The Irrational Doubting Thomas
I can’t put my finger on a good example right now, but over the years I have come across atheists/agnostics who praise “Doubting Thomas,” the apostle who demanded proof when the other apostles said they had seen the resurrected Jesus. To refresh our memories (John 20: 19-29):
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”
So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
To repeat, unfortunately I can’t point to any quotes as examples, but many times I have seen skeptics saying that “Doubting Thomas” is being quite rational and scientific, because “everybody knows” that somebody can’t come back from the dead.
Yet I want to argue that Thomas is being quite irrational and anti-empirical. In the context of the gospel accounts, he has seen (or heard about) Jesus performing countless miracles. These included feeding thousands of people from a few loaves of bread, healing the blind, healing the paralyzed, healing lepers, and walking on water.
Moreover, Jesus had raised others from the dead, before His own death. Most famously He brought Lazarus back from the dead, after he had been in the tomb for four days–even those who trusted Jesus the most were trying to wave Him off, because “obviously” it was too late. But Jesus also raised a young girl from the dead, quite publicly. (I.e. everybody knew she was dead, then Jesus went in and healed her.)
Finally, on different occasions Jesus predicted His own death and resurrection to His apostles, so it should have been perfectly reasonable for Thomas to believe them when they said He had returned.
Now of course, today’s atheists/agnostics will say that the above links are to fairy tales, and that those miracles never happened. OK fair enough; I don’t want to argue that in today’s post. But then it doesn’t make sense to say Doubting Thomas is your role model, because he’s a fairy tale too. It would be like saying you respect Han Solo for not believing in all that mumbo-jumbo about “using the force”; everybody knows you need a good blaster to defend yourself from Storm Troopers.
In conclusion, I am saying that either you take the gospel accounts at face value–either as morality tales containing a great deal of wisdom about living a good life, or as actual historical events–in which case Thomas was (understandably) obstinate in his refusal to accept reality. Or, you can reject the stories as absurd and useless for modern life.
But in no case does it make sense to praise the disbelief of Thomas.
Don’t diss Apostle Thomas. He is the patron saint of Kerala, India. He landed in India around AD 50. Him and his companions were responsible for the small Christian community who lives along the south western coast of India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Malabar_Nasrani
You know, I’d never really thought about it that way, but you’re right.
“In conclusion, I am saying that either you take the gospel accounts at face value–either as morality tales containing a great deal of wisdom about living a good life, or as actual historical events…”
But Bob, the way an historian would approach stories like this, is not that they “recount actual historical events” — historians don’t take any accounts to do this — but as *evidence* of actual historical events. Take, say, The Gallic Wars. What an historian does is say, “Well, here’s what Caesar *said* happened… and here’s what X said, and here’s what Y said. And when we did a dig in Provence, what we found was this, and these coins had this inscription” etc. etc. From that evidence, the historian declares what she believes to have really happened.
Until I probe the knife wound in his back, I won’t believe in Caesar.
Anyone that uses “an” historian, should be taken to the woodshed.
BTW, I found it amusing that Gene’s “Real People” book was the closest to the register at the travelling Mises bookstore. Impulse buy anyone? (The book did help me tremendously in understanding ABCT).
Off topic. I’ve been thinking about the Children of Israel and their desire for a King (I guess that last line in the Salon article on Mises stuck with me). Also about how the Negative rights (don’t encroach on the person or property of another) are found in the Ten Commandments. How it seems like God has a set of laws for family relationships (honor thy father mother, thou shalt not commit adultery) and another set for other relationships (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness). Is our system of government inherently immoral according to God’s Commandments? Is anyone writing about this?
Why is it irrational to have a fairytale role model? After all, a role model is only to provide some ideological inspiration, it’s not as if anyone expects their role model to also be a mentor, answer questions, and make coffee.
“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”
The trouble is of course, once you start believing in stuff that you have never seen, and have no evidence for, where does it end? How do you know what not to believe in? Without evidence how can you sort rubbish from reality?
Tel wrote:
The trouble is of course, once you start believing in stuff that you have never seen, and have no evidence for, where does it end?
You apparently missed the whole point of my post. Thomas had seen all kinds of evidence for these things. It would be like me telling you, “Tel, I just flew here on a plane.” And you say, “What?! There’s no way people can fly in machines. Until I see you do that with my own eyes, I won’t believe.”
And yet you saw somebody else do just that, the day before.
Regardless of what Thomas knew, I was referring to the teaching of Jesus, which would appear to advocate belief founded on ignorance.
I find it strange that Jesus was able to raise Lazarus from the dead on command (i.e. instantaneously), but it took three days for the miracle to work on himself.
Lazarus had been dead for four days, though.
