A Subset of Frequently Asked Questions About My Christian Faith
Before I jump into today’s post, the standard disclaimer: This is narcissistic for two reasons: (a) People in the comments of previous posts usually frame it as, “But Bob, you still haven’t explained how you can reconcile your faith with objection #12…?” and because (b) I am quite an amateur in these matters and don’t pretend to speak for “Christians.” So that’s why I frame this stuff as, “Here’s how I think about it…”
Q: “OK let’s assume your arguments (as presented to the hypothetical Landsburg, for example) establish the existence of a God. How do you know it’s the God of the Bible? Why are you a Christian and not, say, a Muslim or a Buddhist?”
A: I tried to give some answers to this question here and here. Let me summarize some of the biggest factors in the current post:
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus claimed He was the Son of God, and in fact God Himself who assumed human form. In my understanding, none of the other major religious figures did this. So if I already think (on other grounds) that there is an intelligent Creator of the universe, who communicates with humans, and then I come across stories of this guy Jesus claiming that He was sent by God etc., then I prima facie want to hear more from this guy; maybe what he’s saying is true.
I don’t know enough about the other major religions to say whether they are consistent with Christianity or not. For example, I think from 30,000 feet Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same God, though they have different names and stress different things about Him. So it’s not that I think (say) an orthodox Jew is “wrong”–of course not, since Jesus Himself was raised as an orthodox Jew! Rather, I just think Jesus was the Messiah for whom the Jews were waiting. (I don’t know enough about Islam to say how it relates to Christianity.)
I looked into Buddhism when I was in grad school during this transition phase (I can’t remember if it was before or after I dropped my atheism) and I found it just didn’t resonate with me. I realize this is a very big paraphrase, but I concluded that Buddhists basically say, “Stop stressing out about the world, just stop caring what happens. You are upset that bad things happen, but who’s to say that it’s bad? Maybe it’s good. And really, to be truly at peace you should drop these notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ altogether.” In contrast, I took the Christian view to say, “Stop stressing out about the world, God is in charge, and He is omnipotent and infinitely good. Yes bad things do happen, but He has a plan that will allow those admittedly bad things to redound to the greater good in the long run.” Those are very different views, even though superficially they sound the same.
As far as Zeus etc., I am not aware of masses of people who claimed to have seen firsthand his mighty works and then were willing to die instead of renouncing those views. In contrast, the early Christian martyrs would have known if Jesus really came back from the dead, or if that were something they made up in order to win converts to their cause. I am prepared to believe that people will lie for a cause, but less willing to believe that they will be willingly tortured to death for something they know is a fraud.
Q: “Why don’t you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about this lady who claims she saw intelligent dolphins? If we believe you about God, are we supposed to believe her about dolphins too?”
A: Just about everyone except Objectivists agrees that the moral teachings attributed to Jesus are very wise (though some would quibble about how literally we are to apply them). I personally am a pacifist, and go even further and think that loving everyone and holding no grudges is a wonderful recipe for happiness on this Earth. So I think that when it comes for advice on how to live, the Biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth is the best teacher of all time.
There is obviously nothing like this regarding the FSM or the dolphins that lady reported. If she told us the dolphins told her all these wise sayings, which at first sounded crazy but in retrospect–like after growing in wisdom through decades of living–they sounded truer and truer, then yeah maybe I would give her story more credence. But as it is, she sounds as crazy to me as she does to the atheist, and I don’t see any reason to inquire further.
To repeat, I WAS NOT offering my personal experiences as evidence that should sway anybody else. The reason I offered those things was so that my atheist/agnostic opponents would understand why I had such conviction in my beliefs. Someone brought up an alien analogy, and that’s a good one. Suppose some guy literally was visited by aliens when he was out hiking in the mountains; he went into their ship and saw all kinds of advanced things etc. Now if then tried to argue with astronomers and other scientists about the existence of extraterrestrial life, he obviously couldn’t cite those experiences. But he would be quite sure that when some guy tried to “deduce” that the universe couldn’t possibly support alien life, that this guy was making a mistake in his reasoning.
So it’s a similar thing with me, and the arguments we have every week on this blog. I can use my reason to spot (what is obvious to me) a non sequitur in someone’s “knockdown” argument against the Bible or whatever, but beyond that I have personally communicated with God (or so I believe) and so that’s why I’m all the more sure that I am right on this question. I didn’t even bring that stuff up for a long time, because I knew the scorn to which I would be subjected (like Landsburg saying my arguments were “insane” not to mention the kudos from Major Freedom). Back to the alien analogy, the guy who had been personally visited probably would bite his tongue too, knowing full well he’d be painted as a nutjob if he said, “I know they’re real! I talked to them!” But we can all understand that those experiences would drive home the point, for that particular guy.
Q: “Why does your God let innocent children die of cancer?”
A: This is a classic conundrum and great thinkers have shed much ink on it. Let me give a very quick reply that will sound incredibly flippant and heartless, but I actually think is correct:
Once again, we have to seriously entertain the hypothesis that the God described by the Bible exists. Now if that is true, there is a sense in which He personally kills everyone who ever lives. In other words, suppose the 10-year-old boy who dies from cancer instead lived to be 120 and died of “old age.” In that scenario too, God killed him. That’s because God is responsible for everything that happened.
Now one might follow up and say, “*sigh* OK fine Murphy, but why do little kids have to suffer? Why can’t they just go peacefully in their sleep?”
But who’s to say how much suffering and pain we experience in an absolute sense? Look, no matter how God designed our universe and the human experience, so long as there were some variation from life to life, then some events would be “painful” compared to others. Now it’s logically conceivable that we could live in a world where the following torment is a possible thing that could happen to you:
C-3PO: His high exaltedness, the Great Jabba the Hutt, has decreed that you are to be terminated immediately.
Han Solo: Good, I hate long waits.
C-3PO: You will therefore be taken to the Dune Sea, and cast into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac.
Han Solo: Doesn’t sound so bad.
C-3PO: In his belly you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a thousand years.
Han Solo: On second thought, let’s pass on that, huh?
There’s another element to this. Some cynics (like an economist from the University of Rochester) wonder why Christians even take minimal effort to preserve their lives. After all, if paradise awaits us once we die, then why go to the doctor or put on seatbelts? What a bunch of hypocrites these Christians are! (Or actually, as Landsburg suspects, they don’t really believe the stuff they chant on Sundays.)
Now I’m skipping some steps in the argument, but related to Landsburg’s criticism, I have seen other cynics wonder why a loving God who “just wants a relationship with us” would subject us to a painful testing ground on this miserable planet. So here’s what I claim: You can say that it makes no sense for the Christian God to allow kids to die early. Or, you can claim that it makes no sense for the Christian God to subject us to decades of toil on this Earth subject to scarcity, evil, etc. But, it doesn’t really make sense to level both accusations simultaneously. Even though it is OBVIOUSLY devastating when any parent loses a young child, if the Bible is correct, then the Christian parent hopes (and “has faith that”) when he or she dies and enters paradise too, the child will be there and the parent will be so grateful that God, in His infinitely good plan, allowed that child to enter paradise that much sooner. From that eternal, heavenly perspective, the eight-month battle with leukemia or whatever it was, will literally be like a momentary blip in contrast to the eternity of inconceivable joy, basking in the presence of God Himself.
I don’t mean to downplay how awful things are in this world; they really are. But what I’m saying is, think of “the worst thing that ever happened in human history.” No matter how God designed things, we would still be able to carry out that task, and then cynics would wonder, “Why did God allow such a bad thing to occur?”
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus claimed He was the Son of God, and in fact God Himself who assumed human form. In my understanding, none of the other major religious figures did this.
So you purposefully selected from only the popular religions? You wouldn’t have chosen Jesus if he wasn’t popular? LOL, Christianity wasn’t “popular” when it began!
You’re kind of handing the atheist’s argument that you were not divinely inspired, that you just picked the religion that popularly surrounded you, on a silver platter.
Would you consider ,a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Demographics”>Hinduism a “minor” religion? Over 80% of India is Hindu. The Hindu God “Vishnu” is claimed to have incarnated 10 times into flesh forms, called “avatars”, and a few of them are human form, including Buddha.
In contrast, I took the Christian view to say, “Stop stressing out about the world, God is in charge, and He is omnipotent and infinitely good. Yes bad things do happen, but He has a plan that will allow those admittedly bad things to redound to the greater good in the long run.”
Why couldn’t those created and then killed by God for 250,000 years so far throughout the past have experienced this alleged “greater good in the long run”, and instead lived in a world of evil? When is “the long run” going to become the present, and why those people, and not anyone else prior?
As far as Zeus etc., I am not aware of masses of people who claimed to have seen firsthand his mighty works and then were willing to die instead of renouncing those views. In contrast, the early Christian martyrs would have known if Jesus really came back from the dead, or if that were something they made up in order to win converts to their cause. I am prepared to believe that people will lie for a cause, but less willing to believe that they will be willingly tortured to death for something they know is a fraud.
As far as Jesus etc., I am not aware of masses of people who claimed to have seen firsthand his mighty works and then were willing to die instead of renouncing those views. In contrast, the early Greek martyrs would have known if Zeus really did [do something supernatural], or if that were something they made up in order to win converts to their cause. I am prepared to believe that people will lie for a cause, but less willing to believe that they will be willingly tortured to death for something they know is a fraud.
See what I did there?
Just about everyone except Objectivists agrees that the moral teachings attributed to Jesus are very wise (though some would quibble about how literally we are to apply them). I personally am a pacifist, and go even further and think that loving everyone and holding no grudges is a wonderful recipe for happiness on this Earth. So I think that when it comes for advice on how to live, the Biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth is the best teacher of all time.
There is obviously nothing like this regarding the FSM or the dolphins that lady reported. If she told us the dolphins told her all these wise sayings, which at first sounded crazy but in retrospect–like after growing in wisdom through decades of living–they sounded truer and truer, then yeah maybe I would give her story more credence. But as it is, she sounds as crazy to me as she does to the atheist, and I don’t see any reason to inquire further.
So if she showed you a text similar to the bible but with slightly different stories and characters, you would go from “she’s crazy”, to “maybe she’s on to something”?
I can use my reason to spot (what is obvious to me) a non sequitur in someone’s “knockdown” argument against the Bible or whatever, but beyond that I have personally communicated with God (or so I believe) and so that’s why I’m all the more sure that I am right on this question.
I am anxiously waiting for these non sequitur expositions being marketed.
Why does your God let innocent children die of cancer?
This is a classic conundrum and great thinkers have shed much ink on it. Let me give a very quick reply that will sound incredibly flippant and heartless, but I actually think is correct:
Once again, we have to seriously entertain the hypothesis that the God described by the Bible exists.
So just more begging the question. Make “God exists” the starting point of all your thinking, then use that as a premise for justifying WHY you believe in God.
Why do you keep doing that? Why do you keep casually going back again and again and again to what you are claiming is only a “hypothesis”, when that’s your conclusion?
Now if that is true, there is a sense in which He personally kills everyone who ever lives. In other words, suppose the 10-year-old boy who dies from cancer instead lived to be 120 and died of “old age.” In that scenario too, God killed him. That’s because God is responsible for everything that happened.
That makes human free will impossible, which means humans who kill themselves did so because God is responsible. It means that you believe God created humans who live for a short while, then he killed them via using their own bodies, and then banished them to hell forever. Why would God create a being that will feel infinite torment on purpose? Isn’t that not only a “mysterious ways”, but downright psychopathic?
