I was a guest on FamilyNet Radio this morning. The show is called Mornings with Lorri and Larry. It’s a great show on Sirius Satellite Radio, channel 161. It’s on Cable TV, too.I really enjoy being a guest on the show, but I’m always a bit embarrassed when they call me a parenting expert. Shouldn’t that mean my family is perfect? Can anyone with children at home really be an expert on parenting? Isn’t that like being called an expert snow shoveler during a blizzard?
The issue this morning was helping children cope with news of school shootings. I reminded the listeners that God loves us and is ultimately in control. We can assure our children that God is watching over them and has their best interest in mind. Terrible things like school shootings are still going to happen, but we don’t have to live in fear. I think we should be honest with our children, but we can also assure them that their lives have purpose, and that they are loved.
I encouraged parents to impress on their children the importance of being vigilant, keeping an eye and ear out for signs of pending trouble among their peers. We have seen news stories this year of students stopping carnage because they had the courage to tell someone what they saw or heard.
I also suggested that parents limit how much news coverage their children see each day. I think this is especially important in younger children. I’m concerned that if children watch too much bad news they will begin to live in continuous fear.
At this point in the interview, Larry threw me a bit of a curve ball. He mentioned that children may become violent if they play violent video games. I said parents should always seek balance in their homes. Lorri then asked me if I let my children to play violent video games. I sputtered a little because I didn’t want to disagree with what Larry had just said, but I do let my son play some pretty violent games. I said I believe he sees them as challenges to win, not objects to kill for pleasure. For him, it is more of an obstacle course, killing threatening, evil aliens as he goes through. The aliens are trying to kill him and he is trying to survive. There is some “good verses evil” dynamic involved.
We played “army” with sticks when I was a kid. This is the new way to accomplish the same thing and I don’t think it makes kids desensitized, anti-social animals to play video games. It becomes a problem when children don’t seem to care if they hurt someone, become cruel to animals, or show other signs of violent behavior. Again, I think parents should be vigilant and know their children.
50 comments:
How can you say that "God is watching over them [the dead NIU students] and has their best interest in mind"? How can allowing such promising members of society to be killed be in their best interests? If God was paying such close attention to their well being, they why were they killed?
I sure don't want such ineffective oversight on my part. It is like God doesn't care and isn't paying attention.
Please, please don't tell me that God works in mysterious ways or that we cannot know God's will. Why does a benevolent and loving God do this to people and their families?
Rob,
You asked “Why does a benevolent and loving God do this to people and their families?” It sounds as if you have placed the gun in God’s hands. God didn’t kill those students, a man did. You might as well ask why God has killed every person in history if you are placing blame on him for these deaths.
The Bible teaches that things like this will happen. It never promises that we will not suffer. In fact, it promises that we will, and that everyone of us will die one day and face God. It also teaches that God knows that day before we are even born. There are no guarantees of long life or good health for any of us. But we don’t have to live in fear when we believe our lives have purpose and we are in God’s hands. That’s what I believe and what I am teaching my children.
I’m not saying it was in those students’ best interest to be murdered. That would be foolish. But their deaths stand as a warning to the rest us that life is fleeting and we better be ready to face our maker. Life on earth is only a finger-snap compared to eternity, even if you live to be a hundred years old.
It's terribly sad when young, promising members of society are cut down in their prime, but my point is that we do not have to live in fear of random chance without hope and without a meaningful purpose.
If God knew this tragedy would happen, then why didn't he prevent it? Is it because he couldn't? This would indicate God's impotence.
Or is it because he didn't want to? That would indicate God's malevolence.
If you know that I am going to shoot someone, you could be powerless to prevent it, for a variety of reasons. This would make you feel terrible, frustrated, and impotent.
However, if you know that I am going to shoot someone, and you are capable of stopping me but you don't, then what are you? I would say you are not a caring person, at the very least.
Personally, I would say the deaths of the students at NIU are a warning that we need to take serious action to prevent such occurrences in the future, by any reasonable means.
I believe it is true that many Christians believe God knows our souls before we are born. Was this true of Hitler?
In Genesis, God allowed Joseph to be sold as a slave, falsely accused, and imprisoned. God had the power to stop this but chose not to. God was neither malevolent nor impotent. He chose to allow it. Joseph rejoiced in what he had been through and said what man had intended for evil, God used for good (the saving of his family). God sees with an eternal perspective, but we do not. He sees the big picture. As I stated above, a human lifespan is only a finger-snap compared to eternity. The vast, vast majority of my existence will be in heaven where there will be no suffering. Because I have placed my trust in Christ, my lifespan on earth will soon seem like only a dream – even if I live to be a hundred. All questions will be answered and I will be able to see God with my own eyes.