Jesus got chided for taking his sweet time in the first instance… maybe three days was him trying to improve his reputation for procrastination
🙂
Yeah, I’ve found that strange as well. One of your close friend’s is on his death bed and you wait a couple days before starting your journey to go and see him?
Apostle: “Jesus, don’t you want to go see your dying friend?”
Jesus: “Psssth! This town rocks! I’m not leaving yet. If he’s dead when I get there, I’ll just miracle him back to life.”
Yeah, I’ve found that strange as well. One of your close friend’s is on his death bed and you wait a couple days before starting your journey to go and see him?
Jesus and the disciples had previously left Judea because people were trying to stone him, and the general view was that if he returned he would be killed (which, in fact, is what happened). Hence, you have Thomas saying to the others “Let us also go, so that we may die with him.”
Maybe when you miracle a person back to life, you have to wait for the earth to rotate at least three times.
The whole “Thomas affair” is interesting in any number of ways.
He was “Thomas called Didymos.” Neither of those things is a name.
“Thomas” is Hebrew for “twin.”
“Didymos” is Greek for “twin.”
Whose twin was he?
Well, any time the resurrected Jesus showed up in public, Thomas was nowhere to be found.
The only time the resurrected Jesus showed up when Thomas was there was when only his closest associates were present (in a locked room!) to later attest to it.
I wonder how many generations the supporters of the Davidic line (the ancient predecessors of the Jacobites) waited for twins to be born “out of town” so that they could be used to pull off the “miracles” (including “resurrection”) necessary to playing the Messiah card and attempting a restoration of that line to the throne.
Well, any time the resurrected Jesus showed up in public, Thomas was nowhere to be found.
When did the resurrected Jesus show up in public?
Re-read the Gospels, Acts and 1 Corinthians. Apparently, Jesus possessed some sort of Star Trek teleportation device because he would appear to 500 here, to Stephen over there, to Paul on the road, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus
The miracle was that this was all before Mr. Scott postulated the theory of trans-warp beaming. How did he do it? (Very heavy sarcasm)
This is pretty funny.
But of course Thomas and Jesus were seen together by the disciples so there goes your theory.
I think his point is that the disciples could have been in on the scam.
That’s the point.. Only the disciples saw them. Gee, that’s a mighty coincidence, huh?
Also, a scam is more likely than a miracle. There are “miracle” workers roaming India to this day, performing mystical magical feats, “healing” people, and moving on to the next village before their victims realize they’ve been conned out of their money.
Hi Bob,
I don’t mean this in a mean way, but I have noticed a consistent pattern of yours, namely, avoiding strong points while attacking weak and/or irrelevant ones. The above post is a good example. You’re attacking an argument that I’ve never seen brought up in the comments sections while leaving a significant number of important questions unaddressed.
The main reason I bring this up is because I don’t think you are doing it as a conscious strategy, and I think it’s something you would benefit from being aware of. Below are some key questions that I for one would like to know your answers to. Answering any one of them I think would be more interesting (at least to me, and perhaps to other readers) than questioning the rationality of the character of Thomas.
1. Is your god perfectly or imperfectly just?
2. Isn’t it unjust to condemn someone to eternal suffering for the “sin” of rational un-belief?
3. Isn’t eternal suffering grossly disproportionate to ANY non-eternal misdeed?
4. Is it “eminently fair” to let mostly evil and unrepentant believers into heaven while sending mostly good and repentant non-believers to hell?
5. Do you believe that Mises and Rothbard are suffering in hell now because they were “far from perfect”, because they were unrepentant, or because they were non-believers?
6. Wouldn’t a truly just god give people sufficient evidence to make a rational judgment as to its existence?
7. Wouldn’t a truly merciful god give non-believers a chance to repent and get into heaven once they realized the “error” of their ways in the afterlife?
8. Are all the people who died before Jesus was crucified in hell now?
9. Are all the people who never heard of Jesus in hell now?
Hi Anon,
As for (1): My God is perfectly just.
(2) – (4) I have given my views several times. I have said that I view hell as the absence of God. God gives you a choice, to be with Him or not, and if you choose not to, then He respects that decision.
In the future I may try to do a follow up post on the other questions. I’m personally not sure about those things.
In general though, I think the reason you think I’m ignoring the “hard questions” is that you disagree with me. Socialists or Keynesians who read this blog probably think I waste my time at Mises.org knocking down strawmen too.
“As for (1): My God is perfectly just.”
How is this possible when mercy entails the suspension of justice?
“(2) – (4) I have given my views several times. I have said that I view hell as the absence of God. God gives you a choice, to be with Him or not, and if you choose not to, then He respects that decision.”
In what way, exactly, did your god give me a choice? I’m not aware of any choice. I’m not aware of any god. In fact, I claim that no choice was ever given to me. How do you propose to refute me?