Now one might follow up and say, “*sigh* OK fine Murphy, but why do little kids have to suffer? Why can’t they just go peacefully in their sleep?”
But who’s to say how much suffering and pain we experience in an absolute sense? Look, no matter how God designed our universe and the human experience, so long as there were some variation from life to life, then some events would be “painful” compared to others.
There you go again pretending to be able to think about yourself, about the world, and about the universe, from a fictitious bird’s eye, God-like view, where you have alleged knowledge about what it is like to suffer in some extra-human, “absolute” sense. It’s like you’re claiming “I have an awareness of what it is like to feel pain far beyond what any human can feel, so you can’t claim to know the extent of your suffering due to your cancer.”
Now it’s logically conceivable that we could live in a world where the following torment is a possible thing that could happen to you:
C-3PO: In his belly you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a thousand years.
I think George Lucas is the last person who ought to be referenced for anything scientifically accurate.
Even though it is OBVIOUSLY devastating when any parent loses a young child, if the Bible is correct, then the Christian parent hopes (and “has faith that”) when he or she dies and enters paradise too, the child will be there and the parent will be so grateful that God, in His infinitely good plan, allowed that child to enter paradise that much sooner.
What if the child kills themselves, like those who were so bullied at school that they hanged themselves? According to the bible, they’re going to hell.
I don’t mean to downplay how awful things are in this world; they really are. But what I’m saying is, think of “the worst thing that ever happened in human history.” No matter how God designed things, we would still be able to carry out that task, and then cynics would wonder, “Why did God allow such a bad thing to occur?”
Which is expected if people keep claiming God exists and is in control of everything.
“So just more begging the question. Make “God exists” the starting point of all your thinking, then use that as a premise for justifying WHY you believe in God.
Why do you keep doing that? Why do you keep casually going back again and again and again to what you are claiming is only a “hypothesis”, when that’s your conclusion?”
The question he was answering was, “Why does your God let innocent children die of cancer?” The questioner assumed his God existed in the question itself. He wasn’t trying to justify why he believes in God there. He was trying to answer the specific question asked of him.
Yes, literally speaking, the question implies that God exists, but one has to be careful about context. This question is one that is asked by atheists, not theists. A theist would not challenge Murphy to explain why “his” particular God allows innocent children to die of cancer, as if Murphy failing to answer for it would constitute grounds for rejecting God, since the theist asking the question would also have to answer why their own particular God allows innocent children to die of cancer.
So the question, while literally presupposing the existence of God, when put into proper context actually does not presuppose the existence of God, and is more of a challenge to explain why any God would allow innocent children to die of cancer.
“So the question, while literally presupposing the existence of God, when put into proper context actually does not presuppose the existence of God, and is more of a challenge to explain why any God would allow innocent children to die of cancer.”
I understand that the question is along the lines of why any God would allow this but the question still should allow Dr. Murphy to answer it under the assumption that God exists. If an atheist doesn’t want him to answer in this way then he shouldn’t ask questions that presuppose the existence of God.
Also I’m not an atheist and I question why God would allow suffering. I’m also rather certain that theists wrestle with the question of human suffering as well. Just because you don’t agree with the answers of theists or agnostics or other non-atheists doesn’t mean that we don’t all ask these questions.
I understand that the question is along the lines of why any God would allow this but the question still should allow Dr. Murphy to answer it under the assumption that God exists. If an atheist doesn’t want him to answer in this way then he shouldn’t ask questions that presuppose the existence of God.
How else can the atheist approach the theist? Theists and atheists ask questions that literally presuppose the existence and non-existence of God all the time.
Also I’m not an atheist and I question why God would allow suffering. I’m also rather certain that theists wrestle with the question of human suffering as well. Just because you don’t agree with the answers of theists or agnostics or other non-atheists doesn’t mean that we don’t all ask these questions.
I know you’re not a theist. You keep saying that unsolicited over and over again. Are you sure you’re not a theist? I find that people who declare something unsolicited over and over again, often believe the opposite of what they’re saying, because they say it to convince themselves otherwise.
I can fully appreciate you wanting the debate to be fair and whatnot, but why are you refereeing this particular debate and why are you choosing to defend Murphy and making sure his arguments are treated fairly and that others be fair to the theist argument? Maybe you’re testing the waters to become theist? This is all just pure speculation, so if it’s really not the case, then by all means ignore it.
I said I’m not an atheist. I brought that up because you said only an atheist would ask why God would allow children to suffer. I found that to be untrue and to prove it I used myself as an example.
“How else can the atheist approach the theist? Theists and atheists ask questions that literally presuppose the existence and non-existence of God all the time.”
I understand that. I have no problem with the question. I just thought it was weird to see you get upset that Dr. Murphy’s answer presupposed the existence of God considering the question did as well.
Now the reason I’ve been responding to the atheists arguments is that I felt they were not adding anything to the debate too often. It’s not that I think the atheist arguments are weak but I felt the debating style was. For example, giving Dr. Murphy crap for presupposing God when answering a question that presupposes God. I thought that was a legitimate question to ask Dr. Murphy but the way you attacked his answer made no sense to me. I don’t attack Dr. Murphy because I feel his debating style is much better.
The phrase “begging the question” has two meanings. In classic logic and philosophy this phrase represents a translation meaning “asserting the matter that is already in question”.
The word “begging” once meant more of a plea or assertion, and less of a request, but meanings of words change over time.
In common usage though, “begging the question” means that there is in fact a question to be asked. When used in this manner it will invariably piss of anyone trained in classical philosophy. Because of the confusion, I would recommend not using it at all.
MF wrote:
So just more begging the question. Make “God exists” the starting point of all your thinking, then use that as a premise for justifying WHY you believe in God.
You keep saying this, MF. Let’s switch contexts away from God and to something clearly in the realm of the natural sciences. I hope you will agree that your debating style wouldn’t work in that realm. Imagine the following debate:
==========
SERF: The Earth is obviously flat and at rest. I don’t feel like I’m moving.
COPERNICUS: Well we’re not moving relative to the ground, and our insides aren’t moving relative to the outside of our bodies, so we don’t feel like we’re moving, but actually we are.
SERF: You’re crazy man. Look, every morning we see the sun rise in the east, then set in the west. Clearly the Earth is at rest, and the sun moves around it.
COPERNICUS: No, my friend, you need to seriously entertain the full ramifications of my hypothesis. Assume for the sake of argument that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that it also rotates on its axis. In that scenario, what would we observe as we looked at the sky? Why, we’d see the sun “rise” in the east and “set” in the west, wouldn’t we? So you can’t point at those observations as evidence in favor of your hypothesis.
SERF: Ha ha! You just gave away the whole game. You said your argument had to start with the assumption that the earth is moving. Well duh, if you assume your conclusion, sure you win the argument. But that’s not how scientific debate works, my friend.
===========
Do you like the serf’s argument, MF? If not, then please stop using it on me.
I am anxiously waiting for these non sequitur expositions being marketed.
Well now you’ve got one non sequitur explained. There are a lot more being generated in the comments every Sunday.
COPERNICUS should have said:
COPERNICUS: No, my friend, you need to seriously entertain the full ramifications of my hypothesis. Assume for the sake of argument that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that it also rotates on its axis. In that scenario, what would we observe as we looked at the sky? Why, we’d see the sun “rise” in the east and “set” in the west, wouldn’t we? .. The set of observations is completely consistent with both of our hypothesis. So to distinguish them, we need some other observations. For example, the movement of the planets are better explained by a heliocentric model, and perhaps in a couple hundred years, someone will come along with a model for gravity that makes all of physics inconsistent with a geocentric model.
SERF: Ha ha! You just gave away the whole game. You said your argument had to start with the assumption that the earth is moving. Well duh, if you assume your conclusion, sure you win the argument. But that’s not how scientific debate works, my friend.
COPERNICUS: I agree that begging the question is not useful to science, but you’re missing a subtlety. I’m providing a framework, a model of reality, and describing a set of observations that I would expect to see if this reality is true and also describing how these expected observations rule out competing hypotheses. Until these observations are made, I’m not concluding anything at all; and I understand that if these observations fail to conform to my expectations, I must should forsake this model.
Do you like the serf’s argument, MF? If not, then please stop using it on me.
Sorry that I won’t answer in the expected way, but I do in fact “like” the Serf’s argument. But in your example, both the Serf and Copernicus are guilty of failing to prove their respective premises.
Here is what I mean.
What is happening here is that while both the Serf and Copernicus are observing the same perceptions, they each have competing theories that explain the perceptions. Both of their theories are internally consistent. A non-rotating body with an orbiting body, and a rotating planet with a non-orbiting body, would both generate the perceptions.
Therefore, neither the Serf nor Copernicus could utilize their respective theories as premises to support their own conclusion on what is happening, unless they can independently confirm their respective premises by way of taking into consideration different perceptions, other than the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West.
If Copernicus refused to support his premise that the Earth rotates, with other premises that themselves do not also presume the same premise “the Earth rotates”, then the Serf would be correct in continuing to tell Copernicus that he is begging the question. Only if Copernicus, (and the Serf!) provided evidence of their respective theories using premises that are NOT “the Earth rotates” (for Copernicus) and NOT “the Earth does not rotate” (for the Serf), only then would there be reason to accept either of their theories.
What you are doing with the God hypothesis is actually what both the Serf and Copernicus are doing with their respective theories in your example. Both just have a theory that they are using to interpret the observations. Neither in fact have a supported argument. It’s hard to see this because you conveniently picked an example of a conclusion that is very widely known in 2012, and you also conveniently picked an example that suggests your belief in God is akin to the belief that the Earth rotates, which biases the example in your favor.
Let me give an example that shows what you are doing with the God hypothesis:
Suppose Mr. Austrian and Mr. Keynesian are debating the economy. They each agree with the perception of history that growth in the world economy for the last 100 years is positively correlated with growth in world government for the last 100 years.
Mr. Austrian advances the theory: “Growth in the world economy occurred DESPITE growth in world government.”
Mr. Keynesian advances the theory: “Growth in the world economy occurred BECAUSE of growth in world government.”
Now, both theories are consistent with the historical data, so neither Mr. Austrian nor Mr. Keynesian can settle their dispute by referring to the historical data. They agree with each other on the historical data. They don’t dispute the historical data. They dispute the other’s theory.
Suppose that Mr. Keynesian argues his case, and somewhere in his argument, somewhere in his explicitly stated or tacitly assumed premises, there is the assumption “Growth in the world economy occurred/occurs BECAUSE of growth in world government.”
This is what you are doing with the God hypothesis. Every time, EVERY TIME, you argue the case for why you believe God exists, somewhere in your argument, somewhere in your premises, that assumption is made. Indeed, “assume God exists” almost always explicitly precedes your argument, as it did in this one, and the last one if I am not mistaken.
The Serf is right to challenge Copernicus’ logic. Only if Copernicus shows evidence that can back up the premise “The Earth rotates”, with perceptions OTHER than the ones he already agrees with the Serf about, does the Serf have a reason to accept Copernicus’ theory, and get it to change from begging the question, to a valid argument.