For now, pain and suffering is the price we pay for living with free will in a fallen world. Otherwise, we would either be God’s pets or puppets. That would be fair to neither him nor us. God weeps with us and comforts us, but suffering will continue until sin is finally conquered.
It is interesting that you brought up Hitler. Yes, God saw his entire life before he was born and did not stop what he did. First, no one is God’s puppet; Hitler made his own choices just like we do. Looking back, though, we may see a bit of the big picture: Israel is a country again because of Hitler. If the Jews hadn’t gone through the Holocaust, the world would have never allowed Israel to be formed, fulfilling biblical prophecy. Further, the Bible warns there will be terrible bloodshed and that is exactly what we have seen and are seeing. I look forward to the day when it ends, but I am not putting any faith in any government to bring this about. Hitler proved that doesn’t work.
Back to my original blog post. David wrote more than three thousand years ago, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.” That’s what I am teaching my children. No matter what happens to me today, I know God is with me and that’s all I need to know.
Craig,
As I understand the concept of Christian Free Will, God has given us the ability to choose between good or evil. Furthermore, the Bible and related teachings have stipulated that which is good and that which is evil.
Now, if we know which things are good, and which things are evil, then the choice between them is not free because we already know the outcome of the choice! This also contradicts the definition of will (conscious and especially of deliberate action), as we have essentially had the choice made for us!
Free Will, in its only true manifestation, would require that we NOT know the consequences of our choice before making it.
Imagine the following scenario. You present a child with the choice of a piece of broccoli and a piece of candy. Prior to telling the child to make a choice, you tell him that if he takes the candy, he might get his hand slapped, but that if he takes the broccoli, he might get a piece of candy in one year. Does this child have Free Will to make the decision between the broccoli and candy? I believe no. By placing preconditions on the choice, you have biased the choice, and thus it is not free. In addition, you have altered his will by the same mechanism.
On a second point, if you are looking forward to the day when the bloodshed in the name of God ends, are you actively trying to bring an end it? Otherwise, you sit by and say that all this suffering is inconsequential because one day we will be in heaven and without suffering. I believe that is inhumane.
On the subject of Israel, I believe they should be sanctioned and their leaders be convicted of crimes against humanity.
Rob
Rob, I'd like to weigh-in on some points. You said,
"Now, if we know which things are good, and which things are evil, then the choice between them is not free because we already know the outcome of the choice! This also contradicts the definition of will (conscious and especially of deliberate action), as we have essentially had the choice made for us!"
KH> Because we know the outcome does not mean we are not morally- free agents. We make bad choices quite often knowing the consequences.
"By placing preconditions on the choice, you have biased the choice, and thus it is not free. In addition, you have altered his will by the same mechanism."
KH> Because our free will can be influenced, manipulated, or even overpowered does not mean we don't have free will.
Jesus said, "O, Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered you under my wings as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but you would not".
"On a second point, if you are looking forward to the day when the bloodshed in the name of God ends, are you actively trying to bring an end it? Otherwise, you sit by and say that all this suffering is inconsequential because one day we will be in heaven and without suffering. I believe that is inhumane".
KH> The Scriptures teach the exact opposite of what you are implying. We are to actively pursue, by the grace of God, the defeat of evil, injustice, bloodshed, etc. Camus asked this exact question in The Plague. The Christian answer is yes - we are to fight the plague, trusting God that he knows what to allow and what to prevent. We have every reason to trust God in this.
The Good Samaritan is not depicted as inquiring of God whether he should help the wounded man. He is depicted as taking action and helping.
Secondly, I don't read Craig saying that suffering is "inconsequential" due to heaven, but that a byproduct of God's restoration is that it makes temporary suffering pale by comparison.
When a person suffers, say, a kidney stone, this does not make the suffering inconsequential. But the resolution and healing gives potentially years of relief which makes the temporary pain pale in comparison.
If you know the outcome of a choice, then your will to choose is NOT free. The word "free" means the choice MUST be without constraint or precondition. According to your theory, the outcome of the choice between what is defined in the Bible as good and what is defined as evil is predetermined. Thus, it is not a free choice. If you make the correct choice, you get rewarded.
Look at it this way. In an election, say for US President, you know the positions of the candidates. You know what they stand for and what they believe in (at least in principle). When you stand in the ballot box, is your choice free? Are there any constraints or preconditions that are placed on your choice of one candidate or the other? Of course. Therefore, your choice is not free.