“In the future I may try to do a follow up post on the other questions. I’m personally not sure about those things.”
I’m looking forward to your thoughts on those questions. As things stand at the present, though, your arguments for god’s justice and mercy remain incomplete, and you thus have no logical basis for claiming that the Christian god is just OR merciful.
“Socialists or Keynesians who read this blog probably think I waste my time at Mises.org knocking down strawmen too.”
Well, don’t worry about them, because they’re all just spoiled sports. They go by the motto “Blessed are those who calculateth not and yet have planned”.
You don’t just knock down strawmen.
Sometimes you talk about MMT too
🙂
I think it’s funny that you guys fight amongst yourselves. It’s like World War II. You can pick whether you are the Soviets or the Nazis.
Anon,
Are you looking for an apologetic answer or simply an answer? I will try and provide a little bit of both.
1. Perfectly just.
2. If you are allowing for the existence of God, then you must allow for said God to judge you. His judgment would be that there is no rational un-belief. In other words, for every reason you could give as to why you did not believe, he could provide a reason as to why you should have believed. And, again, assuming that God exists, your logical reasons for the non-existence of God would prove somewhat illogical.
3. Some Christians do not believe in eternal suffering. There are logical ways to interpret the biblical passages that talk about eternal smoke and fire and eternal death other than simply saying that someone will be tortured forever.
4. Who ever said unrepentant believers get into heaven?
5. According to the Bible, every person is far from perfect. Also, according to the Bible, repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin. I would answer your question by stating a general comment that Dr. Murphy has already made: people, if they never made a decision to want to know God, do not (in hell) know God. This would apply to Mises, Rothbard, and the Pope. (Just because you are the stated Vicar of Christ does not, necessarily, mean that you know God. I don’t think that priests (or religious officials from other religions or denominations) who molest children know God. I mention that only to say that a position of biblical leadership does not equate “knowing God.”
Not knowing God and being separated from him is the biblical definition of hell. Will it last forever? See my answer to question number 3.
6. Well, God has given enough evidence to convince people like Dr. Murphy and me. So, I imagine his answer to you would be, “Yes, a truly just God would give people sufficient evidence just as I have done.” You may say that it is not enough evidence for you. The God of the Bible would say that your situation is a condition of your spiritual heart, not his lack of providing evidence.
7. See the answer to number 6. This is a pretty broad question, however, because we first must nail down a foundation by which to address it. If you are going to believe that the gospels are historically accurate (Dr. Callahan’s earlier comment notwithstanding), then you will notice that Jesus did plenty of miracles, but he sure did not have many followers. So, exactly how much more evidence would God need to provide for you to believe? If he visited you in your home, could you not later argue that you were dreaming? Or that something you ate the night before caused you to hallucinate? Or that your neighbor was playing a trick on you?
8. A question with different answers. Are “all” the people who died before Jesus in hell? No. Are some of them? Yes — with the above-mentioned qualification on the term “hell.”
9. This answer involves some study of the apocalyptic literature, which I do not want to go into right now. Let me change your question a bit: during the final days, will those who never heard of Jesus go to hell? Most Christians would say yes. I, too, say yes. I also believe that a person’s existence in hell will not be eternal. That is, that person will one day no longer exist, thus making the time of any suffering, whatever suffering entails, finite.
Back on the Thomas thing:
Anyone else notice something funny about Thomas being “out?”
“…when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews…”
So then Jesus shows up, and amongst other things,
“…Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.’…”
So, it seems pretty clear, you know, He wants them to get out there and start being fishers of men and all that.
And then, Thomas, who wasn’t locked up in the house ‘for fear of the Jews,’ shows back up. And those who were so adamantly fearing the Jews a bit earlier are like, No, seriously, it turns out our cowering here indoors was the thing to do, for
“‘We have seen the Lord.'”
And Thomas, the guy who was willing to stop down the street for some snacks and the local gossip while all the other fishers of men were indoors for fear of the Jews, is like,
‘Sure, guys. Whatever. I’m the one brave enough to go about outside in danger of my life, and Jesus appeared to you. Yeah. You know what? (In essence) I’ll believe it when I see it.’
So then eight days later they are all cowering inside again. Remember the pep talk thing? And Thomas is there to see it this time. And of course his response is unequivocal:
“My Lord and my God!”
Remember that Thomas was at a disadvantage to everyone else. It isn’t like they were asked to believe on hearsay; they all saw Jesus the first time. Thomas was asked to believe their account of what they got to see for themselves, and all while he was out risking his neck while they were cowering in fear of the Jews.
Just some thoughts that I thought might add to the rationality of the doubting. Thomas isn’t doubting miracles or his Lord, he is doubting his somewhat timid colleagues.