In your “experiences” you listed last week, ALL OF THEM, EVERY SINGLE ONE, are “mini-conclusions” that you have made GIVEN the premise “God exists” for each one. Your worldview, your theory, has lead you to interpret your perceptions as some sort of “proof” that God exists, when in reality, and interestingly enough, they are exactly like the perception of the Sun moving rather than the Earth moving.
You are like the Serf OR Copernicus when you perceive objects falling off the shelf, or moving across the floor when you’re not looking, or flipping to the right page in a book, or voices in your head, and you take your existing theory and use it to interpret what you may (or may not) have perceived.
In other words, the question of whether God exists or does not exist cannot be settled by presuming one or the other true when we interpret various perceptions.
Like I asked last week, there has to be a starting point that theists and atheists can agree on, some fundamental foundation, that does not presume the existence of anything other than what is first agreed on. This is VERY difficult to do, which is why the question of God remains for so many.
I would submit to this blog and contribute the following if theists and atheists are EVER going to settle their differences: We all must first agree on something that serves as a foundation for ALL arguments, ALL ideas, ALL methods of inquiry. We have to agree to a starting point that does not imply the existence or non-existence of God. If we don’t, then we will remain stuck at seeing the other side beg the question. You see atheists and you’re thinking they just assume God does not exist and then argue from there, and atheists see theists as thinking they just assume God does exist and then argue from there.
I asked last week what we can all agree on, but so far nobody has made an attempt, so I will get the ball rolling:
I think.
I act.
Can we all agree on this foundation?
Neither Copernicus nor the Serf can prove their argument, because the physical universe is not amenable to proof and anyhow, either frame of reference is as good as the other (let’s leave Einstein out of the picture… a pure Newtonian universe still provides no facility to generate a universal frame of reference).
The best Copernicus can say is that it is easier and more convenient to calculate the orbit of the Earth AND the other planets, by putting the sun at the center and making that your frame of reference.
The serf has a perfectly legitimate argument that if he/she doesn’t really care about any other planets and is only interested in day/night and summer/winter then using the Earth as a frame of reference is quite reasonable.
Neither Copernicus nor the Serf can prove their argument, because the physical universe is not amenable to proof
???
You can’t claim in one breath that neither the Serf nor Copernicus can prove their argument, but then in the next breath argue that the universe is not amenable to proof. This is because your fist claim rests on the presupposition that the universe is amenable to proof.
The proposition “the universe isn’t amenable to proof” is self-detonating, because it is a declaration that can only be accepted if the universe is amenable to proof such that the proposition can be considered true and nor false.
and anyhow, either frame of reference is as good as the other (let’s leave Einstein out of the picture… a pure Newtonian universe still provides no facility to generate a universal frame of reference).
This isn’t right. While the different observations in relative frames of reference are all “true”, relativity theory still allows for an absolute frame of reference. It is this absolute frame of reference that solves the twin paradox. The physics is beyond my current ability, but the “moving” object has to do with which body is experiencing gravitational acceleration.
For a planet orbiting a star, the planet is experiencing the gravitational acceleration relative to the star, so the star is “closer” to the absolute frame of reference than the planet.
The best Copernicus can say is that it is easier and more convenient to calculate the orbit of the Earth AND the other planets, by putting the sun at the center and making that your frame of reference.
With his technology, perhaps. But with 2012 technology, we can settle it.
The serf has a perfectly legitimate argument that if he/she doesn’t really care about any other planets and is only interested in day/night and summer/winter then using the Earth as a frame of reference is quite reasonable.
Except the Serf is experiencing gravitational acceleration by virtue of standing on a planet that orbits the Sun.
The proposition “the universe isn’t amenable to proof” is self-detonating, because it is a declaration that can only be accepted if the universe is amenable to proof such that the proposition can be considered true and nor false.
You are kidding me right?
Mathematics is amenable to proof, but mathematics lives outside the universe, it’s a made-up thing, an idea. It lives in people’s heads and nowhere else.
Would you be happier if I said that the physical universe is not amenable to proof? That makes it clearer. Go prove a value for the speed of light or the charge on an electron. You might be able to measure these things, but I want a proof from first principles.
But everyone else the serf deals with experiences exactly the same, so they all age at the same rate. What they want to know is when to plant their crops and how long will winter be.
I just used two different quoting conventions in the one reply.
I’m thankful that there’s no government has yet written a style guide for blog posting, but it’s only a matter of time.
You are kidding me right?
Not in the slightest.
Mathematics is amenable to proof, but mathematics lives outside the universe, it’s a made-up thing, an idea. It lives in people’s heads and nowhere else.
You did it again.
By claiming that mathematics is only in our minds, but not in reality, you are making a claim about objective reality that presupposes amenability to proof, namely, that the universe is such that you know it does not contain mathematics, and that the universe is such that you know it contains beings who utilize mathematical logical techniques that don’t exist in reality.
If mathematics is only in our minds, then why is it so successful? Coincidence?
Would you be happier if I said that the physical universe is not amenable to proof?
You did it yet again.
By claiming that the physical universe is not amenable to proof, you are saying that something physical in the universe, namely us humans, are physically incapable of proving anything about the physical universe.
In other words, your statement presupposes amenability to proof, in this case from a physical being in the universe.
You can’t claim to know anything unless the concept of proof is legitimate. Every claim you make to some knowledge, requires a foundation of your ability to prove something. If not, you’re just speaking hot air.
Go prove a value for the speed of light or the charge on an electron. You might be able to measure these things, but I want a proof from first principles.
Why do I need to prove empirical concepts from first principles? That is misunderstanding the nature of knowledge. Some propositions like the speed of light and the charge on an electron, are empirical, not a priori deductive.
Except the Serf is experiencing gravitational acceleration by virtue of standing on a planet that orbits the Sun.
But everyone else the serf deals with experiences exactly the same, so they all age at the same rate. What they want to know is when to plant their crops and how long will winter be.
??? What does this have to do with anything? You don’t know what people want unless you ask them or observe their actions.
Clearly some serfs became interested in gravity.
Why do I need to prove empirical concepts from first principles?
Because that’s what would demonstrate that the physical universe is amenable to proof.
Since you cannot measure any empirical variable (e.g. the speed of light) in every place at once and all the time, then saying that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant is merely a convenient inductive presumption. Useful, but nowhere near proven.
The percentage of times the speed of light had been measured as compared to the percentage of times light has existed, it 0% to as many decimal points as you care to write.
Since neither you, nor anyone else, can actually prove from first principles what the speed of light is we logically conclude that such things are not amenable to proof.
Sure, someone could come up with a proof tomorrow and shock the world of physics. But that hasn’t happened yet.
Why do I need to prove empirical concepts from first principles?
Because that’s what would demonstrate that the physical universe is amenable to proof.
Are you saying that all empirical propositions have to ultimately be grounded in first principles that are themselves not empirical, in order to qualify as proof?
Since you cannot measure any empirical variable (e.g. the speed of light) in every place at once and all the time, then saying that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant is merely a convenient inductive presumption. Useful, but nowhere near proven.
OK, but what about the concept of proof itself?
You keep saying the universe is not amenable to proof, and yet you also keep stating these declarations of supposed truths that I am supposed to accept.
Why should I accept anything from someone who says proof is impossible?
The percentage of times the speed of light had been measured as compared to the percentage of times light has existed, it 0% to as many decimal points as you care to write.
If you accept the notion that light can be measured, then you are presupposing the existence of light. To then say that you believe light does not exist, is another contradiction.
Since neither you, nor anyone else, can actually prove from first principles what the speed of light is we logically conclude that such things are not amenable to proof.
Sure, someone could come up with a proof tomorrow and shock the world of physics. But that hasn’t happened yet.
You are making a claim as to the objective truth of an object in the universe, namely, the mental cognitive ability of you, and every other human, and I’m supposed to accept what you say as truth. But that presupposes the legitimacy of “proof.” You are saying that you KNOW that humans CANNOT do something. That is a statement of something based on the notion of proof.
Either than or you must concede that everything you’re telling me is nothing but your beliefs, that I don’t have to take seriously at all.
I think I messed up the last posting because it vanished without trace.
What I was saying is, how would you go about proving that my letterbox is not going to spontaneously turn into a cauliflower at some random future time?
I don’t mean whether this event is likely to happen, but can you prove that is will never happen, ever, for all time? Even an approximate outline of how such a proof would look is enough.
We do seem to exist and act. How do you prove there isn’t a god?
By using logic that is ultimately grounded in action. If we know that the concept of God is incoherent and illogical, then God cannot possibly exist.
God can only exist in people’s minds when they refuse to accept that reality is logically structured, and that’s why they have to put God into a different dimension where logic does not apply.
Was there a proof in there? Sorry if I missed it.
Check the rest of the thread to see the basics of what I mean.
Still not seeing it. In my experience, atheists take just as big of a leap of faith as theists.
It’s easy to attack someone’s position who is admittedly based on faith. Most atheists don’t seem to realize that their own position is also faith-based.
Still not seeing it.
You’re right. It’s in another thread. I spoke about omniscience/omnipotence, among other things.
In my experience, atheists take just as big of a leap of faith as theists.
What leap of faith are you talking about?
It’s easy to attack someone’s position who is admittedly based on faith. Most atheists don’t seem to realize that their own position is also faith-based.
I don’t think you realize that not all atheists are arguing from faith.
I am anxiously waiting for these non sequitur expositions being marketed.
Well now you’ve got one non sequitur explained. There are a lot more being generated in the comments every Sunday.
I don’t see a non sequitur this week, and I don’t see any non sequiturs any other Sunday either.
I’m still anxiously waiting for non sequitur expositions that don’t contain any begging of the question.
Here’s an excellent example of what I am talking about. Check out this photo:
http://i.imgur.com/v48hq.jpg
A person who assumes God exists might look at this rock and interpret this as Jesus making an appearance to believers.
A person who assumes God does not exist might look at this rock and interpret this as a non-mystical coincidence in nature.
Who’s right? Well, neither can be right by this observation of the rock alone. Interpreting the rock comes with a pre-existing theory that has to be proven in a way other than pointing to the observation alone.
It’s a very nice photo, but I’m sorry, under no circumstances can I believe that really is a rock.
Oops, you’re right. It looks like a cross section of a tree trunk or branch.
Hey cool, this can serve as an example for this topic. If I said I saw a rock with a picture of a man in it, and someone asked me to prove it, then I would have to duplicate it by showing others. It is in this duplication process that, hopefully, will expose errors like the one I made.
If I were a theist, I might believe that my memory is valid evidence and that God changed the rock into a tree after I looked at it, or that God spoke in my head that it was a rock.
Burning bush!
By gum, God changed the rock into a tree. Praise be, it’s a miracle!
Not the answer I was expecting, but a good one none the less.
Bob didn’t prove God existed. He’s answering an objection/question stating that there is a contradiction. It’s as obvious as could be, yet you keep trumpeting the Red Herring of “begging the question”.
Bob didn’t prove God existed.
Anyone who claims to KNOW something exists, and gives their reasons, is attempting to provide a proof of its existence, to themselves, and to others who listen.
He’s answering an objection/question stating that there is a contradiction.
Where? I don’t see it.
It’s as obvious as could be, yet you keep trumpeting the Red Herring of “begging the question”.
Ah, the appeal to the magical “it’s as obvious as could be!” argument. If it’s so obvious, Murphy would be crowned God’s avatar.
” (a) People in the comments of previous posts usually frame it as, “But Bob, you still haven’t explained how you can reconcile your faith with objection #12…?””
