of his actions. Luke couldn’t just say, “It’s OK everybody, my father is back. All is forgiven.” No, there would be lots of problems with a legal system that worked like that, such as the problem that humans can’t really judge the hearts of others, and so wouldn’t be able to distinguish genuine repentance from a cynical ploy to escape punishment.

    However, since Vader died, that’s not the issue. At the end of the movie, we see that the spirit of Anakin Skywalker is in communion with his old friends, Yoda and Obi Wan. Clearly, the message is that at the last moment, Anakin turned back to good. He renounced his horrible crimes, he realized the awful things he had done because of his seduction by the Dark Side, and he turned his life around before it was too late. So that’s why he gets to spend eternity hanging out with the good guys.

    Are you agnostics and atheists telling me that this strikes you as repugnant? Do you think George Lucas is being too soft on murderers here? Don’t forget, Vader blew up a whole planet and tortured Han Solo.

    As an atheist, I can tell you that Vader deserved to be killed by whoever he tried to kill before he killed them, way before he died after throwing the emperor into the pit. If someone is attempting to kill me, then I have a right to defend myself, and thus kill him if necessary. So does everyone else.

    If pacifism were practiced by everyone in the world, then should a first repenter of pacifism arise, then, assuming all others remain pacifists, would be capable of killing the entire planet’s population and wipe out the human race.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “Your argument that Hoppe’s argument fails because he doesn’t consider God owning everything is not a failure because that would require you to prove that God exists.”

      No, it doesn’t. Hoppe is claiming that anything other than anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is self-contradictory. All we have to show is that IF someone believes God owns everything, their position is self-consistent. (It may be wrong, but it is not self-defeating.)

      • Major_Freedom says:

        No, it cannot be self-consistent because the concept of God itself is logically contradictory. If one espouses a belief that God owns everything, then one cannot claim that one’s position is internally consistent.

        It would be like me claiming that if your theory of property rights does not include square circles, or flightless flying pink unicorns, as possible legitimate owners, then as soon as one person “believes” in them, their belief allegedly refutes any theory of property rights that does not include them as possible owners.

        Furthermore, even if it is assumed that contradictory concepts are possible, and we assume that God owns everything, then that doesn’t prove that anarcho-capitalism isn’t the only non-contradictory ownership alternative for humans in non-contradiction land. It can still be the only logical ownership framework.

        Yes, it’s true that anarcho-capitalism is not the only possible ownership framework if we admit contradiction into our analysis, but then all reason goes out the window, because the very nature of thinking and arguing depend on logical non-contradiction, which means you’d just be talking nonsense.

        It’s tragic that you and Murphy are letting your beliefs of magical beings in the sky lead to to reject Hoppe’s arguments because he doesn’t include the same magical myths as you guys.

        • Gene Callahan says:

          “No, it cannot be self-consistent because the concept of God itself is logically contradictory.”

          Yes, that is why only such poor logicians as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Plotinus, Aquinas, Averroes, Pascal, Descartes, and Avicenna were able to swallow such a concept.

          • Silas Barta says:

            Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Plotinus, Aquinas, Averroes, Pascal, Descartes, and Avicenna detected all logical contradictions in their beliefs? Pretty impressive!

          • Blackadder says:

            To quote the Princess Bride: “You’ve heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!”

            • Silas Barta says:

              Stupid question: what lasting intellectual achievement are any of those three responsible for? From what I understand, they eschewed experimentation, leaving themselves unable to incorporate empirical insights into their work.

              Specifically, if not for any one of those three, how poor would our collective knowledge about the world be? Which of their insights fundamentally changed how we think and our ability to advance, in a way that is unlikely for others to have discovered shortly afterward?

              • Blackadder says:

                Stupid question: what lasting intellectual achievement are any of those three responsible for?

                Have you never taken a philosophy course?

              • Silas Barta says:

                Blackadder: have you never learned how to express your thoughts? It’s a simple question.

              • Blackadder says:

                Silas,

                My question is simple too (much simpler, actually, since my question can be answered with a yes or a no, whereas answering yours would require a tedious recitation of all the areas of philosophy where they have had a significant impact).

              • Silas Barta says:

                Yes, I have taken a philosophy course.

                Now, Blackadder, nothing about my question requires you to write an essay. Just give one contribution, why it was so insightful (i.e. why it’s unlikely it wouldn’t have been discovered by the time their works were revisited in the middle ages), and how we would suffer for them not having made the insight.

                If you actually understand their works, this should be a very, very easy question. OTOH, if your only understanding of the issue is extremely confused, you might try to bluff by hemming and hawing about how difficult it would be answer in any way whatsoever without taking up lots and lots of time.

                I’m glad you didn’t try an approach like that — that’s how I know you know what you’re talking about.

                One final thing: it’s not enough that they have “influenced an area of philosphy”. After all, you wouldn’t consider someone great if they contributed to a random, insular field with no real-world relevance, like Unicorn Studies.