“1. Perfectly just.”
How is that possible when mercy implies the suspension of justice?
“2. [God’s] judgment would be that there is no rational un-belief. In other words, for every reason you could give as to why you did not believe, he could provide a reason as to why you should have believed.”
What you are saying, essentially, is that god would be able to defeat me in a debate. It’s fine to claim that, but god has chosen not to participate in this thread, so I’m afraid it’s up to you and Bob. I claim that un-belief in the Christian god IS rational and is NOT a sin (even if the god you speak of happens to exist), but I’m open to your arguments to the contrary.
“And, again, assuming that God exists, your logical reasons for the non-existence of God would prove somewhat illogical.”
Well, I’m assuming no such thing, of course.
“3. Some Christians do not believe in eternal suffering. There are logical ways to interpret the biblical passages that talk about eternal smoke and fire and eternal death other than simply saying that someone will be tortured forever.”
OK, but this disagreement among Christians is one of a number of such disagreements that point to the disconnect between faith and truth. If faith was a means of perceiving reality, consensus would develop over time. Instead, the history of Christianity has been the exact opposite.
“4. Who ever said unrepentant believers get into heaven?”
I don’t actually recall reading that anywhere, but what is the bare minimum that will get someone into heaven? Is it belief in Jesus + repentance or is it belief in Jesus + repentance + “knowing” god?
“5. Also, according to the Bible, repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin.”
If that’s true, how do you explain the existence of unrepentant believers?
“I don’t think that priests (or religious officials from other religions or denominations) who molest children know God.”
And yet, some of them BELIEVE in god. What’s the difference between “knowing” god and believing in god?
“Not knowing God and being separated from him is the biblical definition of hell.”
So, in that case, are all LIVING atheists and agnostics currently in hell on earth?
“6. Well, God has given enough evidence to convince people like Dr. Murphy and me.”
And what evidence would that be, exactly?
“7. See the answer to number 6.”
I don’t see how your answer to 6 applies to 7. Mercy involves cutting people slack. If they somehow missed out on all the mountains of evidence of Jesus’ existence and divinity, a merciful and loving god would not hold it against them. In fact, a merciful and loving god would do what was necessary to MAKE SURE people knew it existed.
“If you are going to believe that the gospels are historically accurate (Dr. Callahan’s earlier comment notwithstanding), then you will notice that Jesus did plenty of miracles, but he sure did not have many followers.”
I believe the Christian scriptures are works of fiction.
“So, exactly how much more evidence would God need to provide for you to believe?”
How about evidence that Jesus actually existed and that the miracles in the Christian scriptures actually took place and weren’t just made up?
“If he visited you in your home, could you not later argue that you were dreaming? Or that something you ate the night before caused you to hallucinate? Or that your neighbor was playing a trick on you?”
You are implying that no amount of evidence would convince me. Of course, that is not the case at all. As a rational person, my standards of evidence are very high when it comes to miracles and the supernatural. Having high standards and being inconvincible are not the same thing.
“8. A question with different answers. Are “all” the people who died before Jesus in hell? No. Are some of them? Yes — with the above-mentioned qualification on the term “hell.””
Pre-Jesus, what factors determined getting into heaven or not?
“9. This answer involves some study of the apocalyptic literature, which I do not want to go into right now. Let me change your question a bit: during the final days, will those who never heard of Jesus go to hell? Most Christians would say yes. I, too, say yes.”
Clearly, that’s not fair. Why wouldn’t god help out those poor souls?
“I also believe that a person’s existence in hell will not be eternal. That is, that person will one day no longer exist, thus making the time of any suffering, whatever suffering entails, finite.”
OK, but again, there are so many different views of hell that it calls into question the very concept itself. I mean, the whole point of Christianity is to avoid going to hell, and yet no one can agree on what hell IS. Maybe it’s not such a bad place. Maybe it’s better than heaven. Who knows?
Anon,
Due to time constraints, this will be my last comment on this particular blog posting. Perhaps we will be able to continue dialogue during another round of comments on another one of Dr. Murphy’s religious blogs.
To answer some of your follow-up questions:
1. God did not suspend justice, he executed justice in the sacrificial atonement of Jesus. This allowed/allows God to be just and merciful (merciful to those who want his mercy).
2. Your original question was: “Isn’t it unjust to condemn someone to eternal suffering for the “sin” of rational un-belief?”
Since I cannot condemn you and neither can Dr. Murphy, your question can only be answered from the point of view of God. I realize that God is not participating in these comments. My point is that God would not condemn you for rational un-belief, for, if God exists, there is no such thing as rational un-belief.