If your will is influenced, manipulated, or even overpowered, then it is NOT free.
On the issue of bloodshed, Craig said: "there will be terrible bloodshed and that is exactly what we have seen and are seeing. I look forward to the day when it ends...". I simply asked whether Christians are taught to try and end suffering and bloodshed here and now, or to take it in stride as the punishments of this world with the promise of no suffering in the next world.
Rob
Morals: that area dealing with right and wrong/good and bad as pertaining to values and duties.
Free Will: the power of moral self-determination.
Since we are considering the question with Christian Theism, let me expand the definition:
Free Will: the God-given power of moral and spiritual self-determination.
In what way does your objection apply to these definitions?
Kevin H
If you know the correct answer to the question, then how have you used "self-determination" to answer it? You certainly have the ability to choose otherwise, and people obviously do, but this is not an example of self-determination.
If we were to be presented with two choices, and allowed to use our innate (God-given if you want) sense of what is morally right, and not told which choice someone else thinks is right, then our choice would be free. The word "free" is implicit in defining an a priori decision making process. What you are talking about is simply whether someone follows a predetermined set of rules and regulations, sort of like whether someone obeys the speed limit.
The comments by Craig ("pain and suffering is the price we pay for living with free will" and "suffering will continue until sin is finally conquered") are what I have issue with. We are specifically discussing the students killed at NIU. If God was watching over them, then why did he not watch more carefully? I find this type of explanation to be a copout. What kind of loving and benevolent God would willing allow so much innocent suffering to occur? How is this suffering in their best interests? Craig specifically stated that God is "in control." Maybe I expect too much of this God. However, I find it repulsive to brush these dead students off as an example of how much God loves us.
Craig stated the following as a way to reassure your children in the wake of this shooting: "God is watching over them [the children] and has their best interest [sic] in mind". If I were a child and heard my father say that (and by the way, he actually worked at NIU, as does my sister), I would seriously question either the love this God had for me or my father's sanity.
Yes, it is true that a human being pulled the trigger. However, this is irrelevant to the original comments made by Craig.
"If you know the correct answer to the question, then how have you used "self-determination" to answer it? You certainly have the ability to choose otherwise, and people obviously do, but this is not an example of self-determination".
KH> It's not a trick question.
Free Will: the God-given power of moral and spiritual self-determination.
You are conflating a-moral self-determination (candy or broccoli, constraints on the ballot) with moral self-determination.
Also, there are two aspects of the Problem of Evil: the Philosophical/Theological POE and the Emotional POE.
The former deals with whether God and Evil are in any way compatible, etc. The latter deals with the fact that even if God has a good purpose for allowing evil and will ultimately defeat it, it still hurts!
The former is the domain of philsophers. The latter is the domain of counselors. This is why Craig is pastoral in his blog.
BTW, you may be interested in an argument that points to evil as actually being an argument for God. If God does not exist, then nothing is really "evil".
Kevin H
Moral values exist in the absence of God, and in fact are independent of belief or lack of belief in a higher being.
The presence of something that is determined to be evil is no more of an argument for the existence of God than is the presence of something that is determined to be good.
Furthermore, self-determination is an inherent property of all living organisms, including man, and is unrelated to the existence of a higher being.
"Moral values exist in the absence of God, and in fact are independent of belief or lack of belief in a higher being".
KH> First, you need to address the Category Error I pointed out: a-moral vs. moral self-determinism.
At any rate, you're right about moral values existing apart from God. But objective moral values and duties do not exist apart from God.
Atheists can and do recognize and act upon moral values and duties. But that is not the issue.
"The presence of something that is determined to be evil is no more of an argument for the existence of God than is the presence of something that is determined to be good".
KH> Something may be uncomfortable or unpleasant, but it is not actually evil if there is no God. It can be "determined" evil, as you put it, but without an objective standard of good there is not a way to determine evil. Apart from God, there is no objective standard.
"Furthermore, self-determination is an inherent property of all living organisms, including man, and is unrelated to the existence of a higher being".
KH> Again, we are talking about moral self-determinism which ultimately requires objective moral values and duties. Otherwise, one is merely obeying survival mechanisms and instincts which are genetically hard-wired and therefore not actually free.
The argument is:
1). If objective morals and values exist, God exists.
2). Objective morals and values exist.
3). Therefore, God exists.
The crucial premise is #2. If you agree that some things are actually right or actually wrong, then #2 is true.
The same thing can be shown with evil.