From the first paragraph! Also notice the Q&A format>!> How are you so blind?
That is not an example of him ANSWERING the objection. That is just “assuming God exists, then…”
If wisdom is what attracts you to the new testament, why disregard some of the bad things it says? See: http://web.archive.org/web/20110516221802/http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/biblequotes.htm
Thanks for the posts, Bob! I have been enjoying these posts and your feelings and thoughts about the Faith along with the dense economic stuff. It saddens me that some people have been really negative about your posts – especially in this age of “tolerance” – especially since it is your blog! Some people are too bitter or have too much time. Best Regards!
Bob, you say that “I personally am a pacifist, and go even further and think that loving everyone and holding no grudges is a wonderful recipe for happiness on this Earth. So I think that when it comes for advice on how to live, the Biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth is the best teacher of all time.”
So, as a pacifist, how do you reconcile this with that fact that Jesus claimed as his father a being who told people to kill those who commit bestiality, those who barred the way of Israel, and generally said things like “4And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women” (Ezekiel 9:4-6)
As a pacifist who believes in God, what would you do were you to hear Him command you to kill (as he has done before with others)? How about just someone who you believe has spoken to God (as other who followed Prophets)?
I can answer that. That’s an easy one.
Mankind has free will when it suits the theist, and mankind does not have free will when it suits the theist.
Jesus advocates for violence when it suits the theist, and Jesus advocates for peace when it suits the theist.
God controls a person to be violent when it suits the theist, and God tested a person’s free will to be violent when it suits the theist.
The theist pacifist is compelled to become violent by God’s orders when it suits the theist, and the theist pacifist’s free will is tested by God to be violent when it suits the theist.
The God theory is a way of viewing the world. It is not evidenced based. For the theist, there are always interpretations of events that include “God exists.”
It is about time you were promoted to General Disdain
I wonder why the Jesus God chose to speak to Bob Murphy, it seems to me if he chose George Clooney, Brad Pitt, or even Kate Upton he would have been much more efficient.
Maybe they did hear voices i their head and they’re just keeping it secret.
Marc wrote: I wonder why the Jesus God chose to speak to Bob Murphy, it seems to me if he chose George Clooney, Brad Pitt, or even Kate Upton he would have been much more efficient.
There are plenty of famous people to whom God has spoken, throughout the ages, but there aren’t too many anarcho-capitalist-former-atheists-who-know-enough-physics-to-not-be-cowed-by-confident-atheist-assertions. I have a small niche to fill, but there it is.
Bob,
Excellent post! I think you would make a great apologist for Christianity.
“I wonder why the Jesus God chose to speak to Bob Murphy, it seems to me if he chose George Clooney, Brad Pitt, or even Kate Upton he would have been much more efficient.”
I do not know if God spoke to Bob or not, but if you believed in God, you would realize that we cannot even presume to understand how God thinks.
God sent Jesus to a nation that was quite unimportant in world terms as far as I can tell. Jesus was born in what seemed to be a poor family. He did not come as a priest, a king or anybody of any importance.
Apart from Paul, none of His disciples appeared to be well educated. They were not wealthy, or if there were, their wealth did not help them that much.
Durbo,
“God sent Jesus to a nation that was quite unimportant in world terms as far as I can tell. Jesus was born in what seemed to be a poor family. He did not come as a priest, a king or anybody of any importance.
Apart from Paul, none of His disciples appeared to be well educated. They were not wealthy, or if there were, their wealth did not help them that much.”
This is assuming that the gospels give a clear, accurate, and properly detailed account of the events. Perhaps that’s right, but you should put it out there clearly first rather than making it implicit in a discussion with atheists (note its not just atheists who would dispute this claim either) who would likely dispute such a claim.
This man gets it.
Shouldn’t the person disputing the claim be responsible for the retort? If I give a Rothbardian take on something should I have to explain all of the counter positions as well?
Dan,
“Shouldn’t the person disputing the claim be responsible for the retort?”
Of course! All I said is that its good in an argument to make note of what your own position is implicitly assuming.
..and no Dan you don’t need to write out every argument on a given subject, but its good to bring what’s implicit in your take out. Now I posted in haste and this might not be a properly applied criticism since he was talking to Bob specifically, but if thats so just consider this decent advice.
Don’t forget Paul Krugman. 😉
“I am prepared to believe that people will lie for a cause, but less willing to believe that they will be willingly tortured to death for something they know is a fraud.”
Surely it must have occurred to you that they could have been wrong about Jesus, and very devoted to the idea. They are making extraordinary claims, but basically because they believed it, it happened a long time ago, and lots of other people believe it, you believe it. All of your intelligent reasoning has gone out the window. You have to somehow claim that everyone willing to die for their religion is actually dying for the exact same religion, just interpreted differently.
“You have to somehow claim that everyone willing to die for their religion….”
Not everyone willing to die for their religion has the ability to know if what they are claiming is fraudulent, as Bob claims the disciples did.
And how exactly would you determine that the disciples would know if it’s a fraud, because they said so? Again, I would think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
AC wrote: And how exactly would you determine that the disciples would know if it’s a fraud, because they said so?
It really would be nice if you guys would spend 60 seconds actually trying to understand my argument before unloading your derision. You would find that, contrary to your weekly assertions, I don’t turn off my logic every 7th day.
Some of the people who saw Jesus when He was alive, then later were killed because they wouldn’t renounce their claims that He had come back from the dead, that He was the Messiah, etc. So they would have known if they were lying about that.
It’s because I respect your logic on the other 6 days that I find this interesting, because it really does seem that you’re turning it off on day 7. Admittedly I don’t really understand the argument. You’re still just taking stories from a book and choosing to believe it, presumably because their sincerity makes it more likely. But I assume there are lots of other religious claims that you don’t believe — they’re not just different ways of saying Jesus.
“taking stories from a book”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the idea that most of the disciples were martyred comes not from the Bible but from purported historical evidence.
OK, but the historical evidence of miracles consists of stories in the Bible
Yes! But I think you are still missing Bob’s point. He is making an argument external to the stories in the Bible, saying that historical figures who would have known if those stories were false were still willing to die for them.
I concede that they were quite sincere in their beliefs. That hardly counts as convincing evidence for extraordinary supernatural claims.
Some of the people who saw Jesus when He was alive, then later were killed because they wouldn’t renounce their claims that He had come back from the dead, that He was the Messiah, etc. So they would have known if they were lying about that.
It’s not about lying vs telling what one believes is the truth! It’s about being correct vs being incorrect. Those are two very different things.
I could refuse to lie, and that results in someone killing me, and I may not care, but that by itself doesn’t mean I was correct!
If people flew airlines into skyscrapers, believing that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins, and they were willing to die in that belief, they could believe it to be true, they could be willing to have died for it, but that doesn’t mean that their “honesty” about their BELIEFS makes those beliefs true.
I and other atheists are not accusing the Apostles of lying. I have no idea if they were lying or telling what they believed to be the truth. It doesn’t even matter. What matters is whether or not their claims are correct or incorrect.
It really would be nice if you would spend 60 seconds actually trying to understand the criticisms before unloading your derision.
The gospels show that at first, the disciples did not believe either. Thomas was probably the last one to believe, but they all did not believe at first..
So the real question is why did they change their minds and commit to an idea that they were willing to die for.
I don’t understand the atheist fascination with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People who bring it up seem to think that people arbitrarily choose religions based on what they like about it. And many people probably do this. But there are millions of Christians who honestly believe that Jesus Christ is a supernatural being who literally, objectively exists; no one seriously believes that about FSM.
Also, not the best writing I’ve ever seen on the “problem of pain/evil,” but it’s a fair attempt. Theologians have been wrestling with these questions for centuries, and atheists who offer flippant one-liners as if that settles things are kind of like creationists who offer up things like “Well, how could sexual reproduction have ever evolved?” It’s one thing if you are aware of the existing explanations and find them inadequate, but to just spout off a question as if no one has ever considered it only reveals your relative ignorance.
Joshua wrote: I don’t understand the atheist fascination with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yes, it goes like this:
Peter Gleick : Heartland Institute :: Major Freedom : Christianity.
I don’t understand the atheist fascination with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You don’t believe in the FSM? Why not?
People who bring it up seem to think that people arbitrarily choose religions based on what they like about it. And many people probably do this. But there are millions of Christians who honestly believe that Jesus Christ is a supernatural being who literally, objectively exists; no one seriously believes that about FSM.
Ah, the appeal to popularity. Einstein’s theory of gravity wasn’t valid until enough people believed in it. Prior to that, when nobody took it seriously except Einstein, it was invalid.
Also, not the best writing I’ve ever seen on the “problem of pain/evil,” but it’s a fair attempt. Theologians have been wrestling with these questions for centuries, and atheists who offer flippant one-liners as if that settles things are kind of like creationists who offer up things like “Well, how could sexual reproduction have ever evolved?” It’s one thing if you are aware of the existing explanations and find them inadequate, but to just spout off a question as if no one has ever considered it only reveals your relative ignorance.
“Not the best writing I’ve ever seen.” Speaking of flippant one liners…
John 15:18-27
Thanks.
Oh jesus, well, skipping over the appeals to popularity, the weakest part of this post is the stoic nonsense that pain is relative. Dr. Murphy writes:
“But who’s to say how much suffering and pain we experience in an absolute sense? Look, no matter how God designed our universe and the human experience, so long as there were some variation from life to life, then some events would be “painful” compared to others. ”
I think this is an excerpt from about 50% of every “intro to philosophy” paper ever. Look, just because you need experiential differences to define words, and just because those words change as our experiences change, doesn’t mean the underlying experience has to change as well. Someone could be in intense pain every day and describe it verbally as “business as usual”, but from hypothesis, actually be in very intense pain.
If you think that pain is at all chemical/electrical, and it is, then there is no theoretical reason why your perception of pain would have to decrease over time. Sure receptor sites might dull but I don’t see any reason why they would “tune out” starvation completely.
It’s also worth noting that the situation in question is entirely unfair for one of two reasons. If the tortured children die and don’t go to heaven, then that sucks and is totally and completely unfair and unloving for God to set the earth and heaven-rules up that way. If the tortured children DO get to go to heaven because they’re innocent or whatever, then that’s really unfair to me because I’d rather be in intense pain for 5 years in exchange for automatic admission to eternal bliss.
Dr. Murphy continues…
“But what I’m saying is, think of “the worst thing that ever happened in human history.” No matter how God designed things, we would still be able to carry out that task”
Sure. But there are countless examples of massive human suffering that are not of human design. Like historical infant mortality rates, or Tom Hanks in that island movie. WTF Yahweh?
joeftansey wrote:
[W[ell, skipping over the appeals to popularity,
Again, that was a pure invention of Major Freedom. Go look at my post again. I never said, “I believe in Christianity because it’s popular.” Rather, I was responding to the question, “Bob, why does your belief in God lead you to Jesus? Why not some other religion?” So I broke my answer into two parts, first dealing with popular religions (like Judaism, Islam) and then stuff that nobody believes now, like Zeus.
Doesn’t it concern you guys that week after week, I have to keep pointing out that you haven’t even bothered to calmly read what I wrote? Doesn’t that raise just the slightest Spidey-sense warning that maybe I’m not as bafflingly stupid as you seem to think?