3. I disagree that a consensus would develop over time. The Bible spends little to no time describing heaven or hell. Much of it is left to the imagination. Furthermore, most Christians discuss topics like “hell” as a tangential topic. In other words, it is not necessary to come to some type of complete unity on it because it has nothing to do with having a saving faith in God.
4. I am going to skip this question for I think that you might be able to deduce my answer from my answers to the other questions.
5. In the first century, Christians simply called themselves believers. This meant that they believed that Jesus was God’s son; they believed that he rose from the dead; they repented of their sins; and they were baptized into his name.
Today, the term “belief” has been greatly watered down. So, you can now have a believer who has never repented. That person, however, would not have been called a believer in the first century; they would have been called a hypocrite.
Also, atheists and agnostics are not living a hell on this earth because God is still active in their lives. As the Bible says, God sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. So, not believing in God does not stop God from doing things to affect your life.
No living person has ever truly been outside of the presence of God.
6. To long for me to discuss here.
7. My earlier answer was unclear. What I meant to say was that God (and Christians) believes that God has given enough evidence, and that any refusal to acknowledge this evidence is not for lack of information but for lack of desire on the part of people to acknowledge said evidence. So, in other words, you get one bite at the apple. During this bite, you have plenty of chances to discover and correct the error of your ways. If you do not, then you cannot suddenly, once you realize the consequences of your error, claim ignorance.
You say that you believe that the Bible is a work of fiction. That’s fine. My point was not to try and convince you otherwise. It was to show you that even under accounts recorded in the Bible, people saw miracles and did not believe. Therefore, someone who says, “Show me proof!” may see proof and still not believe.
For instance, people wanted the president to show his birth certificate. He did, and people still do not believe.
8. Another answer that I will need to skip due to time constraints and to theological issues that would take us some far afield. Sorry.
9. Again, the Bible addresses hell, but the main purpose of the Bible is to help people GET to heaven and AVOID hell. God does not spend much time describing what hell actually is. This leaves the door open for interpretation.
There is also an answer for your unfairness claim. Unfortunately, that, too, must wait. Sorry again.
Antiahithophel,
“Due to time constraints, this will be my last comment on this particular blog posting.”
Yeah, I understand. I usually try to post short comments that are easier to respond to, but my nine-question post was a collection of things that had accumulated over a number of weeks.
“Perhaps we will be able to continue dialogue during another round of comments on another one of Dr. Murphy’s religious blogs.”
Sounds good.
“1. God did not suspend justice…”
I subscribe to the libertarian conception of justice. In that view, justice prevails when property rights are left uninfringed. The violation of said rights is, by definition, unjust. However (I’m coming at this question from a different angle now), IF it is the case that humans are god’s property and therefore have no rights vis a vis god, then the whole concept of justice is inapplicable.
If anything god could possibly do to humans would be considered “just” due to its position as owner, then the concept of justice has no meaning or relevance in this context (and certainly, humans should take no comfort in the sanctification of their abuse at the hands of their owner).
“…he executed justice in the sacrificial atonement of Jesus.”
How, exactly, does executing god atone for human sin? If humans were in debt to god because Adam ate a bad apple, I would think that torturing and murdering god would only put them deeper into debt.
“This allowed/allows God to be just and merciful (merciful to those who want his mercy).”
The error here is in conflating belief with desire. It’s possible to want something you don’t believe in. It’s similarly possible to NOT want something you believe in. For example, Jim wants to spend time with Catwoman but doesn’t believe she exists. Rachel believes that sharks exist but doesn’t want to spend time with them.
What becomes of people who want god’s mercy and yet don’t believe in god?
“2. …God would not condemn you for rational un-belief, for, if God exists, there is no such thing as rational un-belief.”
It is overwhelmingly more probable that the Christian scriptures are works of fiction than that a bunch of miracles occurred. God’s existence (or lack thereof) has no bearing on this truth, because there have been innumerably more fictional miracles throughout human history than actual ones.
“3. I disagree that a consensus would develop over time. The Bible spends little to no time describing heaven or hell. Much of it is left to the imagination.”
Right, but that’s my point. If hell exists and is supernatural, and if faith is a true way of perceiving the supernatural, then the faithful should be able to come to a consensus regarding what hell actually is.
“Furthermore, most Christians discuss topics like “hell” as a tangential topic. In other words, it is not necessary to come to some type of complete unity on it because it has nothing to do with having a saving faith in God.”
I think hell is the central concept in Christianity, because the whole point of Jesus’ death was to SAVE people… from going to hell.
“4. I am going to skip this question for I think that you might be able to deduce my answer from my answers to the other questions.”
I still haven’t figured out the answer, because I still don’t know if there is a difference between “knowing” god and believing in god. Are both required to get into heaven?
“5. … you can now have a believer who has never repented. That person, however, would not have been called a believer in the first century; they would have been called a hypocrite.”