1). If actual evil exists, God exists.
2). Actual evil exists.
3). Therefore, God exists.
If you agree with #2, then you agree that things like the Holocaust are actually evil (and therefore actually wrong).
Evil is the twisting or perversion of good. That requires good to be "further up and higher back" as C.S. Lewis put it. Without a standard of good, there would be no evil (there would be nothing to corrupt). A perversion requires a version.
Objective in the present context means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
Morality based on Biblical teachings is subjective and contextual. It is open to interpretation, is prejudicial, and is biased.
For example, examine the morality of killing another human being. The Bible states clearly that we should not kill, this Commandment most commonly being stated as "thou shall not kill." (The word "shall" in this context is synonymous with "must.") However, widely varying interpretations of this commandment have been made, from absolute prohibition on killing any human, to a prohibition on murder, to a prohibition only on killing other Jews. I would guess that most believers come down somewhere in the middle: don't go out and shoot someone, except in self-defense, and capital punishment is OK; kill people in war only when your security is threatened. Since self-defense, determining who deserves capital punishment, and when a nation's security is threatened are subjective judgements, this moral law is subjective and contextual. In other words, it is not objective. Furthermore, it is easy to find other laws and Biblical commandments that are equally subjective (e.g,. "thou shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk").
Moral laws are rarely, if ever, objective, and your argument as to the existence of God is flawed because it is based on a false premise.
"Objective in the present context means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
KH> Yes. Valid and binding on persons regardless of how they feel about it.
"Morality based on Biblical teachings is subjective and contextual. It is open to interpretation, is prejudicial, and is biased".
KH> The Bible reflects and expresses the Moral Law (what is often called Natural Law). God expresses moral absolutes via various prescriptions and commands in Scripture. So it's rather problematic to say what you're saying. The Bible calls people to what they already know morally and offers insight in the process.
Because the Bible is "biased" and open to interpretation etc. does not mean it's false. It does not mean that one cannot get at the correct interpretation.
"The Bible states clearly that we should not kill, this Commandment most commonly being stated as 'thou shall not kill'"
KH> Both the context and the Hebrew word for "kill" means "murder". You shall not murder. Does that sound like it's open to interpretation? Murder is the wrongful or unjustified taking of a human life.
"Furthermore, it is easy to find other laws and Biblical commandments that are equally subjective (e.g,. "thou shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk")."
KH> The Old Testament contains civil/ceremonial laws of the theocracy and moral laws and principles that are universal.
Christ fulfilled the former and he, along with the New Testament, affirmed the latter.
"Moral laws are rarely, if ever, objective, and your argument as to the existence of God is flawed because it is based on a false premise."
KH> If just one moral law is objective the premise is not false.
Secondly, don't confuse objective moral values (Ethics Proper) with sometimes subjective application of those moral values and duties (Applied Ethics).
Question: If I could demonstrate to you that Christ is who he claimed to be, would you become his follower?
You said: "Because the Bible is "biased" and open to interpretation etc. does not mean it's false. It does not mean that one cannot get at the correct interpretation."
I never suggested that the Bible is false. I stated that Commandments in the Bible were subject to interpretation and thus were subjective. By your stating that there might be a correct interpretation implies that there is the possibility of multiple interpretations, which is the definition of subjective and the opposite of objective.
One interpretation of the Commandment "thou shall not murder" is that it only applied to murdering Jews, and then only deliberately (as opposed to accidentally - as in manslaughter). This is a subjective interpretation. Clearly God did not intend this to apply to non-Jews, as there dozens of instances in the Bible where he orders the slaughter of non-Jews. The Old Testament is pretty bloody. Lots of dead people.
Can you provide me with a moral law or value that is absolute, not subject to interpretations, and unbiased? We can stick with any of the versions of the Ten Commandments, if you wish. Can you show me one that is absolute and objective?
The answer to your last question is tough. The problem for you is that first you would have to demonstrate to me that God exists, then that Jesus was the Son of God, and then that Jesus actually walked on this planet as a man, and then that he was killed, and then that he arose from the dead, etc. But before you can demonstrate that God exists, you would first have to define God in a clear and objective manner, so that I am absolutely clear what you are talking about. We cannot have a discussion about something that cannot be defined.
Gotta go now. I'll look for your reply later tonight.
Rob
"I never suggested that the Bible is false. I stated that Commandments in the Bible were subject to interpretation and thus were subjective. By your stating that there might be a correct interpretation implies that there is the possibility of multiple interpretations, which is the definition of subjective and the opposite of objective".