              • Blackadder says:

                I believe Aristotle was the first person in the West to study formal logic and his works on the subject formed the basis of further study and development up until you get to Frege. In terms of whether someone else would have done the same thing a little later if Aristotle hadn’t, that sort of thing is difficult to know, but we can say that when most of Aristotle’s logical works were lost to the West for a few hundred years no one recreated them or came up with the same ideas independently, and it was only after the works were rediscovered that the field started to develop again.

                That would be one example.

              • Blackadder says:

                Btw, if the question is whether a person has had a lasting intellectual influence, then the fact that the person has influenced an area of philosophy over the course of twenty five hundred years counts, regardless of whether that area of philosophy has “real-world relevance,” whatever that means.

              • Silas Barta says:

                Well, there’s the problem, Blackadder: if you have trouble understanding what “real world relevance” means, you’re not going to be be able to differentiate important from unimportant insights and so won’t be able to justify any opinion that some philospher was ultra-vitally-important and we should be oh-so-thankful for their contributions.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Yes, that is why only such poor logicians as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Plotinus, Aquinas, Averroes, Pascal, Descartes, and Avicenna were able to swallow such a concept.

            Fallacy ad populum.

        • bobmurphy says:

          Major Freedom wrote:

          Furthermore, even if it is assumed that contradictory concepts are possible, and we assume that God owns everything, then that doesn’t prove that anarcho-capitalism isn’t the only non-contradictory ownership alternative for humans in non-contradiction land. It can still be the only logical ownership framework.

          It’s ironic that you guys claim to be the champions of reason and logic, and yet you consistently fail to understand simple logical rules.

          Gene and I were not setting out to prove that libertarian ethics were WRONG. We weren’t even trying to demonstrate that no such proof (along Hoppe’s lines) was possible. We were simply pointing out that Hoppe’s particular attempt failed.

          So your statement above is irrelevant. And yet I get the sense that you think it’s just one more reason showing why Gene and I are morons on this issue.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            It’s ironic that you guys claim to be the champions of reason and logic, and yet you consistently fail to understand simple logical rules.

            Gene and I were not setting out to prove that libertarian ethics were WRONG. We weren’t even trying to demonstrate that no such proof (along Hoppe’s lines) was possible. We were simply pointing out that Hoppe’s particular attempt failed.

            First, I was not claiming that you and Gene set out, let alone succeed, to refute LIBERTARIAN principles. I am claiming that your attempt at refuting Hoppe fails.

            All you and Gene have done is ad hoc asserted out of the blue that because his theory does not account for flightless flying pink unicorns, excuse me, God, as possibly owning the entire universe, and hence humans, and hence everything humans produce, then it somehow necessarily fails.

            Can you not see how your attempt at refutation fails? You cannot logically refute any theory by asserting that “it is possible that God can own everything, so unless you take that into account, then too bad so sad, you’re theory sucks.”

            It behooves you to prove God exists before you can claim that your argument of God owning everything serves as a refutation.

            Your argument is essentially this:

            “If your theory presupposes the non-existence of my flightless flying pink unicorn lord and master, and yet it has the gumption to be communicated to me as proof that it alone, and not one that contains the possibility of a flightless flying pink unicorns, is the only allegedly logical and irrefutable property rights framework, then your particular attempt necessarily falls flat. Only if your theory includes the possibility of flightless flying pink unicorns owning everything, can it ever be as certain as you claim it is.”

            What is the logical rule that you say I am violating? How is rejecting the notion that all property rights theories must include the possibility of God owning everything or else they are “failures”, itself constitute violation of logic?

            • bobmurphy says:

              Major Freedom wrote:

              All you and Gene have done is ad hoc asserted out of the blue that because his theory does not account for flightless flying pink unicorns, excuse me, God, as possibly owning the entire universe, and hence humans, and hence everything humans produce, then it somehow necessarily fails.

              Can you not see how your attempt at refutation fails? You cannot logically refute any theory by asserting that “it is possible that God can own everything, so unless you take that into account, then too bad so sad, you’re theory sucks.”

              Major Freedom, seriously, please calm down for a second. I promise you, I thought Hoppe’s argument didn’t work even when I was an atheist.

              First off, I told you to take out the “flightless” adjective. You’re right, you can’t refute a proof by asking it to account for a contradiction. I don’t think there’s anything contradictory in saying that a being could have created matter as we know it. If the term “God” necessarily conjures up contradictions for you, then use the term “X.”

              Now then, let’s switch the context. Suppose three people (a family) are on an island in a vacation house and they think they’re the only ones on the island. The parents Alice and Bill are in one room, they hear a crash, and they run into the next room to see a broken vase. Furthermore, the pieces of the vase are arranged to spell, “I hate my parents.”

              So they haul their teenaged son Charlie into the room. Bill says, “Charlie, I know neither I nor your mother broke the vase. Therefore, I deduce you must have done it. That is the only possible explanation for what happened.”

              Charlie says, “Look Dad, I know things look bad, and I don’t blame you for thinking the most likely explanation is that I did it. But please, let’s be more accurate in our statements here. It’s logically possible somebody else is on this island and knocked that thing over.”

              Then Charlie’s dad comes back and says, “No Charlie, that is no refutation of my claim. You would first have to prove to me that somebody else really is on the island. Until you do that, I maintain that I have just demonstrated the logical impossibility that anyone but you did it.”