Makes sense, but do hypocrites get into heaven?
“No living person has ever truly been outside of the presence of God.”
OK.
“6. To long for me to discuss [the evidence for god, Jesus, and miracles] here.”
OK, but what about giving a few hints?
Bob has yet to present evidence for Jesus (or the miracles), but the evidence he has sited for god’s existence is the frequency of the numbers pi and e occurring in nature. That’s the type of evidence that would be HIGHLY convincing to a mathematician who was already convinced.
“7. My earlier answer was unclear.”
OK. What is your response to my claim that a merciful god would MAKE SURE everyone knew the truth (about god, Jesus, etc.)?
“What I meant to say was that God (and Christians) believes that God has given enough evidence, and that any refusal to acknowledge this evidence is not for lack of information but for lack of desire on the part of people to acknowledge said evidence.”
Right, which is why it is the EVIDENCE that is the meat of the whole argument. Yet, it is precisely this evidence which has not been forthcoming from either you or Bob. To quote Socrates, “Δείξε μου τα λεφτά!”.
“You say that you believe that the Bible is a work of fiction. That’s fine. My point was not to try and convince you otherwise. It was to show you that even under accounts recorded in the Bible, people saw miracles and did not believe. Therefore, someone who says, ‘Show me proof!’ may see proof and still not believe.”
I don’t want to be one of those people. I would much rather become aware of my errors than remain in error.
“8. Another answer that I will need to skip due to time constraints and to theological issues that would take us some far afield. Sorry.”
No problem. Time is a precious commodity.
“9. Again, the Bible addresses hell, but the main purpose of the Bible is to help people GET to heaven and AVOID hell. God does not spend much time describing what hell actually is.”
That’s odd, because knowledge of hell is necessary to make a rational decision that takes into account the costs (and possible benefits) of going there.
“There is also an answer for your unfairness claim. Unfortunately, that, too, must wait. Sorry again.”
OK. Thanks for answering as much as you have.
Anon wrote:
I subscribe to the libertarian conception of justice. In that view, justice prevails when property rights are left uninfringed. The violation of said rights is, by definition, unjust. However (I’m coming at this question from a different angle now), IF it is the case that humans are god’s property and therefore have no rights vis a vis god, then the whole concept of justice is inapplicable.
I haven’t followed all of your guys’ exchange, but the above struck me as interesting. It looks like you are saying, “I subscribe to the libertarian conception of justice, except when it leads me to results I don’t like. Then I don’t subscribe to it anymore.”
Suppose a rich capitalist buys up all the food in the world, as well as all the farmland and other means of making food. Then he says, “I only give food to people who tell me I’m pretty.” Some guy refuses to do it, and the capitalist doesn’t give the guy any of the capitalist’s just property, and the guy starves to death.
So you have one of two options: You can say that this is a just outcome, or you can stop saying that your theory of justice is derived from libertarian property rights. Which route do you want to go?
Bob wrote:
“I haven’t followed all of your guys’ exchange, but the above struck me as interesting. It looks like you are saying, ‘I subscribe to the libertarian conception of justice, except when it leads me to results I don’t like. Then I don’t subscribe to it anymore.’”
I’m saying that the libertarian concepts of justice and injustice follow from the concept of rights. They apply only to interactions between rights-bearing entities. Absent rights, there is no justice (or injustice).
Furthermore, rights themselves arise as a result of competition over control. Only in cases where control is contestable do rights have meaning. If god’s control is not in doubt or jeopardy, it makes no sense to call god an owner. God would simply be the controlling entity.
Therefore, god does not have property rights in humans (yes, my argument is evolving in real-time). Any force god initiates against humans is neither just nor unjust. It is simply an exercise of power over the weak.
“Suppose a rich capitalist buys up all the food in the world, as well as all the farmland and other means of making food. Then he says, “I only give food to people who tell me I’m pretty.” Some guy refuses to do it, and the capitalist doesn’t give the guy any of the capitalist’s just property, and the guy starves to death.
So you have one of two options: You can say that this is a just outcome, or you can stop saying that your theory of justice is derived from libertarian property rights. Which route do you want to go?”
It’s a just outcome, because neither the capitalist nor the refusnik violated the other’s rights.
Anon,
By justice, I am guessing we mean the fulfillment of the law. Say a guy on death row gets pardoned. The lifting of his sentence is still justice, as the power to pardon is a part of the law. Thus, mercy, despite the preservation of justice.
As well, consider that as far as I understand the death of Jesus is an act of sacrifice which through the justice of God purchases mercy for all mankind. Once more, we have justice preserved and mercy present and accounted for!
Semantics can be fun, but sometimes word games are just word games.