KH> We may be close to agreement. Notice that even if something is objective, persons may subjectively interpret it (or misinterpret it). Suppose I read Tom Sawyer and interpreted it as Twain saying "blue martians are inhabiting the bodies of earth ants". I would be entitled to that (ridiculous) subjective interpretation. But that does not mean I am right!
In the same way, people who agree that a moral value is objective often disagree on how to apply the value. But subjective application does not destroy something objective. That's what I'm trying to say.
"Clearly God did not intend this to apply to non-Jews, as there dozens of instances in the Bible where he orders the slaughter of non-Jews. The Old Testament is pretty bloody. Lots of dead people."
KH> First of all, throughout the Old Testament Law, murder is prohibited, period. And the New Testament affirms this, applying it to Jews and non-Jews. So that is not a good interpretation.
Further, you're bringing up a profound issue. If God is perfectly just, then he is justified in what he does. He has both the power to take life and the wisdom to know when. Therefore, when God takes life it cannot be defined as murder (the unjustified killing of a person).
God used the theocracy of Israel to judge murderous nations. He did this after giving those nations 400 years to repent! Yes, while most women and children fled ahead of the battle, those who remained were killed. BTW, the Bible teaches that children who die in infancy go to be with God. In one sense, the children were spared the horrors of paganism (including being burned alive in sacrifice). Further, this does not mean we should take infant's lives to ensure them heaven. God does not give us that right.
"Can you provide me with a moral law or value that is absolute, not subject to interpretations, and unbiased?"
KH> Yes. Here's an example:
It is always wrong for anyone to physically torture a baby for fun, i.e. for the sheer pleasure of seeing the baby in pain.
That is a moral abomination and we all know it. The main way we know it is via the way ethicists determine ethical questions: by reflecting on it.
I'm glad you are willing to examine the claims of Christ and are asking reasonable and warranted questions. Let me sketch some things out.
God: the personal, powerful creator of all else in existence who is separate from his creation yet active in it.
Since he created time, space, and matter he transcends it. Therefore, he is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial in his nature. (The use of "He" is merely conventional - resonating with most cultures as describing Protector and Provider, etc.).
The God of Classical or Christian Theism reveals himself Generally (in nature and the "human heart" or intuition), and Specially (in the Scriptures and in the person of Jesus Christ, etc.).
Some lines of evidence for God:
1). The beginning of the universe.
2). The fine-tuning of the initial constants in the universe for intelligent life.
3). The existence of objective morals and duties.
4). The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
The first argument entails the ever-growing Big Bang cosmology and the impossibility of traversing an actual concrete infinite.
1). Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2). The universe began to exist.
3). Therefore, the universe had a cause.
The cause cannot be material because matter came into being at the Big Bang. Therefore, the cause must be immaterial (and spaceless, timeless, etc.).
Further it makes sense that the cause is personal. For there are only two kinds of immaterial entities: abstract objects and minds. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, so the cause must be of the order of Mind.
As to the traversal of an infinite, it is impossible to acheive an actual concrete infinite by successive addition. If you "complete it" it is finite.
So if the universe were eternal, that means the moments in the history of the universe stretch back into eternity. Yet, "today" marks and end (or completion) to the series! But an infinite does not have an end! If the universe were infinite, today would never have arrived. But today has arrived, therefore the universe is not infinite. It would be like trying to count down all the negative numbers and end at -1. Where would you even begin to count?
Now, one may have an infinite number of numbers (1,2,3,...) but numbers are abstract not concrete. However, moments (events) are concrete. And the argument is the impossibility of an actual number of concrete things.
How is God eternal then? God is not a "number of things". Being immaterial, he has no parts. His nature is a simplicity and changeless.
Let's stop there and discuss, then get into the others, including the historical evidence available for Jesus.
Torturing babies is somewhat of a trivial example, and does not constitute a moral law of any consequence. I agree that it is always wrong to do this, but I hoped you would pick something more substantive.
The interpretation of the Commandment against murdering being applicable only to killing other Jews is not mine. The great scholar Maimonides determined that the sixth Commandment only forbids killing Israelites and not heathens, so he gets the credit for this. My point was simply that this Commandment has been interpreted in a widely varying number of ways, most often to suit a particular need or to justify a particular action. Christians killed Muslims in the Crusades solely because they were not Christians. Their Church told them this was acceptable. I would judge this to be an immoral action that violates the sixth Commandment.
What the sixth Commandment really means is that we should not kill people unjustly.
I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post, as I have a very busy week this week.