              So that’s what’s going on with Hoppe. He is claiming that is it logically inconceivable that anything besides libertarian ethics is correct. His proof doesn’t work if there just so happens to be a God who created everything (or a flying pink unicorn for that matter). It is logically possible that a God exists; in fact many Austrians think a God actually exists, in addition to being a logical possibility. Therefore Hoppe is simply wrong to claim that he has proven the logical necessity of libertarian ethics.

              • bobmurphy says:

                Incidentally MF (ha ha that wasn’t why I promoted you…), it’s not necessary for Hoppe to say, “First, let’s assume there’s no pink unicorn. Then, let’s assume there’s no God…”

                Rather, he could handle all that stuff by starting out like this, “I am going to restrict my attention to the class of ethics in which a single set of rules applies uniformly to each person, and in which all possible uses of property are vested in one or more humans’ ultimate authority. In that setting, I deduce that the only non-contradictory set of rules is…”

                Something like that could get the ball rolling. But then, if he proved his intended result, it wouldn’t be as impressive as saying, “Nobody can even start arguing without presupposing my ethical norms.”

              • bobmurphy says:

                Oops one last thing: Technically Hoppe is making an empirical claim that you need to use your body in order to argue. So he’s not claiming “my ethics are the only logical possible ones,” he’s saying, “Assuming the empirical fact that you need body parts to argue, then my ethics are the only logical possible ones without contradicting yourself.”

              • Major_Freedom says:

                To elaborate on my other post below, let me just say that I am glad that you accept that self-contradictory concepts cannot be admitted as a valid response.

                The key principles of your island example doesn’t relate, in my view, to Hoppe. It is not illogical in itself to consider another person on the island.

                Yet your response to Hoppe was not about logical concepts like people, but rather, and let’s put certainty aside for a moment, a possibly illogical concept called God.

                It’s one thing to introduce a human into a discussion. It’s quite another to introduce a supreme being.

                You said that it is not illogical to conceive of a God that created the universe. But that is not the meaning of God. That is one of the acts God has allegedly carried out, but that cannot only be what God is, because, and like you said before, we, indeed the observable universe, could have been created by aliens.

                But the mere act of creating something does not necessarily imply that the original creator always owns what he has created, No, the only way that God owns everything would make sense would be for him to at least be exercising all the things that are related to ownership. It’s not enough to simply say “God is who created the universe” and then say that because God created the universe, he owns it. After all, it is possible that God could have “disowned” his creation and ceased being an owner, in which case Hoppe’s ownership argument stands.

                What I am saying is that the God that would make human self-ownership impossible, cannot be just a “He created the universe” kind of God. He would have to be exercising ownership, which means he’d have to at least have knowledge of it (omniscience), and he would at least have be able to, in principle, exercise his property rights (omnipotence). Since omniscience and omnipotence contradict, then the God that is required to refute Hoppe is self-contradictory and thus cannot be admitted.

                In order for you to even claim that a God may, in principle, own the entire universe, is if you have already presupposed a bunch of attributes of God. This means you cannot just claim that “God created the universe” and thus Hoppe is wrong. You’d have to show a God that is OWNER of the universe, not just it’s creator. After all, can we humans not throw away something we created?

                Interestingly enough, some early, and perhaps even current Christians, as well as non-Christian mystics, held that God’s act of creating the universe was an act of estrangement and alienation. He “disowned” the universe by the very act of creating it. This is because before the universe was created, there was only God, and the universe sprung forth from him, and because humans are in the universe, humans were cut off from God.

                If we adopt that version of God, then Hoppe’s argument stands, because God does not in fact own the universe. He might be there, but he disowned the universe the moment he created it.

                This is why you have to be very clear on what God is first, before it can be admitted into a response to Hoppe. If you claim that “God is mysterious” and you don’t know, then you cannot use God, because you cannot use that which you don’t know what its actual nature is as a refutation of Hoppe, which means Hoppe’s argument has still stood up to your response.

                You’re going to have to propose a much more accurate and detailed description of God before you can claim that God is logical, owns the universe, and all the implications of that assumption.

                So far, your response fails to refute Hoppe, because you have not shown God to be internally logical, nor have you shown that even if God existed, he is the owner of the universe, and hence self-ownership is allegedly refuted..

    • Silas Barta says:

      Bob, I’m not sure it was a good idea for you to promote Freedom to major … with the added pay, he can now afford to make his comments even longer than the incredibly long ones he already made!

      • bobmurphy says:

        True. I thought if he had to take on more administrative duties he’d got bogged down in paper pushing. Remember how Jim Kirk hated being promoted to Admiral in the movies?

  5. Daniel Kuehn says:

    Strongly agree with Michael Green. You seem to have missed the whole point of the criticism. What’s amazing is that anything we could do in < 100 years would merit infinite years of torture as punishment. It's precisely because we don't find that repugnant – it's precisley because we see the Anakin in addition to the Vader (and we don't think the Vader deserves an eternity of torture) that we have a problem with the alleged justice of it all.