Also, be careful about your assumptions as to what a certain type of god would do under specific circumstances. Assumptions as to the nature of a being by definition beyond human capacity or experience are often difficult to defend.
Unrepentant belief is pretty useless. Think of death as a sky dive. Belief in the sovereign power of gravity doesn’t change how fast you fall, but the rip-cord (in this case repentance) can.
Hi Cody,
“By justice, I am guessing we mean the fulfillment of the law.”
I mean conformity to libertarian ethics.
“Say a guy on death row gets pardoned. The lifting of his sentence is still justice, as the power to pardon is a part of the law.”
Justice is not upheld when a third party (e.g. a judge) pardons an aggressor. On the other hand, the VICTIM can justly wave their rights to restitution and retribution.
The question is, is god a victim? God is supposed to be omnipotent, so logically, it is impossible for god to be victimized. And even IF it was possible for god to be victimized, the alleged sins of disobedience and un-belief do not hold up under scrutiny.
To disobey implies that one has PURPOSELY contravened a KNOWN order. Yet, god doesn’t give people orders in the usual manner. In fact, it’s fair to say that god – with all its amazing powers – is severely challenged in the communication department.
God: Why didn’t you follow my order?
Jim: Huh, what order?
God: I ordered you to keep the Sabbath holy.
Jim: Sorry, doesn’t ring a bell. Are you sure you ordered ME to do it?
God: Yes, I ordered everyone to!
Jim: Iduno, I just can’t remember getting the order.
God: Well, I mean, I didn’t order you DIRECTLY…
Jim: Oh… OK… so how DID you order me?
God: Well, I had some guys write down the order in a book.
Jim: Okaay…
God: Did you read it?
Jim: Dude, there are lots of books out there. How am I supposed to know which one you’re talking about?
God: It’s the one where I give a bunch of orders.
Jim: C’mon, that could describe any number of books. I figured they were all made up anyway.
God: Well, one of them ISN’T made up!
Jim: OK, but how the hell am I supposed to know which one that is?
God: Uh…
Also, rational un-belief can not be a sin, because rationality is a requirement for survival and was supposedly given to man by god. To use one’s essential and god-given faculties can not be a sin.
Furthermore, it’s possible to have faith in the “wrong” god (or gods), but that can not be a sin either, because humans clearly do not have an innate capacity to perceive the supernatural. If they did, a consensus would form over time. Instead, views on the supernatural are myriad, contradictory, and constantly changing (which is exactly what you would expect if people were just fantasizing and calling it “TRUTH”). People can not be faulted for failing to do that which god did not grant them the ability to do.
“As well, consider that as far as I understand the death of Jesus is an act of sacrifice which through the justice of God purchases mercy for all mankind.”
Well, I see a problem with just about every word in this sentence…
SACRIFICE – Jesus allegedly came back from the dead, so what was the sacrifice? God “gave up his only son” and then got him back three days later. Then he went up to heaven anyway.
JUSTICE – In what way, exactly, is Jesus’ crucifixion an act of justice? To me, it’s just something that god decided to do. I don’t see anything particularly just about it.
PURCHASE – God can choose who goes to heaven and hell on a whim. If god wanted to, it could send everyone to heaven instantly. So, this whole idea that Jesus was payment is just ridiculous. Did god set the price and then proceed to pay himself WITH himself? That’s even too nutty for the Twilight Zone.
ALL MANKIND – Well, according to Christians, the vast majority of humans will go to hell, so I think there are quite a few people who would like a refund on that “mercy” gift. I hope god is better at saving receipts than humans.
“Also, be careful about your assumptions as to what a certain type of god would do under specific circumstances. Assumptions as to the nature of a being by definition beyond human capacity or experience are often difficult to defend.”
Right, but Christians are the ones who think they can comprehend the incomprehensible. I’m just playing along and seeing where things go.
“Unrepentant belief is pretty useless. Think of death as a sky dive. Belief in the sovereign power of gravity doesn’t change how fast you fall, but the rip-cord (in this case repentance) can.”
Are you implying that belief is unnecessary to get into heaven? What – exactly – are the BARE MINIMUM requirements for getting into heaven, pre-Jesus and post-Jesus?
Last point first:
“Are you implying that belief is unnecessary to get into heaven?”
If you jumped out of a plane and did not acknowledge the sovereign power of gravity even to exist, why would you pull a rip-cord? In my analogy, the non-believer doesn’t even think they’re falling.
Back to the beginning:
“I mean conformity to libertarian ethics.”
Right, but by “ethics” you mean a code of ethics. And by libertarian ethics you mean the code of ethics common to libertarians.
Now if I say fulfillment of the law, and you say conformity to a specified code of ethics, and you can’t see where we are saying the same thing, I can’t help you. You can’t contradict me by saying the same thing with different words. That is just being slightly less clever than you think you are being.