Just so you know, I can't say that I will examine your claims with an open mind. I will, however, listen to what you have to say.
One of the main reasons I posted in the first place is that I believe that events such as the NIU shootings or the Indian Ocean tsunami are clear evidence for the absence of a benevolent and loving God. The related issue is that moral values that govern society are not derived from the Bible or God or Jesus. They are inherently coded in our desire to live in a civilized society where the people we care about are safe.
"Torturing babies is somewhat of a trivial example, and does not constitute a moral law of any consequence. I agree that it is always wrong to do this, but I hoped you would pick something more substantive."
KH> The reasons I think it is a good example are it's minimalist approach and applications. That is, extreme examples often bring out principles that can be applied in less extreme examples.
The example just brings out that some things are actually wrong and we know it - we know it in an intuitive, direct way. But once we see that there is at least one objective moral value we must account for what makes it objective.
"What the sixth Commandment really means is that we should not kill people unjustly."
KH> Yes, that's the bottom line and I realize that it was not necessarily your interpretation otherwise.
"Just so you know, I can't say that I will examine your claims with an open mind. I will, however, listen to what you have to say."
KH> What I find helpful is for both of us to stay out of "debate mode" as much as possible. Debate is good, but it often leads to mere one-upmanship.
Your concerns about the shootings and tsunami are very valid. The Problem of Evil is perpetually difficult - emotionally and philosophically.
However, I would point out first that at the very least God cannot be disproved by the Problem of Evil, because it may be that a loving, all-powerful, benevolent God has sufficiently moral reasons for allowing evil. Other POE issues can be explored from there.
"The related issue is that moral values that govern society are not derived from the Bible or God or Jesus. They are inherently coded in our desire to live in a civilized society where the people we care about are safe."
KH> If God does not exist, that is the best explanation - morals derive from survival mechanisms that produce societal pressures to be "good" (civilized, etc.).
Keep in mind, however, that moral values and duties are prescriptive not just descriptive. Moral values and duties prescribe what we ought or ought not do. They don't just describe what we do (Is/Ought Fallacy).
One of the reasons that Darwinian survival mechanisms, pressures, and genetic proclivity falls short is it doesn't answer the "ought". Why ought I obey survival mechanisms or my genes? Why ought I care for "the herd"? Why ought I obey this instinct rather than that instinct? Why ought I care for others, especially those outside my herd? Why ought I sacrifice the only short, temporary life I have so that someone else's short temporary life can be just a little longer?
I ought not kill others less they kill me. The is/ought fallacy is important here, but it is not incorrect to state that you ought to pay attention to your genetic programming if your genes are to survive. Genetic survival is an incredibly strong driving force in all animals. The survival force is the "is", and the obeying of this force is the "ought." You don't have to "ought", but if you don't your genes won't survive.
I am a scientist, not a philosopher. My skill lies more in critical thinking (i.e., deciding when something is nonsense). However, it is always interesting to discuss things with intelligent people, regardless of whether you agree with them (unless they're dogmatic). One of the most interesting conversations I've had with a philosopher was about whether or not we both see the same thing when we say something is green or red, or dog or cat.
The other philosophical argument I've always been intrigued by is being unable to prove that the universe began five seconds ago, and our memories are hallucinations.
"I ought not kill others less they kill me. The is/ought fallacy is important here, but it is not incorrect to state that you ought to pay attention to your genetic programming if your genes are to survive."
KH> The difference is between a "moral ought" and a "rational (or non-moral) ought". (You can exchange the word "ought" with "should" as well.)
Look at these examples:
"I ought to help that lady with a flat tire".
"I ought to use the bigger beaker for this experiment".
The former is a moral prescription the latter is not. So it seems that "I ought to obey my genetics if I want to survive" is merely a rational ought, i.e. not a moral prescription.
I like those philosophical questions as well. Especially the "brain in a vat" version of the 5-minute creation question. How do I know I'm not a brain in a vat being stimulated by a scientist to have these vivid experiences?
The short answer is that one cannot know the "illusion" unless one knows the real. The backdrop of reality is required in order to judge something as an "illusion". Thus, a brain in a vat would have no referent to a "real brain" and therefore couldn't even contemplate the question.
Also, I can't prove I'm not a vat-brain with 100% certainty, but I have no warrant for believing it.
Concerning the is/ought fallacy, consider the following.
Following moral laws is good.
Therefore, it logically follows:
We ought to follow moral laws.
since no one would disagree that we ought to do good. This invalidates the is/ought fallacy.