    • Brian Shelley says:

      We like to believe that people are good, but we are not. Most of us are “good” because of social pressure and fear of retribution. Go watch the 60 minutes interview of Lara Logan. It’s not that Egyptian are particularly evil, it’s that when a group of people begin to realize their anonymity within a crowd the truly terrible parts of themselves are revealed. Look at the Milgram experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment. Look how soldiers murdered, raped, and plundered during war for centuries. Without the fear of what people will do in return, many “good” people are revealed as monsters.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        You may be misunderstanding me, Brian. The concern is not that people aren’t so monstrous that they are undeserving of severe punishment. Certainly this is true.

        But this isn’t the claim. If that were all, I don’t think you would have many people disputing that claim.

        The claim is that the mere act of being an imperfect human – of some bad put not horrific transgressions for most of us (and more horrific transgressions for others) is deserving of eternal torture.

        You can’t justify that with a Milgram experiment. Both the conventional monstrosity characteristic of all of us and the less conventional monstrosity of the truly terrible people out there still seem disproportional relative to the punishment that God is allegedly saving us from. It’s that disproportionality that’s the problem.

        Bob completely misunderstands it. The critics don’t find salvation repugnant. We find hell repugnant and anyone who claims that hell is just seriously mislead.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        You would be more productive addressing critics if you could provide an explanation for why it is justice for a conventional, kind person who does not accept Christ as a savior and lives maybe 80 years of that conventional, kind life to be tortured for eternity.

        Certainly there are Milgram-type experiments that could be done which would demonstrate that this person has the potential to be more monstrous than he lets on. That’s certainly plausible. But what behavior could possibly be elicited from the average person that would require eternal torture as a punishment?

        Explain that to me. Don’t point out that we have the potential to do bad things. I know that.

        And even if you can explain that to me, I’d also like you to explain why God couldn’t, immediately after death, pull these sorts of people aside and say “look – I know the whole Christ thing was a little implausible and perhaps you didn’t take the time for it on Earth – but if you’d like to worship and adore me for eternity and accept me as your savior at this point you don’t have to be tortured – because honestly I simply want to be in a relationship with you, I don’t revel in the idea of being separated from you and having you tortured”.

        • Brian Shelley says:

          There is a cliche about hell simply being a place where God’s presence has been removed. Since I believe that God is actively engaged in our lives exhorting us through his subtle methods towards good, this maintains the balance of civility we’re used to. Now remove that balance from the world, and the world degenerates a la the Stanford experiment. Hell is simply the inevitable outcome of our natural selves without the outside influence of God.

          Also, to be honest, when I became a Christian a few years ago, I leaned away from the existence of hell. It’s only in retrospect that I see how bad I truly was that I can see more of the justice in it. Reading C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce was also rather helpful to me.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      I am much more in favor of Bob’s other way of putting this: You get to choose. Do you pick amor sui or amor Dei? And eternal damnation is not a matter of a lot of years: it is something that happens right now, in the moment of your choosing the former.

  6. Avram says:

    I am very humbled Bob.

    This is not strictly a relgous point:

    Even if a ruler’s rule is legitimate, even if you are a guest in a host’s house, cannot that host or that ruler be unjust, unfair and not merciful? Or does the legitimacy of their rule or the title of their property guarantee make any action they might take not these things.

    If I went into someone’s home and he told me to fight my daughter to the death and that if I do not he will shoot us both, mean that if I do not obey I am being a bad libertarian?

    I hope not, or I am no libertarian!

    This relates to Bob’s religous point because I don’t think by saying “well god owns the earth too y’know” makes him somehow more just and merciful if you think him neither in the first place.

    But I must repeat: wow am I humbled, thank you for the quote Bob!

  7. Gene Callahan says:

    “On the contrary, the reason we Christians think we know a thing or two about God is that He told us.”

    Shaftesbury (no atheist!) doesn’t think this works. He believes we must know God is good already, by intuition, or we could never take the step of believing in revealed truths: otherwise, why wouldn’t we think the revelation is intended to deceive us?

    • Major_Freedom says:

      >Major_Freedom (atheist in Abrahamic God) doesn’t think this works. He believes we must know the flying spaghetti monster is good already, by intuition, or we could never take the step of believing in revealed truths: otherwise, why wouldn’t we think the spaghetti monster’s revelation is intended to deceive us?

      • Gene Callahan says:

        Once someone mentions “the flying spaghetti monster,” they are conversing on the level of nursery school taunts.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          But Gene, you see, this book I have says the flying spaghetti monster exists. It’s all there. The flying spaghetti monster’s Earthly Apostles called the holy meatballs, the stories, it’s all there.

          Surely the holy meatballs would not have risked their lives for the sake of something they knew to be false.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        Or, in other words, I’m attempting to have an intelligent conversation with Bob about something above your head. So if you could stop sticking your tongue out and making juvenile noises, that would help.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Gene, I don’t know why you insist on turning debates into childish nonsense all the time. I am not being juvenile. And it’s not above my head. I would think it is on par with my head, since my brain is made from the same stuff your brain is made of, so there is no reason for you to presume anything is over the heads of anyone else.