“[W[ell, skipping over the appeals to popularity,”
Again, that was a pure invention of Major Freedom. Go look at my post again. I never said, “I believe in Christianity because it’s popular.”
You didn’t have to say it those exact words in order to have made that argument. You said, as a reason for why you chose Christianity:
According to the gospel accounts, Jesus claimed He was the Son of God, and in fact God Himself who assumed human form. In my understanding, none of the other major religious figures did this.
This is clearly saying that your selection sample is the world’s major religions, and out of that ad populum sample, you selected the one where God took human form. Why would you say “none of the other MAJOR religious figures did this” unless being a major religion was a criteria for you even considering it in the first place?
That you explicitly stated to have gone out of your way to make it clear that the minimum for you is a “major” religion, is what I was referring to by saying your appealing to popularity.
It would be like me saying “I chose to adhere to Austrian economics because none of the other major economic schools talks seriously about the monetary system.” That would be ad populum because I am making it clear that I will only look at “major” economic schools before I will even consider one for choosing. Do you see?
You keep saying over and over that your arguments are being misinterpreted, but I think maybe what’s going on is that theistic logic is preventing you from seeing what it is you are saying. Remember, your worldview starts with “God exists”, so what you believe are sound and clear arguments may not be so to someone who doesn’t start with that premise, or indeed the opposite premise.
I don’t accept your claim that week after week you are actually pointing out that atheists are not reading what you are writing, and addressing straw men instead. I think that is a baseless plea to pretend that the challenges against what you said somehow don’t even exist, as if it’s all been a huge misunderstanding. I think that’s a cop out, I think it’s an attempt to make you and new and existing readers believe that the only thing that is happening is that you have made weekly arguments and that atheists are not understanding any of it, attacking straw men, and so what you’re saying somehow remains unchallenged. I think that is rather insulting to be honest.
Nobody here thinks you’re bafflingly stupid. If I did, I wouldn’t even come here. I vehemently dislike how so many theists always play the guilt card of trying to paint atheists as thinking all theists are idiots, imbeciles, morons, and all the rest. Like we’re supposed to feel sorry for “daring” to challenge the theists and “daring” to assert that it’s all imaginary make believe nonsense.
I can and do say things like “that’s absolute crap, it’s absurd tripe logic that belongs in an insane asylum” to people far more intelligent than me. I do it all the time. Intelligent people are not right about everything. I don’t expect you to ever start agreeing with me, and I don’t mind if people think I’m a stupid moron. I get called a moron, idiot, etc, on other boards on an almost daily basis.
Similar to how you find strength in submitting yourself to the concept of God, I find strength in submitting myself to nobody, knowing that submission to the concept God is really a struggle to reconcile that one is the originator and full owner of these powerful ideas, which theists try to put outside themselves for fear it will consume them.
I view others who disagree with me about what I know to be right, as struggling to come to terms with their own power and sense of self. I like to think that after reading and studying for years, I no longer struggle with my own individual reality. I would feel not the slightest regret if someone told me I will die tomorrow. I won’t fear it. I wasn’t unhappy nor was I in torment for not existing in 1850, and I won’t feel unhappy nor be in torment for not existing in 2150.
joey wrote:
[RPM:] “But what I’m saying is, think of “the worst thing that ever happened in human history.” No matter how God designed things, we would still be able to carry out that task”
Sure. But there are countless examples of massive human suffering that are not of human design. Like historical infant mortality rates, or Tom Hanks in that island movie. WTF Yahweh?
No, you’ve misunderstood my argument. Right now, you are horrified at what Yahweh has allowed to happen. And indeed, if we think of the worst thing that ever happened, it does indeed strike us as awful.
But I’m saying, no matter how God designed things, the people living in that universe could say, “Let’s think of the worst thing that ever happened. Holy cow that was awful! Why did God allow that to happen?”
“Go look at my post again. I never said, “I believe in Christianity because it’s popular.””
Yeah, you do. Your claim is that christianity fits the facts better than the other religions, but the *reason* it does so is because of selection bias. You admitted that you don’t really know anything about Islam, or other major religions. Heck I could make up a religion that fit the facts as-well-as or better-than christianity. But christianity is mainstream and you already know about it. You’re sneaking in the appeal to popularity implicitly in your methodology rather than explicitly in your derivation, but it’s still there.
“Doesn’t it concern you guys that week after week, I have to keep pointing out that you haven’t even bothered to calmly read what I wrote? Doesn’t that raise just the slightest Spidey-sense warning that maybe I’m not as bafflingly stupid as you seem to think?”
I’m not really on the same page as Major Freedom. And actually last week you didn’t accuse me of misunderstanding you, and you also didn’t get back to me after one reply. Though I know you’re quite busy and therefore i won’t attempt to misconstrue this as any sort of concession. If don’t have time, you don’t have time.
“No, you’ve misunderstood my argument. Right now, you are horrified at what Yahweh has allowed to happen. And indeed, if we think of the worst thing that ever happened, it does indeed strike us as awful.
But I’m saying, no matter how God designed things, the people living in that universe could say, “Let’s think of the worst thing that ever happened. Holy cow that was awful! Why did God allow that to happen?”
When I say “why is there so much suffering?” I mean on an individual, not aggregate basis. I’m asking the question of why god would set ANYONE’S daily pain levels to “near maximum”, not why there are 100000 starving children instead of 99999.
But let’s look at the flipside. How much pointless pain and suffering would there have to be before you become suspicious about the benevolence of the designer? Shouldn’t it be possible for us to detect if the designer is screwing us over? Shouldn’t the criterion for this be “There’s an obvious way it could have been better”?
Like, why the world isn’t more like the internet? We have free will and all that jazz, but we can’t really get hurt just by existing, and there is a limit to how much one person can hurt another since I can always just go to a different community/website. But instead, we live in a world where bad stuff happens for no reason and you can die horribly at another’s whim.
If there really were a benevolent god, we would still see awful things happening in the world, but be unable to come up with a better alternative. I.e. the suffering we see would all be constitutive pain (don’t touch the stove, don’t drink poison, etc). So people could still die horribly in traffic accidents for not paying attention, but people wouldn’t be born-about-to-die.
<i.No, you’ve misunderstood my argument. Right now, you are horrified at what Yahweh has allowed to happen.
I can’t speak for joeftansey, but I can tell you that this is not my argument when I ask you to explain how God can plan for all these bad things to occur.
My argument, and I suspect it is joe’s too, is “How can you BELIEVE in a God and call it “infinitely good”, when God is planning for all this evil to occur?” In other words, “How can you accept a concept that is both good and evil at the same time?”
finite evil + infinite good = infinite good?
you are stuck fighting infinity I am afraid
I’d rather not “fight” a concept that I will never be able to fully grasp in principle.
At any rate, the concept of God can’t be infinite, because there’s at least one person in the world and hence one location of spacetime where the concept of God is not accepted.
PS “Infinite [minus anything]” is not a coherent proposition, because infinity cannot be grasped.
Consider
∞ = ∞
Using what is supposed to be proper mathematical operations, we get the following:
∞ – ∞ = 0
Adding 1 to both sides, we get
∞ – ∞ + 1 = 0 + 1
Since ∞ + 1 = ∞ and 0 + 1 = 1 we get
∞ – ∞ = 1
Oops.
Or even better,
∞ = ∞
∞ – ∞ = 0
∞ – ∞ + flying spaghetti monster = 0 + flying spaghetti monster
Since ∞ + flying spaghetti monster = ∞ and 0 + flying spaghetti monster = flying spaghetti monster, we get
∞ – ∞ = flying spaghetti monster
“My argument, and I suspect it is joe’s too, is “How can you BELIEVE in a God and call it “infinitely good”, when God is planning for all this evil to occur?” In other words, “How can you accept a concept that is both good and evil at the same time?””
First of all believing in god and believing that he is infinitely good are 2 seperate beliefs. They do not go hand in hand with each other. Maybe according to Christianity they do but it is not an argument against god’s existence.
Secondly believing that god allows what APPEARS TO US as evil does not mean he is evil. If you believe in god then you believe he has a master plan. Assuming you realized how complicated the world is you would realize that our perception of good and evil is not necessarily absolute. For example, when a bear rips apart a smaller animal and eats it, is that evil? I don’t think any of us would consider it evil nor would the bear consider it evil, but to the smaller animal it sure is evil. Why do you consider YOUR perception of what is good and evil to be absolute?
First of all believing in god and believing that he is infinitely good are 2 seperate beliefs.
You’re saying it is possible for the concept of God to be tainted with evil?
Prove it.
They do not go hand in hand with each other. Maybe according to Christianity they do but it is not an argument against god’s existence.
Which religion considers God to be part evil? I know some of the “heretical” mystics of the initial centuries of the first millennium AD contemplated a God that had an inner flaw that required God to create the universe to correct this flaw. The founders of the dialectic for example
Secondly believing that god allows what APPEARS TO US as evil does not mean he is evil.
Sorry, I trust my judgment. That tactic won’t work on me.
If you believe in god then you believe he has a master plan. Assuming you realized how complicated the world is you would realize that our perception of good and evil is not necessarily absolute.
Says the absolutist.
For example, when a bear rips apart a smaller animal and eats it, is that evil? I don’t think any of us would consider it evil nor would the bear consider it evil, but to the smaller animal it sure is evil. Why do you consider YOUR perception of what is good and evil to be absolute?
Because I am, indeed all humans are, contrary to the bear, rational.
Nah, not my argument. I’m not saying it isn’t valid, but maybe there are some conceivable reasons why a good god would allow us to experience pain, even very traumatic pain.
But when he structures people’s lives such that they contain extreme amounts of pain that they don’t deserve and can’t do anything about, only to die long before the reach the age of reason, I see that as arbitrary.
“…For example, I think from 30,000 feet Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same God, though they have different names and stress different things about Him…”
I have my doubts about rabbinical Judaism, Bob. It may be more of a political control mechanism, used by the folks at the very top to control its adherents for nefarious purposes. You should read the first six chapters of ‘The Controversy of Zion’ and ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion.’ Both are thought-provoking, well-written, and well documented. The thesis is that observant Jews may be the innocent pawns of a created religion which demands separatism, allowing to more easily be used by the Satanic/Money cabal at the very top of rabbinical Judaism.
Just look at the introductory material/timeline at the beginning of any instructional Bible. You will see how the 11 northern tribes, ‘Israel’, disappeared, as they blended in with surrounding tribes who also worshipped a loving, universal God. The southern tribe of Judea, on the other hand, worshipped a vengeful, separatist God. Both traditions are interweaved in the Torah (first five books).
FWIW, Jesus was not technically a ‘Jew’ — Judean — but a Galilean. The Judeans were a separatist group, controlled by the Levites initially, then Pharisees in Jesus’ time. Jesus had no use for the Pharisees.
Here’s a good introductory column on the controversy of the roots of Judaism: http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/herzog.html#auth
This, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Judaism, in this case, is not referring to an ethnicity, but a religion. Jesus was of the Jewish religion (a reformist, but a Jew nonetheless).
“Why does your God let innocent children die of cancer?”
I’ve never really understood why people ask this. The implication, I suppose, is that since children die of cancer there couldn’t possibly be a God. But that’s wrong – it may well say something about the nature of God, if He exists, but it doesn’t say anything about the probability that God exists. He may, for example, be mercurial or ill-tempered or He may be enormously good but in ways unfathomable to the superficially atheistic (or anyone else for that matter). Letting children die is only evidence, at best, against the existence of a particular type of God not evidence against the existence of God in general.