Consider that there might be (or have been ) an infinite number of universes, each having a different set of physical constants. You may choose to believe that God created each universe, although it is irrelevant. In all universes except our own, the combination of constants makes the existence of matter impossible.
Either God did an infinite number of experiments until he found the right set of constants such that matter and hence life could exist, in which case he is an exceptionally patient experimentalist who performed an infinitely large combinatorial experiment because he was unable to omnisciently determine which set of constants would be successful, or else there is only one set of constants that allow matter to exist, God omnisciently knew this and he had no control over their values.
In the first case, God is not omniscient. In the second case, God is not omnipotent.
Following moral laws is good.
Therefore, it logically follows:
We ought to follow moral laws.
since no one would disagree that we ought to do good. This invalidates the is/ought fallacy.
KH> Close, but consider again whether following moral laws are just rationally "good". If they are only survival tactics then it is merely rational to follow them (for non-moral reasons).
Also, the fact that they are moral laws entails that they are prescriptive. Is/Ought is just another way of saying Descriptive/Prescriptive.
What's even more sticky is the need for having an objective standard by which to guage what is truly "good"!
"Consider that there might be (or have been ) an infinite number of universes..."
KH> Despite the fact that there is virtually no evidence for multi-verses (or World Ensembles), it still falls prey to the impossibility of an actual infinite regress.
Even Alan Guth acknowleges that his "bubble universe" scenario still requires a beginning (a first bubble that began bubbling).
Robin Collins is considered the best in this area. He says the highly-speculative multi-verse theory still requires a "multi-verse generator" and it would have to be fine-tuned to produce them. So it is an interesting but not promising prospect.
Kevin H
It is beyond dispute that a Christian would consider following God's laws good.( I don't believe you can consider a God-given law to be rationally good. That would be like arguing with God in order to declare it irrational.)
Therefore:
Following God's Commandments is morally good.
Now, all Christians believe that they ought to try and be morally good.
Therefore, we ought to follow God's Commandments.
This is a violation of the is/ought fallacy, if you believe that moral good can be defined as obeying God's laws. If you don't believe that moral good can be defined this way, they why bother following God's laws?
On the second point, I agree there is no evidence for multi-verses. Perhaps that is because God created them with physical constants that prevent matter from existing and thus they don't exist or are empty.
If there is only one universe, the one we live in, and God actually had to fiddle around with (tune) the constants so that they would allow life to exist, this now demonstrates that God is NEITHER omnipotent nor omniscient. If he didn't know which constants were the right ones, and had to tune them experimentally to get it right, he is not omniscient. If the constants actually required tuning, then there is only one set of constants that allow life to form, and God couldn't make the universe work with any other set of constants, so he is not omnipotent.
You are obviously far better read on philosophy than me, so I'm "flying by the seat of my pants" here.
KH, I was reading your "discussion" with Stardust on another thread here, and I can't help but ask you to comment on one thing that has always troubled me.
There are many religions in the world, and followers of each of them believe they know the truth and that their god(s) is the true god. As a Christian, you reject all other religions. I doubt you believe in Osiris or Mithra or Odin.
So, let us postulate that there are n religions that exist or have existed since recorded history began. An atheist rejects n of possible n religions. A Christian rejects n-1 of n religions.
atheist: n of n religions are invalid
Christian: n-1 of n religions are invalid
Now, since n is a very large number, the difference between n and n-1 is very small. Thus, the difference between rejecting n religions and n-1 religions is very small.
Thus, you and I are athiests, it's just that I'm more thorough. Why do you reject Islam or Hinduism? Remember, I also reject these religions. Do we reject them for the same reason? Furthermore, does it matter that we might reject them for different reasons?
Rob
"This is a violation of the is/ought fallacy, if you believe that moral good can be defined as obeying God's laws. If you don't believe that moral good can be defined this way, they why bother following God's laws?"
KH> Another way to look at it is that it takes a prescriber to prescribe something. And morals are properties of persons. Therefore, only a personal prescriber can prescribe moral oughts. So we are well within prescriptive oughts when considering God the source of moral prescriptions and laws.
On the other hand, evolutionary survival mechanisms are not personal and therefore can only describe, not prescribe.
"If the constants actually required tuning, then there is only one set of constants that allow life to form, and God couldn't make the universe work with any other set of constants, so he is not omnipotent."
KH> Omniscience is the ability to know all true propositions. Omnipotence is the power to do whatever is logically possible. It's not a violation of either to actualize a world with the exact parameters for the life God willed to create.
BTW, I will never try to "out philosophize" you.