          What juvenile nonsense are you talking about? The flying spaghetti monster is serious business. He was eaten for our sins, and his story, while totally false, serves as spiritual truth. We can only achieve eternal life and transcend this miserable spaghetti scarce world by accepting the flying spaghetti monster as our personal lord and savior.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Gene wrote:

      Shaftesbury (no atheist!) doesn’t think this works. He believes we must know God is good already, by intuition, or we could never take the step of believing in revealed truths: otherwise, why wouldn’t we think the revelation is intended to deceive us?

      Sure. And like I’ve always said, that’s part of what I mean when I say I “trust Jesus.” I independently, with my own moral code developed in a secular world, can say that I trust the character of Jesus. I think that man is good. But my personal judgments etc. would not have allowed me to develop the doctrines of salvation through faith, etc. I only know about that stuff because Jesus lectured on it.

  8. knoxharrington says:

    I am sure this is inadvertent but the linkage of Star Wars and Christianity is telling as Joseph Campbell and his work on myth were instructive to George Lucas in writing the movies – particularly the first three. Seeing the mythological archetypes in fiction like Star Wars points out the similarities in the mythological archetypes in another work of fiction – the Bible.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      knox, apparently you think this is a telling remark against Christianity, but for me the whole point is not whether or not some events described in a religious work really happened, but whether or not they convey spiritual truths. I could not care less whether some actual person named Abraham led some actual person named Isaac up a mountain to sacrifice him. What is important is what the story conveys about our spiritual lives. (I recognize that this viewpoint will not be congenial to some Christians!)

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        And this breaks down completely with Christ himself, of course. Christ needs to have existed as an actual person and needs to have sacrified himself.

        Hitchens has pointed this out when people say things like “there’s more evidence of Jesus than Socrates”. He says what you do about Abraham and Isaac. He says it wouldn’t matter a bit if Socrates were fictional – the point is that we have Socratic ideas. This is simply not the case with Jesus. Jesus needs to have existed.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        but for me the whole point is not whether or not some events described in a religious work really happened, but whether or not they convey spiritual truths.

        Is that because you are able to understand that the stories themselves are nonsensical?

        And what exactly are “spiritual” truths, how do they differ from “non-spiritual” truths, and by what exact means are you employing to arrive at them whereas non-spiritual methodology (reason, science, logic, etc) fails?

    • knoxharrington says:

      Gene,

      I actually meant it to be more ironic, sarcastic and humorous rather than telling -although I suppose it could be seen that way. I don’t have any problem with people finding “spiritual” truth – I just don’t want to be told that I have to acknowledge that “truth” based on claims derived from unreliable sources. If one wants to say “story X tells us something about the human condition that is transcendent” (i.e, Book of Job, Crime and Punishment, Star Wars et al.) that is perfectly acceptable to me. If, however, someone wants to tell me what I can or cannot do (“WWJD”) based on their interpretation of “facts” from that same unreliable source – that is another question entirely.

      Daniel,

      I have never denied that Jesus existed. I have denied that Jesus rose from the dead, brought people back from the dead, “cured” diseases, etc. based on the evidence that supposedly proves those claims. There is not sufficient or reliable evidence for those claims and the probabilities tell us that those claims are not fact or reality based. That has always been my position. Many agnostics and/or atheists feel they need to deny Jesus’ existence in order to disprove Christianity – I am not one of those although I admit proving he didn’t exist would seem to be a case closed argument – as you acknowledge.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Right – I didn’t mean to suggest he didn’t exist. The point is, he is probably the one case in the whole of scripture where he actually has to have done what is attributed to him.

  9. R says:

    hoppe’s argument fails because he doesn’t consider the fact that god created everything? i think this is where we give up on the jesus talk and stick to economics.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Why? The laws of supply and demand work whether or not a God exists. And a lot of Hoppe’s biggest fans are devout Catholics. So yes, it is very relevant if Gene and I are right, that Hoppe’s celebrated result only works if it rules out the possibility that a God created everything.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Gene and I are right, that Hoppe’s celebrated result only works if it rules out the possibility that a God created everything.

        I am not being glib here, I am being serious, but doesn’t your logic require Hoppe’s result to also rule out the possibility of flightless flying pink unicorns owning everything as well? If not, why not?

        • Gene Callahan says:

          No, you don’t get sincere answers from me, my friend. That possibility is long past. If you wanted to think about this for more than a second, however, the answer is pretty obvious.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            No, you don’t get sincere answers from me, my friend.

            Well, I didn’t really expect a sincere answer from you anyway, considering how difficult it is for you to do in general. And I was asking Bob, by the way.

            If you wanted to think about this for more than a second, however, the answer is pretty obvious.

            It’s not obvious at all. It’s why I asked. I thought about it for a good long while. I am not trying to waste anyone’s time.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “hoppe’s argument fails because he doesn’t consider the fact that god created everything?”

      Hoppe’s argument fails for many reasons — I believe Bob and noted at least half-a-dozen. Remember Hoppe is declaring anyone who doesn’t agree with his political stance is in a performative contradiction. We were merely showing that someone who thinks God owns everything and therefore laws against, say, suicide are fine is not in such a contradiction.

      “i think this is where we give up on the jesus talk and stick to economics.”