But Christians aren’t arguing for God in general, they are arguing for a benevolent, all-powerful God that intervenes in human affairs.
My point was not so much about what Christians are arguing but what atheists are arguing. It makes no sense for atheists to use the fact that innocent children die of cancer as an argument against the existence of God or as an argument in favour of atheism.
Furthermore, even if one assumes that God exists and that He is benevolent and all-powerful, why is it obvious that the prevention of child deaths from cancer would necessarily be one of the means He would choose to exercise His benevolence. What in any case would the rule be that would satisfy the critics? If innocent child deaths from cancer were to be prevented, what about child deaths from car accidents, falling out of trees, etc. What about the deaths of other innocents? What’s magic from an cosmic unfairness perspective about the death of a 17 year old but not about the death of a 19 year old who is similarly at the start of their life (or a 29 year old for that matter)? What about pregnant women or mothers of young children? Why would it be OK for God to prevent these deaths and not to prevent other lingering painful of deaths even of older innocents? Few living beings are more innocent than animals. Should they be accorded protected status? What about the kittens? Should God prevent every living thing from dying?
Perhaps God recognizes, for example, that the fragility of life and the extent to which we value it and treasure our loved ones are not independent. Perhaps the human cost of disease is meant to spur us on to greater heights of medical discovery and scientific knowledge. Perhaps the uncertainty of life is meant to reward or encourage wisdom, courage, and other virtues. Perhaps the potential for human suffering is meant to encourage sympathy. Who knows?
To what degree does God expect us to have faith? That is, to what degree are religions like Christianity necessarily faith-based. God could give everyone currently existing today an obvious sign of his existence that is beyond dispute, but he doesn’t. I figure this is because God wants you to have faith in Him — that he shouldn’t have to put in all the effort in persuading you.
If this is true, though, you can only go so far in arguing that some of your beliefs are not backed by faith alone (because, by necessity, many are).
Mr Murphy, I hope you will be rewarded in this life or in the afterlife for the time and work you put into spreading the message of Christ. I admit I wonder sometimes whether you and your Evangelical brothers do not get too much carried away trying to find your own answers to the dillemas and problems of Bible interpretation (by the way, I am a Catholic) but anyway your devotion and dedication is impressive. Some of the thoughts in your posts were sort of inspiration to me. God bless you and your family.
Bob—
I told you a story about how, at age 10, I prayed for extra newspapers to appear in my wagon and they did in fact appear. Your interpretation of this was that God was now entitled to say “My dear Steven, there are many things you may want to say to me now. But asking why I hid Myself from you cannot be one of them.”
So your problem now is much more difficult than explaining why God kills people and makes them suffer. It’s explaining why *a God who would intervene to provide me with extra newspapers* kills people and makes them suffer. You want (I think) to say that in the scheme of things, the suffering of cancer is not great enough for God to bother fixing. But if that’s so, why is it worth fixing the suffering of a ten year old who’s worried about not completing his paper route? Isn’t there something disproportional about all this?
Your question is under the premise that god allows bad things to occur and does not intervene. I believe that god does not chose to allow evil to occur but rather he wants it to occur. Now that does not make god evil per say. What appears to us as evil and bad is not necessarily evil and bad in the greater scheme of things. Along with the assumption that god exist (which is required to even ask the question) comes the belief that the world and everything that is on it exists for a purpose. So when god chooses to kill young children it may seem bad and evil but rather it is all part of the much bigger picture of gods master plan.
Lex Luthor is a sister of mercy compared to god.
Now that does not make god evil per say. What appears to us as evil and bad is not necessarily evil and bad in the greater scheme of things.
“in the greater scheme of things” is shorthand for “where logic and evidence do not apply.”
No it is shorthand for “in the greater scheme of things” What you and I perceive as good and evil is not a logical argument, so conflicting with logic plays no role here.
No it is shorthand for “in the greater scheme of things”
No, it is shorthand for “where logic and evidence do not apply.”
What you and I perceive as good and evil is not a logical argument, so conflicting with logic plays no role here.
I hold there exists rationalist ethics.
God is a psycopath, and he created us in his own image.
Steve Landsburg: Thanks for the comment. If I understand you, you’re saying something like this: “Bob thinks God answered my prayer when I was 10, and Bob also thinks that God ignored Stephanie Landsburg–a 10-year-old in California–when she prayed that her sister would recover from leukemia. Therefore, Bob thinks that God is more concerned about paper routes than little kids dying.”
Well, to be clear, no that’s not what I think. In this post, I was trying to show that the mere fact that God allows little kids to die, doesn’t mean the same thing as it would if (say) you or I walked past a kid who was drowning and did nothing. The difference is that God is (if He exists) omnipotent, and so if we are ever to die, then God allowed it.
Now regarding your paper route: I don’t know whether it was a miracle, or whether you actually were mistaken in your observations. It’s possible that the papers were stacked in a certain way, and when you initially thought 2 were missing, that you panicked and “shut down” in your sensory perceptions. I don’t know. But if something miraculous did occur, I would speculate that it had more to do with (say) the conversations we’ve been having the last few weeks. Perhaps someone reading my blog “clicked” in my last blog post, seeing how you had a neat and tidy answer at every turn, and that you even ignored what prima facie seemed like a miraculous experience. So maybe God did that when you were 10, in order to bring others back to paradise decades later.
With all of this stuff, let me repeat: My purpose here isn’t to say, “Hey guys! I can come up with a non-contradictory story to make sense of all this. Therefore God exists.” Rather, I am trying to show that your ostensibly knock-down arguments against God don’t work. So for example, people saying, “You believe in a good God, but He wouldn’t let kids die of cancer.” That is simply a bad argument, as I hope I’ve shown. Or: “Your God cares about paper routes more than the Holocaust.” Again, I think that is a bad objection, that doesn’t take seriously what God would be doing, if He existed at all like I think He does.
“So maybe God did that when you were 10, in order to bring others back to paradise decades later.”
Unless you are joking… –> Occam’s Razor. How mysterious and convoluted would god’s ways have to be before you became suspicious?
“Rather, I am trying to show that your ostensibly knock-down arguments against God don’t work”
Maybe, but now we have another knockdown argument that virtually no other christian would allow us to use, which is that this one time I had a divine experience where .
““You believe in a good God, but He wouldn’t let kids die of cancer.” That is simply a bad argument, as I hope I’ve shown. ”
It isn’t that people die in horrible ways, it’s that innocent people die in needlessly horrible ways that they can’t do anything to prevent. Again, how arbitrary and painful would life have to be before you became suspicious about god’s benevolence?
“Unless you are joking… –> Occam’s Razor. How mysterious and convoluted would god’s ways have to be before you became suspicious?”
Bob isn’t trying to say because of that occurrence he believes god exists, he is saying once you are under the assumption that god exists…… His assumption of gods existence is a completely different discussion. This entire post was written under the assumption of gods existence.
“It isn’t that people die in horrible ways, it’s that innocent people die in needlessly horrible ways that they can’t do anything to prevent. Again, how arbitrary and painful would life have to be before you became suspicious about god’s benevolence?”
I don’t understand why you assume that the way you perceive benevolence is the absolute definition of benevolence. For example when Stalin or Mao killed millions of people they considered themselves to be doing the correct thing. You and I would both agree that it wasn’t benevolent but there were many many people who agreed with their methods. The belief of the existence of god does NOT go along with the belief that god does things that always appear to be benevolent. What it does go along with is the belief that god has a master plan that we cannot possibly understand and to try to make assumptions as to what is fair and not fair would be absolutely absurd. Its the mathematical equivalent of a 5 year old saying that Einsteins theory of relativity doesn’t make sense because he doesn’t understand it.
“This entire post was written under the assumption of gods existence.”
Even if he does exist, it doesn’t mean weird events are best explained by his intervention. And in this case, Bob is really stretching it, so I ask, how weird and circuitous do things have to be before “god did it” stops being your default explanation?
What would it take you to admit that there are flukes?
“I don’t understand why you assume that the way you perceive benevolence is the absolute definition of benevolence. ”
Because I have a dictionary.
“For example when Stalin or Mao killed millions of people they considered themselves to be doing the correct thing. You and I would both agree that it wasn’t benevolent but there were many many people who agreed with their methods.”
But they’re wrong.
“The belief of the existence of god does NOT go along with the belief that god does things that always appear to be benevolent.”
Okay. We can make mistakes. But god seems to have like literally billions of abhorrent things he lets happen for no reason. Are we just wrong a billion times over? How messed up would the world have to be before you admit god is benevolent? What if every human being were born in a torture chamber?
“What it does go along with is the belief that god has a master plan that we cannot possibly understand and to try to make assumptions as to what is fair and not fair would be absolutely absurd”
“Magic” is your explanation for everything.
“Its the mathematical equivalent of a 5 year old saying that Einsteins theory of relativity doesn’t make sense because he doesn’t understand it.”
Except you can prove experimentally that the 5 year old is wrong. There’s no experiment or analytical exercises we can implement to test the hypothesis that there is no benevolent god.
And I notice that you’re not even directly engaging the facts. And that’s because the facts are so damning. Lots of people ARE born into de facto torture chambers. Benevolent god? Looks a LOT more like arbitrary randomness. Kind of like what you would predict if there were no benevolent god.
“Even if he does exist, it doesn’t mean weird events are best explained by his intervention. And in this case, Bob is really stretching it, so I ask, how weird and circuitous do things have to be before “god did it” stops being your default explanation?”
The corollary of the belief in gods existance is that he controls the world. So yes once you accept that god exists not only can you invoke god to explain things you have to invoke god to explain things. You can say that god set up laws of nature and thats why things happen the way they do but it all goes back to god.
“Because I have a dictionary”
According to the Miraim Webster Dictionary, benevolence means “disposition to do good”. This does not explain at all why what you consider good nor what Noah Webter or Miraim Webster views as good is absolutely good.
“But they’re wrong.”
Thats exactly my argument. YOU say they are wrong, that doesn’t make them wrong. Just because to YOU they are wrong doesn’t make them wrong.
“Okay. We can make mistakes. But god seems to have like literally billions of abhorrent things he lets happen for no reason. Are we just wrong a billion times over? How messed up would the world have to be before you admit god is benevolent? What if every human being were born in a torture chamber?”
I think you meant to write “before you admit god isn’t benevolent”. Be that as it may once you are under the assumption of god’s existance you realize that in an absolute sense we have no perception of good and evil, because we don’t understand him.
“”Magic” is your explanation for everything”
It is not magic if you are under the assumption of gods existence. This whole arguement is rooted in the assumption of gods existence. The question of benevolence or not does not in any way shape or form explain why i believe in god.
Putting aside everything i have written, this argument is not about gods existence but rather how benevolent or not he is. I dont think anyone would agree that they believe god exists because this world is so benevolent. That is not a reason to deny nor acknowledge gods existence.
“The corollary of the belief in gods existance is that he controls the world.”
No free will? Really?
“So yes once you accept that god exists not only can you invoke god to explain things you have to invoke god to explain things”
Clearly I don’t. E=mc^2 bro.
“You can say that god set up laws of nature and thats why things happen the way they do but it all goes back to god”
Or you can say “I don’t know, but it doesn’t improve the accuracy of my predictions if I just make crap up”.