Now, a code of ethics or a law defines just and/or unjust action. What is permitted by law, or by a code of ethics, is just, under that law, or that code. When the prescription of the law or code as to just action is followed, that is justice.
“Justice is not upheld when a third party (e.g. a judge) pardons an aggressor. On the other hand, the VICTIM can justly wave their rights to restitution and retribution.”
Not true. If the law prescribes that under certain circumstances a third party has the right to grant pardon, then the application of that legal power as prescribed is still justice under the law.
What you seem to be saying is that justice is what YOU think it is, and not what some legal document prescribes. Consider how close you are to the Christians in making such an argument. You may not see it, but it puts you damnably close to the faithful. (Sorry for the wordplay.)
If justice is adherence to a code above the laws of men, then the origin of that code falls instantly into question.
Where did you receive the code?
Is the code universal in application? In exposure?
If justice can be prescribed by a code given to some people and not others, how is that fair, and therefore how can it be justice?
“SACRIFICE – Jesus allegedly came back from the dead, so what was the sacrifice? God “gave up his only son” and then got him back three days later. Then he went up to heaven anyway.”
Do you have some great idea as to how anything could be more sacrificial on the part of a god than to become a clever ape and be tortured to death by other clever apes for the entertainment of yet more clever apes?
Are you familiar with the concept of time? If I get hit with a beer bottle, it might not hurt three days from now. Does that mean it doesn’t hurt?
“JUSTICE – In what way, exactly, is Jesus’ crucifixion an act of justice? TO ME, it’s just something that god decided to do. I DON’T SEE anything particularly just about it.
PURCHASE – God can choose who goes to heaven and hell on a whim. If god wanted to, it could send everyone to heaven instantly. So, this whole idea that Jesus was payment is just ridiculous. Did god set the price and then proceed to pay himself WITH himself? THAT’S EVEN TOO NUTTY FOR THE TWILIGHT ZONE.”
More assumptions as to the nature and reasonable actions of a god.
From later in your comment:
“Right, but Christians are THE ONES WHO THINK THEY CAN COMPREHEND THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. I’m just playing along and seeing where things go.”
Try not to contradict yourself in the same comment post.
“ALL MANKIND – Well, according to Christians, the vast majority of humans will go to hell, so I think there are quite a few people who would like a refund on that “mercy” gift. I hope god is better at saving receipts than humans.”
I don’t think the idea is that god bought everyone a set of mittens. Scripture literally says it (the gift) is so cool it, like god, is beyond telling or comprehension. And didn’t we go over how it was “paid for?” I’m not sure they can credit even unspeakably awesome gifts back onto a Tortured-to-Death-on-a-Tree Visa Platinum Card.
“What – exactly – are the BARE MINIMUM requirements for getting into heaven, pre-Jesus and post-Jesus?”
BC – I think this was a matter of keeping to god’s law in the old testament. There is plenty of it. The 10 commandments are a start.
AD – Repent and believe.
(On this last one, I just think. Not a Christian myself.)
“Think of death as a sky dive. Belief in the sovereign power of gravity doesn’t change how fast you fall, but the rip-cord (in this case repentance) can.”
“If you jumped out of a plane and did not acknowledge the sovereign power of gravity even to exist, why would you pull a rip-cord? In my analogy, the non-believer doesn’t even think they’re falling.”
Slow down. Gravity is a force that can be measured, tested, observed and from which we can derive rules which are helpful and accurate predictors and directors of behavior. People jump off the Golden Gate bridge because they know that gravity – more often than not (a small percentage do survive the fall) – will cause them to accelerate toward the water at 32 feet per second squared.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8muNsj1oUpY
The analogy of gravity to God is just plain wrong. How do we measure, test and observe God in a way that we can derive rules which are helpful and accurate and allow us certainty? The deficiencies in the Bible have been well worn out on this site over the last few months for anyone willing to take a critical look. “God” is not gravity and your analogy may be useful from the pulpit in order to direct the sheep but it fails miserably in the way you are attempting to employ it. It sounds pithy and wise but beneath the veneer you are comparing apples and oranges. Actually, you are comparing apples and leprechauns. There is overwhelming evidence for gravity, there is underwhelming evidence for a supreme being – particularly the Christian version of said being.
“If you jumped out of a plane and did not acknowledge the sovereign power of gravity even to exist, why would you pull a rip-cord? In my analogy, the non-believer doesn’t even think they’re falling.”
OK, but thinking like a philosopher means asking the right questions. “Why would you pull a rip-cord?” is irrelevant to the point under consideration. The pertinent questions in this case are “What would happen IF the person who didn’t think they were falling pulled the ripcord?” and “What would happen IF a non-believer repented?”.