      What an odd thing to say, since Hoppe was not presenting an economic argument!

      • Gene Callahan says:

        And, by the way, that is exactly the argument Locke really did use against suicide!

      • Blackadder says:

        Hoppe’s argument fails for many reasons — I believe Bob and noted at least half-a-dozen.

        It really is an amazingly bad argument.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Remember Hoppe is declaring anyone who doesn’t agree with his political stance is in a performative contradiction. We were merely showing that someone who thinks God owns everything and therefore laws against, say, suicide are fine is not in such a contradiction.

        Does someone who believes that a flightless flying pink unicorn owns everything refute Hoppe as well?

        • bobmurphy says:

          Yes, if we take out “flightless.” Now in order to repair his argument, Hoppe could start out by saying, “I left out an assumption in my previous proof. First, assume that there is NOT a flying pink unicorn who owns everything. Now then, in order to argue, you need to have control of your brain…”

          Since nobody would object to such an initial assumption, that wouldn’t really damage his argument. But it would still be true that his published result wasn’t quite right, since he thought he had categorically proved self-ownership when really he hadn’t.

          But Gene and I showed that Hoppe can’t just repair his argument by assuming there is no flying unicorn who owns everything. He also has to assume that there isn’t a God who owns everything. And now a whole lot of Hoppeians might say, “Hmm, I’m not so sure I want to endorse that premise.”

          Notice that this type of thing isn’t true with other, actually valid, proofs. E.g. we don’t need to say of the Pythagorean Theorem, “This only works if there’s no God.”

          It actually really frustrated me when Stephan in his reply (at least on anti-state, not sure in his more formal one) said something like, “OK well then Bob, you and Gene need to prove that there is a God first, for that particular objection to have any merit.”

          No, we don’t. To think we do shows people are misunderstanding just how sweeping Hoppe claimed his result was.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Bob, your argument that should someone propose that God own everything, regardless of whether it is in fact true, nevertheless refutes Hoppe, because “God owns everything” is allegedly not inherently self-contradictory, and that it therefore shows that Hoppe’s argument is not right (because he claimed that anything other than self-ownership has to be self-contradictory), your response is erroneous on two levels.

            The reason why I proposed flightless flying pink unicorns, as opposed to just flying ones, is to introduce a self-contradictory concept as a way to show how wrong it is to think that one can avoid self-contradiction merely by proposing that a concept be owner of everything, then declare that because the mere act of proposing it is not a self-contradiction, you then interpret this mean that because you allegedly succeeded in doing what Hoppe said was impossible, it must mean Hoppe is not correct.

            But you are making an incredible assumption, one that you have completely glossed over.

            Since Hoppe’s argument is logic based, then only superior logic can refute his argument.

            Would you agree that it is not logically permissible to propose a self-contradictory concept as being anything at all, let alone an entity that allegedly owns everything in the universe? If you permit your mind to accept that self-contradictory concepts cannot be used to refute any argument, let alone a logic based argument, then you cannot just assume that God is not self-contradictory.

            You are just presuming, without support, that God is itself an inherently logical concept. If however it can be shown that God is inherently illogical and contradictory, then you cannot claim that the proposition “God owns everything” serves to refute Hoppe.

            Have you successfully shown that God is not self-contradictory, i.e. that God is an internally consistent concept? No, you have not, not in your response to Hoppe anyway. So your response can only be labeled as, at best, only a tentative criticism, one that requires its own logical analysis. Your response cannot be CERTAIN to refute Hoppe. Not until you establish that God is internally consistent and not self-contradictory.

            If we assume for a moment that God is in fact self-contradictory, then it follows that Hoppe’s failure to show why the concept of God is self-contradictory cannot be used as a knock against his argument, because an absence of a self-contradictory premise cannot make an argument weaker.

            If we instead assume for a moment that God is in fact not self-contradictory, then your response would be, from what I can tell, a successful refutation of Hoppe.

            So the stakes are high.

            Your response to Hoppe, as it is written, cannot be considered a definite refutation, because you did not show that God is not self-contradictory.

            You got peeved that Kinsella asked you to prove God exists first before your response makes sense. I can understand why, because he didn’t understand your point that you don’t need to do that, you just need to be able to propose it, not contradict yourself, and that serves to refute Hoppe’s sweeping argument.

            What I am asking you to do is show not that God exists, but to show that God is a non self-contradictory concept. This I think is not violating the point of your response, because you assumed in your response that God is not contradictory, and in fact your response only works if God is not self-contradictory. If it is self-contradictory, then you cannot claim that it is a contradictory free proposition that would refute Hoppe.

            Kinsella was on to something when he asked you to prove God exists. He sensed that you were just hastily and without justification, sweeping in to inject God into the argument, then say HAHA! and then swoop away. Kinsella was probably thinking hey wait minute, you can’t do that without justifying yourself.

            I am asking that of you too.

            Can you see, or would you agree, that your response of “God owns everything” requires God to not be self-contradictory before it can serve as a refutation of Hoppe’s logical argument? I think you do, which is why you probably dropped the “flightless” adjective above.

            So in summary, your response to Hoppe is only tentative at best, and, if it can be shown that God is a contradictory concept, then your response completely fails.