“According to the Miraim Webster Dictionary, benevolence means “disposition to do good”. This does not explain at all why what you consider good nor what Noah Webter or Miraim Webster views as good is absolutely good.”
I use words because I have a particular meaning for them in mind. I don’t know how you use words if you don’t know what they mean.
“Thats exactly my argument. YOU say they are wrong, that doesn’t make them wrong. Just because to YOU they are wrong doesn’t make them wrong.”
They’re wrong according to my definition of good. That makes them wrong if they claim to be “for the greater good” and also define “good” the way I do.
ZZZzzzzz semantics. The long story short is that you can’t have floating words that you use while simultaneously not understanding them. The claim that A) God is Good and B) We don’t know what Good is is ENTIRELY incoherent.
“Be that as it may once you are under the assumption of god’s existance you realize that in an absolute sense we have no perception of good and evil, because we don’t understand him.”
In other words, nothing. The universe could be a giant unending torture chamber for every human being alive and you would still say “durr, well god is doing his best by us”. That’s called having an unfalsifiable position bro.
“It is not magic if you are under the assumption of gods existence. ”
Yes it is magic. God is magic.
“This whole arguement is rooted in the assumption of gods existence. The question of benevolence or not does not in any way shape or form explain why i believe in god.”
Well I’m not actually addressing you I’m talking to Bob, so it’s not really relevant whether you believe in god irregardless of his benevolence.
“Putting aside everything i have written, this argument is not about gods existence but rather how benevolent or not he is.”
By ANY conceivable standard for benevolence, PARTICULARLY coupled with his omnipotence, god cannot be said to be benevolent. He could have made the universe a place without arbitrary pointless suffering, but instead there are horrible natural disasters and some humans can utterly destroy others on a whim. But he didn’t.
“That is not a reason to deny nor acknowledge gods existence.”
It is reason to deny that there is a BENEVOLENT god.
Zzzzzz so tired of you. You’re dumb.
“How messed up would the world have to be before you admit god is benevolent? ”
god isn’t*
“No free will? Really?”
Believing that something will happen regardless of my action is not antithical to the belief of free will. For example if god wants you to die in a gruesome way he will allow me to shoot you if i chose to, but if i chose not to then he will have a tree limb fall on your head. My decision has no impact on gods decision. I don’t know who taught you about free will but you clearly misunderstand it.
“Clearly I don’t. E=mc^2 bro.”
Thats because you don’t believe in god. If you did you would say “yes, E=mc^2 but god made E=mc^2, he could’ve made the world operate under different laws of physics.
“In other words, nothing. The universe could be a giant unending torture chamber for every human being alive and you would still say “durr, well god is doing his best by us”. That’s called having an unfalsifiable position bro”
Yes it is an unfalsifiable position, I don’t think bob is saying based on his views of the world that god is benevolent, i think he is merely saying that based on his beleifs in christianity he believes that god is considered merciful even though it may not appear to us that god is merciful.
I personally do not agree with bob on many levels, including why he believes in gods existence. I am merely trying to show that the question of innocent children dying from cancer is not contradictory to god being benevolent.
“Believing that something will happen regardless of my action is not antithical to the belief of free will. For example if god wants you to die in a gruesome way he will allow me to shoot you if i chose to, but if i chose not to then he will have a tree limb fall on your head. My decision has no impact on gods decision. I don’t know who taught you about free will but you clearly misunderstand it.”
You’re saying god controls the world. Your insane hypothetical aside, god can’t simultaneously control YOU and not control YOU. So which is it? Does god control everything or not?
“Thats because you don’t believe in god. If you did you would say “yes, E=mc^2 but god made E=mc^2, he could’ve made the world operate under different laws of physics.”
Red herring. I can explain the world without appending “because of magic” to the end of my sentences.
“Yes it is an unfalsifiable position, I don’t think bob is saying based on his views of the world that god is benevolent, i think he is merely saying that based on his beleifs in christianity he believes that god is considered merciful even though it may not appear to us that god is merciful.
I personally do not agree with bob on many levels, including why he believes in gods existence. I am merely trying to show that the question of innocent children dying from cancer is not contradictory to god being benevolent.”
And yet you admit that you have an unfalsifiable position on this issue…. Like god could have chosen to structure the universe so that everyone were born in a pain-put with super amplified sensitivity, and you’d still be claiming god is good…
Believing that something will happen regardless of my action is not antithical to the belief of free will. For example if god wants you to die in a gruesome way he will allow me to shoot you if i chose to, but if i chose not to then he will have a tree limb fall on your head. My decision has no impact on gods decision. I don’t know who taught you about free will but you clearly misunderstand it.
If God exists and has omniscience/omnipotence, then he would have planned for and created a universe where the death is the result of the tree limb, NOT some alleged free will not being exercised by you and shooting him.
I don’t know who taught you about the impossibility of humans having free will if a God exists with omnipotence/omniscience, but you clearly don’t understand it.
Thats because you don’t believe in god. If you did you would say “yes, E=mc^2 but god made E=mc^2, he could’ve made the world operate under different laws of physics.
No, that’s false. It would be impossible for life to exist, indeed it would be impossible for matter to form, if the physical constants deviated enough away from the current ones, for example gravity, and strong/weak nuclear forces.
Yes it is an unfalsifiable position, I don’t think bob is saying based on his views of the world that god is benevolent, i think he is merely saying that based on his beleifs in christianity he believes that god is considered merciful even though it may not appear to us that god is merciful.
If it is an unfalsifiable position, then it would be silly to assert that one’s belief in God is in any way a posteriori by being based on empirical evidence.
I personally do not agree with bob on many levels, including why he believes in gods existence. I am merely trying to show that the question of innocent children dying from cancer is not contradictory to god being benevolent.
How do you define benevolent then? Clearly it doesn’t include stopping innocent children dying from cancer, despite one having an effortless infinite power to do so.
It would be like saying you can save the world’s children from dying of cancer, just by merely thinking it, and for some reason you refuse to do it, and yet you still want to be considered “benevolent” because you have some incomprehensible unintelligible “plan” that nobody can know about.
I was trying to show that the mere fact that God allows little kids to die, doesn’t mean the same thing as it would if (say) you or I walked past a kid who was drowning and did nothing. The difference is that God is (if He exists) omnipotent, and so if we are ever to die, then God allowed it.
What is the purely sensory, observational difference between a universe where God does not exist and little girls die of leukemia from “natural” causes, and a universe where God does exist and little girls die of leukemia because God “allowed” it?
If you say nothing, then you must admit belief in God is a way you view the world, and is not based on evidence.
Now regarding your paper route: I don’t know whether it was a miracle, or whether you actually were mistaken in your observations. It’s possible that the papers were stacked in a certain way, and when you initially thought 2 were missing, that you panicked and “shut down” in your sensory perceptions. I don’t know. But if something miraculous did occur, I would speculate that it had more to do with (say) the conversations we’ve been having the last few weeks. Perhaps someone reading my blog “clicked” in my last blog post, seeing how you had a neat and tidy answer at every turn, and that you even ignored what prima facie seemed like a miraculous experience. So maybe God did that when you were 10, in order to bring others back to paradise decades later.
With all of this stuff, let me repeat: My purpose here isn’t to say, “Hey guys! I can come up with a non-contradictory story to make sense of all this. Therefore God exists.” Rather, I am trying to show that your ostensibly knock-down arguments against God don’t work.
You can’t honestly claim to be open to changing your mind if only the right logic comes along, because you stacked the deck at the very beginning by postulating an illogical concept in the first place.
You keep contradicting yourself. First you claim to know that the knock down arguments against God “don’t work.” But before, when the arguments got a lot more intense, you retreated to the rhetoric about human brains allegedly not being capable of understanding objective truths through logic anyway.
You can’t have it both ways.
How can you claim that you have the ability to use logic to say something about objective reality, but atheists, who have brains just like yours, you deny that they have the ability to use logic to say something about objective reality?
I truly hope that you are not believing the notion that one’s ability to know objective truths can only come if one has faith in God, without being logically or empirically convinced. That would be pure sophistry. It would be like me claiming that objective truths can only be known if one does not believe in God, also without being logically or empirically convinced.
So for example, people saying, “You believe in a good God, but He wouldn’t let kids die of cancer.” That is simply a bad argument, as I hope I’ve shown.
All I see in your response is
1. I believe God exists by definition, so God kills everyone by definition; and
2. I don’t know how much people suffer in the “absolute” sense, because I reserve all absoluteness to God only, via 1.
1. is begging the question, and 2. is an irrelevant contradiction, because while you’re denying Landsburg the concept of knowing absoluteness, you are claiming to know an absoluteness called God. It is irrelevant because Landsburg is not claiming any “absolute” pain, he’s only claiming one pain is worse than the other.
I don’t have to know about what absolute pain means before I can know that some things are more painful than others.
You didn’t show how Landsburg’s arguments are bad, all you did was reassert your belief in God, and added the “Who can say anything about absolutes?” rhetoric.
Or: “Your God cares about paper routes more than the Holocaust.” Again, I think that is a bad objection, that doesn’t take seriously what God would be doing, if He existed at all like I think He does.
You’re saying an atheist isn’t taking seriously what God is doing…
Yeah, OK.
You want (I think) to say that in the scheme of things, the suffering of cancer is not great enough for God to bother fixing.
He does bother fixing that too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-s-keener/miracles-in-the-bible-and-today_b_1274775.html
The difficulty I have with comments like this is that they reduce to:
a) if there was a God, I am certain he would act in the following way: (insert preconceived notion here);
b) since He doesn’t act that way, there can’t be a God.
You missed the best part david nh. You need to add:
(c) And anyway, if there were a God, Bob, he’d be so far above you that it’s funny you think you can speculate as to how he’d behave. What arrogance you have, Bob.
sweet
What is with this straw man? It’s b) Since he doesn’t act this way, there can’t be a god that acts this way.
We are all entirely open to the idea that Satan runs the universe. K?
Christianity is the only religion that depends on grace and mercy from the Almighty.
All other religions are dependent on the actions (works) of man to EARN their reward.
If God gives you mercy you can enter heaven.
If you have not received mercy I sincerely plead with you to seek it and Him. If you don’t know if you have received it you surely have not.
NOTE: How funny is it that the creation strives to justify his existence and his own righteousness? Isaiah 64:6 says man’s righteousness is like a dirty rag. So Whom’s righteousness must we receive?
Hi Bob,
Sorry, I’m a little late to the party this week, but my faith in you is restored. I’m glad you took a stab at the dolphin lady.
You wrote:
“If she told us the dolphins told her all these wise sayings, which at first sounded crazy but in retrospect–like after growing in wisdom through decades of living–they sounded truer and truer, then yeah maybe I would give her story more credence.”
But this is one example of thousands. The purpose of the example is to show that people DO have non-Christian paranormal experiences. If you accept that premise, then how much of a stretch is it to think that a portion of those experiences will be infused with wisdom? Are you willing to say that any paranormal experience that includes “wise sayings” is evidence of the supernatural? If some paranormal experiences have natural causes, how do you know that yours doesn’t as well?
“But as it is, she sounds as crazy to me as she does to the atheist, and I don’t see any reason to inquire further.”
Couldn’t she say the same of you?
“To repeat, I WAS NOT offering my personal experiences as evidence that should sway anybody else.”