            So you’re going to need to prove that God is not contradictory and have it stand up to criticism. Your attempts at this have so far failed, for example your attempt to reconcile the contradictory attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, among other things.

            As it stands, Hoppe’s argument is not refuted like you say it is. It will remain unchallenged until you can prove God is not inherently contradictory.

  10. Anon says:

    THE STORY OF GOD

    God: Gosh, I’m angry. I can’t believe Adam ate that apple. It’s been a few thousand years, but seriously, what a jerk. I know what I’ll do! I’ll torture everyone for eternity!

    God’s conscience: Isn’t that a bit harsh?

    God: Yeah, maybe you’re right. I’ll make a loophole, then. I won’t torture anyone who believes I turned myself into a human, got myself killed, and came back from the dead.

    God’s conscience: Isn’t that a little arbitrary, though?

    God: Yeah.

    God’s conscience: But, I mean, how will people even know if it really happened or not?

    God: They won’t.

    God’s conscience: Um… how is that fair?

    God: Look, if I gave people evidence of what happened, then EVERYONE would believe it and there wouldn’t be anyone left to torture! Hellooooo!

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Your first line raises another interesting question for Bob.

      Bob is on record saying he thinks evolution happened. God guided it, got the ball rolling, etc. of course. But biologists aren’t frauds according to Bob – evolution by natural selection did happen (correct me if I’m wrong on this view of yours).

      So if evolution happened (and many Christians accept this), what was the first organism to face the prospect of eternal torture? When did that start happening to people? How would such a thing be determined?

      • Scott says:

        I don’t claim to speak for Bob, only myself. I disagree with the strictly Calvinistic take on things, and I think that someone like C. S. Lewis would tell you that while we do have a good idea what God’s arrangement with believers is, and that all those who are saved in the end will have been delivered as a result of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we don’t necessarily have a good idea what his arrangements are with everyone else. (i.e. what about people who died without ever having heard of him, like before Jesus was born? What about space aliens?)

        C. S. Lewis (and many others, I would add) seemed to think that other arrangements might be made in some fashion, and that the torture of ‘hell’ may be of one’s own creation.

        See ‘The Great Divorce’ on that one.

        • bobmurphy says:

          I haven’t read the Great Divorce (I don’t think?) but I agree with you Scott–we don’t know for sure what happens to various people after they die. In fact there’s some guy who just wrote a book on hell that makes this argument, that God basically gives you a chance after you’re dead to accept Him. But I think a bunch of Christians have correctly pointed out that there’s no scriptural basis for that.

          • Dan says:

            That is my biggest obstacle with religion. Why wouldn’t God present himself and give you a choice when you die? Why is it so important to do it while you still breathe?

            • Anon says:

              “That is my biggest obstacle with religion. Why wouldn’t God present himself and give you a choice when you die? Why is it so important to do it while you still breathe?”

              By worldly standards, condemning someone to eternal suffering for the “sin” of rational un-belief would be the height of sadism.

              Apparently though, after you die, you will realize how it is in fact the purest form of love… as you roast in the depths of hell, of course.

      • Michael J. Green says:

        Do all monkeys go to heaven?

  11. Anon says:

    “… the God of the Bible behaves completely irrationally. He starts out, furious at humans for their sinful ways, and is going to cast them all into eternal hellfire. But, after He sends His Son and we murder Him, then God forgives us our sins and lets us into heaven. That doesn’t make any sense.”

    Yes, and what is your reply to the above?

    “Holy cow those fundamentalist Protestants are out there. Not only do they think rapists and murderers can get into heaven, so long as they ‘accept Jesus’ two seconds before they die, but they also think that a guy who ate a forbidden fruit thousands of years ago, somehow affects my guilt or innocence. Talk about compounding error with yet more error!”

    Yes. The idea of EVIL people going to paradise while GOOD people get tortured for eternity is repugnant. But instead of being repulsed by the injustice of it all, you reply with the non sequitur that doing good things doesn’t make one good, and doing bad things doesn’t make one bad.

    Work, trade, love, and play
    Doesn’t mean you’re good today.
    Kidnap, torture, maim, and slay
    Jesus loves you anyway.

    • dinosaur says:

      I’d like to know what you think of this as well. How does the Christ’s-death-leads-to-forgiveness-of-sins thing work?

      • Jesse Forgione says:

        Just like a passive-aggressive parent:
        “I have to torture myself to death for your guilt! You owe me your life for first not obeying my order to remain ignorant of good and evil, and second for letting me kill myself!”

  12. Anon says:

    “Well, if Jesus actually IS our savior and we actually DO need Him for our salvation, then it’s not obviously petty for Him to expect us to utter true statements.”

    It actually IS petty of him to expect us to utter true statements that we have no way of KNOWING are true. Imagine if someone threatened to torture you for not believing something you had no evidence for and actually had reason to DISBELIEVE. In fact, that is exactly what happened in “1984”.

  13. Anon says:

    “Our minds right now can’t comprehend the actual nature of our existence and of God, for obvious reasons. But after death, for those of us who choose to be in communion with the Lord, we will see exactly why He told His story (history) the way He did.”

    So, to recap the key points from your post:

    1. Your claims are primarily faith-based, rather than reason-based.

    2. Your claims are absurd by worldly standards, but coherent by other – as of yet undisclosed – standards.

    3. You’ll be proven correct in the afterlife.

    Well, I think it’s fair to say that you’ve won the debate at this point.

  14. aaron says:

    “Are you agnostics and atheists telling me that this strikes you as repugnant? Do you think George Lucas is being too soft on murderers here? Don’t forget, Vader blew up a whole planet and tortured Han Solo.”

    No. George Lucas gets to play around with the the nature of knowledge. He can say, “Anakin truly, absolutely redeemed himself with his final living act and did it with pure intentions. Everyone to whom this mattered knew this.”

    In real life, we do not get such clarity or perfect information so we have to settle for the next best thing, bad guys who kill billions of people because they can don’t get to be good guys no matter what they do. If we did anyone other than this, the game theorists will tell us the resulting equilibrium will be very, very bad.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Aaron wrote:

      In real life, we do not get such clarity or perfect information so we have to settle for the next best thing, bad guys who kill billions of people because they can don’t get to be good guys no matter what they do.

      I came across another guy who had the exact same reaction you did to my question. He wrote:

      “Now then: If Vader hadn’t been injured, and escaped with Luke back to Endor, I agree that he would have to face the legal consequences of his actions. Luke couldn’t just say, “It’s OK everybody, my father is back. All is forgiven.” No, there would be lots of problems with a legal system that worked like that, such as the problem that humans can’t really judge the hearts of others, and so wouldn’t be able to distinguish genuine repentance from a cynical ploy to escape punishment.

      However, since Vader died, that’s not the issue.”

  15. Anon says:

    “…I disagree strongly that an agnostic who helps little old ladies across the street and doesn’t use the f-word is ‘a good person.’ Yes, he might be good compared to most other humans, but he’s far from perfect.”

    You’ve set up a false contradiction. “Good” and “far from perfect” are not mutually exclusive. So, yes, an agnostic who helps little old ladies across the street CAN be a good person while simultaneously being far from perfect.

    “I think in God’s value system, somebody who did something really bad, but has sincerely repented and understands just how bad it was, is a “better person” at this moment than the person who did a litany of lesser offenses, but now offers no apology for them and in fact is outraged at the very idea that a God might hold him in judgment. And I have to say that this seems eminently fair to me.”

    You are attacking a straw man. The relevant comparison is NOT between a repentant and an unrepentant person. The relevant comparison is between a bad person who believes in Jesus and a good person who does not.

    Notice also, how you subtly imply that non-believers do not repent for their misdeeds. This is nonsense, of course, but what about the case of BELIEVERS who do not repent? Does it seem “eminently fair” to you that the unrepentant believer would get a first class direct flight to eternal paradise while a REPENTENT non-believer would have to take the Greyhound to Hades?

  16. Anon says:

    “Reconciling God’s Sovereignty, Mercy, and Justice With Our Free Will”

    Your post title brings up a couple important points:

    1. If your god was truly just it wouldn’t dole out grossly disproportionate and arbitrary punishments. It wouldn’t reward evil people while punishing good people.

    2. If your god was truly merciful, it would give non-believers a chance to repent and get into heaven after they spent a minute in hell and realized the “error” of their ways.

    No, your god is neither just or merciful.

  17. Jesse Forgione says:

    Here’s what the answer will actually “look like:”

    Morally, any argument that would justify God, would also justify the absolute state.

    (It wouldn’t matter if he created us, just as it doesn’t matter that our parents created us. No one owns me, and anyone who tries to is a criminal aggressor.)

    Metaphysically, any argument that could prove the existence of God, could also prove the existence of Santa Clause. (There are no such arguments, thank logic.)

    Orwell wrote a book about fictional characters. We actually exist. Analogy=fail.

    Epistemologically, an argument for the validity of faith as a means to knowledge is an argument against the validity of reason. It’s an argument that implicitly admits that it is, itself, illogical.

    It’s revealing that you say reflecting on the nature of existence and the human condition would lead one to despair. On the contrary, that is the only path to a sound and honest happiness.

  18. Jesse Forgione says:

    And yes, Vader is still guilty of mass murder.

  19. Anon says:

    1. What about all the people who died before Jesus was crucified? Are they all in hell?

    If so:

    2. W.T.F. mate?

    If not:

    3. Why was Jesus even necessary?

    4. Which ones got into heaven and which ones are currently being flame-broiled?

  20. Anon says:

    Adam was kicked out of Eden, not for a lack of belief in god, but for failing to follow orders. In other words, god’s main concern at the time was not faith but obedience. The Old Testament has 613 explicit commandments. For millennia, god tried to micromanage humans using threats, terrorism, and genocide.

    How does faith in god – which wasn’t even the problem to begin with – make up for an utter lack of obedience to god’s will? In fact, it doesn’t. The execution of Godman did not and could not have atoned for Adam’s disobedience. Instead, it marked the beginning of a new and much narrower covenant implicitly recognizing the triumph of the human will over god.