You offered it as a reason you KNEW there was a god. But if your paranormal experiences are sufficient to justify your belief in god, why shouldn’t the dolphin lady’s experiences be sufficient to justify her beliefs?
“The reason I offered those things was so that my atheist/agnostic opponents would understand why I had such conviction in my beliefs.”
My point, again, is that you probably SHOULDN’T have such conviction (regardless of what your readers think). You appear to have chosen the explanation of your experiences that is most comforting to you while ignoring equally or more probable explanations. Here’s a list:
1. A ghost spoke to you, pretending to be god.
2. The devil spoke to you, pretending to be god.
3. The matrix spoke to you, pretending to be god.
4. You had some kind of mental breakdown due to stress.
5. Your mind created an imaginary friend, similar to what many children have.
“Suppose some guy literally was visited by aliens when he was out hiking in the mountains; he went into their ship and saw all kinds of advanced things etc. Now if then tried to argue with astronomers and other scientists about the existence of extraterrestrial life, he obviously couldn’t cite those experiences.”
But you didn’t ascend to heaven and meet god. You heard a voice, something fell over, and something appeared to move. Those experiences are well within the power of your mind to create. But going back to alien abductions, do you believe the people who claim to have been abducted? Their beliefs are also justified on the basis of their compelling paranormal experiences.
So, can you have it both ways? Can your paranormal experiences be evidence of the Christian god while other people’s paranormal experiences are NOT evidence of alien abductions?
Cutting down to your strongest points…
You don’t want to use the “pretending to be god” line because it can be used to discredit any idea and defaults us all to total ignorance. If the word “know” is to have any meaning at all it must be possible.
Bob’s endgame is going to be that he had these subjective experiences, and those prove to him that there is a (christian) god, but he also recognizes that this is unconvincing to skeptics.
As weak as this sounds, however, Bob has successfully stalemated the argument. The only way to disprove his position is to claim that his experiences never happened. Good luck with that. So Bob comes out ahead of the other insane christians because he has something that would actually count as good evidence, if only there were *cough* evidence for it.
The best way to attack him is to show that his methodology results in people defending beliefs in literally anything. They can just make crap up, and you can’t even claim that their experience is unreasonable because it’s “supernatural”, defies physics, continuity, etc.
As such it is a technique open for universal abuse, and therefore ought to be universally boycotted, unless your position has no merit whatsoever and the best you can do is claim “well I had an experience where it felt like I was right trololololololol”.
“You don’t want to use the ‘pretending to be god’ line because it can be used to discredit any idea and defaults us all to total ignorance. If the word ‘know’ is to have any meaning at all it must be possible.”
You appear to be implying that no model of reality can include the concept of deception because that would undermine the model. But deception is a real phenomenon, so any model of reality that does not include the possibility of deception can not be accurate.
“Bob’s endgame is going to be that he had these subjective experiences, and those prove to him that there is a (christian) god, but he also recognizes that this is unconvincing to skeptics.”
I’m not talking about skeptics – I’m talking about BOB. My point is that Bob’s argument shouldn’t be convincing to BOB, because other people could use the same argument to prove to themselves things that Bob would disagree with, which would result in a situation where multiple conflicting realities “existed” simultaneously. This is not a coherent worldview.
“As weak as this sounds, however, Bob has successfully stalemated the argument. The only way to disprove his position is to claim that his experiences never happened. Good luck with that.”
Again, you appear to have missed my actual argument. It has nothing to do with his experiences. It has to do with the conclusions he draws from them and the implications that has for other people with similar experiences.
“The best way to attack him is to show that his methodology results in people defending beliefs in literally anything. They can just make crap up, and you can’t even claim that their experience is unreasonable because it’s ‘supernatural’, defies physics, continuity, etc.”
I don’t think this argument is relevant to Bob, because he’s not making crap up. My point is, given the reality of his paranormal experiences, whatever standard he uses to interpret them must be applied consistently in all cases where people have such experiences. This would mean that aliens abduct farmers, dolphin spirits travel to Arizona, and children have invisible (NOT imaginary) friends.
“I’m not talking about skeptics – I’m talking about BOB. My point is that Bob’s argument shouldn’t be convincing to BOB, because other people could use the same argument to prove to themselves things that Bob would disagree with, which would result in a situation where multiple conflicting realities “existed” simultaneously. This is not a coherent worldview.”
If you believe what you say above how would God reveal himself to you? It seems that no matter what God would do you wouldn’t be able to accept him because someone else might believe something contrary to God. That is a weird measuring stick for beliefs.
“If you believe what you say above how would God reveal himself to you?”
That’s a good question, but before getting sidetracked, do you agree that other people could use Bob’s same line of reasoning to prove to themselves things that Bob would disagree with?
Yeah, I agree with Dr. Murphy and you that people could use experiences like God talking to them or dolphins talking to them as proof for themselves. I’m not sure who would disagree with that. Our experiences tend to have major impacts on our belief systems. It doesn’t prove our beliefs are correct but it is useful to explain these kind of experiences if you are trying to give people a window into your mind. If you are trying to use these kind of experiences to prove something to others then I think they are in for an uphill battle.
Correction: that last sentence should start “if they…
Anonymouse wrote:
[RPM wrote:] “To repeat, I WAS NOT offering my personal experiences as evidence that should sway anybody else.”
You offered it as a reason you KNEW there was a god. But if your paranormal experiences are sufficient to justify your belief in god, why shouldn’t the dolphin lady’s experiences be sufficient to justify her beliefs?
Of course they would be sufficient to justify them–to her. Man I really don’t see what is so difficult about this. If you had a dolphin come talk to you when no one else was around, and you hadn’t been taking mind-altering drugs, and you felt perfectly normal afterwards etc etc., then that certainly would raise your subjective probability of thinking dolphins could talk. If it didn’t, you would be behaving very anti-empirically. Of course, you wouldn’t expect that experience per se to convince anybody else.
What if the dolphin tells you there is no god?
Then the dolphin would be wrong.
How can I know when to trust a dolphin?
Anonymouse wrote:
“… if your paranormal experiences are sufficient to justify your belief in god, why shouldn’t the dolphin lady’s experiences be sufficient to justify her beliefs?”
Bob wrote:
“Of course they would be sufficient to justify them–to her.”
So, we appear to be in agreement on this point. The question is this: Is it possible that the voices she heard were as clear and compelling to her as the voices you heard? And if that is possible, is it also possible that, despite the clarity of the voices, she was not in fact visited by dolphin spirits?
Mammoth wrote:
“What if the dolphin tells you there is no god?”
Bob wrote:
“Then the dolphin would be wrong.”
This is exactly the conflict I’ve been attempting to highlight. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that – from the dawn of man to the present – at least one intelligent sane person had a series of compelling paranormal experiences for which the most straightforward interpretation is incompatible with your interpretation of your paranormal experiences. In that case, we would have two people with equally compelling paranormal experiences and yet two mutually exclusive interpretations.
How would you resolve such a conflict?
The trouble you are having is that Dr. Murphy gave his reasons why HE knows there is a God. He wasn’t trying to prove the existence of God to anyone else. It was just a post that gave us a window into his mind.
“This is exactly the conflict I’ve been attempting to highlight. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that – from the dawn of man to the present – at least one intelligent sane person had a series of compelling paranormal experiences for which the most straightforward interpretation is incompatible with your interpretation of your paranormal experiences. In that case, we would have two people with equally compelling paranormal experiences and yet two mutually exclusive interpretations.
How would you resolve such a conflict?”
Probably the same way you would. Or are you saying that if an intelligent sane person had a series of compelling experiences with God that you would accept God as truth?
“The trouble you are having is that Dr. Murphy gave his reasons why HE knows there is a God. He wasn’t trying to prove the existence of God to anyone else. It was just a post that gave us a window into his mind.”
Trust me, I’m not having any trouble understanding Bob’s post. My point is that HE shouldn’t be convinced by his own argument. It has nothing to do with convincing other people of his claims.
“…are you saying that if an intelligent sane person had a series of compelling experiences with God that you would accept God as truth?”
I accept that intelligent sane people can hear a voice in their head, and I accept that the voice they hear may not in fact be the voice of a god, contrary to what their intuition, upbringing, cultural milieu, and emotional needs might lead them to believe.
“My point is that HE shouldn’t be convinced by his own argument. It has nothing to do with convincing other people of his claims.”
He had already became a Christian before the experiences he wrote about. Those experiences solidified his beliefs and helped him to know he was right but they weren’t the reasons for becoming a Christian from an atheist. So if you’re charge is that those experiences shouldn’t have convinced him to give up atheism I think he would agree because that obviously isn’t what happened for him.
“…if you’re charge is that those experiences shouldn’t have convinced him to give up atheism I think he would agree because that obviously isn’t what happened for him.”
But the title of his post was “Why I KNOW There Is a God”, not “How my belief in god was confirmed through experience”. I think there’s a pretty big difference there.
“But the title of his post was “Why I KNOW There Is a God”, not “How my belief in god was confirmed through experience”. I think there’s a pretty big difference there.”
I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that his experiences happened post or pre Christianity? If you agree that he was already a Christian before those experiences, which Dr. Murphy said was the case, then I’m not sure what you mean when you say he should not be convinced by his own experiences.
“I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that his experiences happened post or pre Christianity?”
They happened post-conversion, but that is irrelevant to his claim.
“If you agree that he was already a Christian before those experiences, which Dr. Murphy said was the case, then I’m not sure what you mean when you say he should not be convinced by his own experiences.”
Bob’s claim in “Why I KNOW There Is a God” is that his paranormal experiences are the reason he KNOWS there is a god. I’m disputing that claim. Bob says that Paranormal Experiences (P) equal Knowing That There Is a God (K).
In other words, Bob says that P = K, and I’m pointing out that strict adherence to this proposition would lead to irreconcilable contradictions – a claim Bob has thus far failed to address.
“In other words, Bob says that P = K, and I’m pointing out that strict adherence to this proposition would lead to irreconcilable contradictions – a claim Bob has thus far failed to address.”
I don’t see the irreconcilable contradictions. Are you claiming that since Dr. Murphy had experiences that he knows were from God that he must accept all other stated experiences from others as truth as well? Why can’t he believe his experiences are from God and doubt the dolphin lady’s experience?
“Why can’t he believe his experiences are from God and doubt the dolphin lady’s experience?”
He can, but he has not explained why the voices he heard were from god and the voices she heard originated inside her own head.
Unless and until he presents an argument explaining why some disembodied voices are “authentic” while others are not, his claim about KNOWING god will remain subjective, arbitrary, and irrational.
Dr. Murphy,
Your responses were interesting — thanks for posting those thoughts.
Have you read much Aquinas? I always thought his answer to the argument from evil was better — both in the sense of being more persuasive, and more logical (in the sense of being consistent with an understanding of God’s nature).
Here’s a link to his literal answer from the Summa:
“As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.”
The way I usually paraphrase this is to turn the question back on them: What makes you think that God allowing suffering is evil? Can you prove a connection between those things?
Another way is to simply point out that, since God understood is the final arbitor of Good and Evil, it’s more than a little presumptuous for us to suppose that we know more on the subject than He does.
Of course, most atheists don’t grant God exists or that He is good. However, if they want to challenge a Christian with the argument from evil without granting those things, then they are literally Attacking a Strawman.
– Bo