"Thus, you and I are athiests, it's just that I'm more thorough. Why do you reject Islam or Hinduism? Remember, I also reject these religions. Do we reject them for the same reason? Furthermore, does it matter that we might reject them for different reasons?"
KH> IOW, "As an atheist, I believe in one less God than you do".
The major worldview options all contradict one another (despite some trivial overlap). That leads us to two rational options:
1). Only one of them is true.
2). None of them are true.
Naturalism (atheism) is among the worldview options so that rules out #2.
So if one wishes to scrutize his worldview he's in the same boat as anyone else who wishes to do the same thing. Thus, which view best explains the data of life and the universe?
Kevin,
Omniscient means to know everything.
Omnipotent means to have infinite power, or to have the ability to do anything. There is nothing in any definition that I can find about logical possibilities.
Your definitions are limited so as to fit your opinion, as you have done with the discussion of atheists.
If God was omniscient, he would know the exact value for every physical constant that would allow the universe to develop so that life would exist, and he would not have to fine tune these values. If God did, as you say, fine tune the values, then he cannot, by definition, be omniscient.
If God was omnipotent, then the values of the constants don't matter, because he could simply make the values allow for the development of life. A God with infinite power would not have to fine tune physical constants. He would simple dictate that an arbitrary set of constants would work.
-------
I was specifically talking about religions. Religions are not the same as world views. It is possible to be a Christian and a scientist. These views don't compete, nor say anything about each other. I have a scientific world view. I believe that all natural events can be explained scientifically. Whether or not there is a god is irrelevant to this viewpoint.
All religions contradict one another, as you say. All world views do not. If we keep our discussion on the central issue of religion, then you reject all religions except Christianity, and then probably all but your own sect of Christianity, perhaps all but one division in that sect. So you have rejected nearly as much as I have. My question was that since we both have rejected nearly the same number of religions as being true, why have you rejected so many? Is it for the same reason as me? I do not believe in Mithra. Neither do you. I reject Mithra because I find there is no evidence for his existence and the religion that surrounded him as being quaint, outdated, and superstitious.
I also don't believe you are characterizing atheism accurately. I have a particular world view, which does not include religion or a higher being, but does include science, naturalism, and humanism. It also includes a very strong set of moral values, some of which (most?) we share. I do not believe in killing, I am faithful to my partner, I treat others in a manner that I hope they will treat me, etc. None of this has anything really to do with atheism. I have examined with extreme care claims for God and the historical existence of Jesus, I have looked at other religions, no longer practiced, I have read extensively, and I have concluded that I can find no evidence for anything supernatural or for any god. Atheism is simply the absence in the belief of supernatural being. It is NOT a belief system and cannot be a belief system by definition. Theism is a belief system, so the absence of belief in a theistic being cannot be a belief system. (The dictionary defines belief as "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists". I cannot say that I believe there is no god. That is logically impossible. I say I don't see any reason to believe in a god. The key word is reason. I don't deny the existence of god, and I don't equivocate in saying I don't know if there is or is not a god. I simply say I see no reason or evidence for any god. In short, I do not accept that the statement "there is a God" to be true. That is NOT a belief, by definition.
"Omniscient means to know everything.
Omnipotent means to have infinite power, or to have the ability to do anything."
KH> No. How much power does it take to do a contradiction? How much power does it take to create a square circle or a married bachelor? If something is an absurdity - logically impossible by definition - then all the power in the universe or beyond cannot perform it. Augustine realized this all the way back to the 4th century.
"The power to do absolutely anything" is usually shorthand lingo for omnipotence but is not accurate.
"If God did, as you say, fine tune the values, then he cannot, by definition, be omniscient.
KH> God did not have to "experiment" and thus fine-tune the constants. God eternally knew the fine-tuning parameters required via his creative will; we discover the fine-tuning parameters of that creation.
I was specifically talking about religions. Religions are not the same as world views.
KH> I'll stick with that then. Considering the major worldview options is just a way to get to the bottom of the question.
I agree that all the major religions contradict one another. Therefore, either one of them is true or they are all false. I say one of them is true and I spelled out some lines of evidence that I think support Christianity as the superior view.
(BTW, the major denominations of Christianity agree on the essentials of the Faith but disagree on the peripherals.)
"I have a scientific world view. I believe that all natural events can be explained scientifically. Whether or not there is a god is irrelevant to this viewpoint."
KH> The empirical sciences indeed can only examine empirical things. Science, as such, can only investigate the natural world that is. But science can say nothing about where it all came from - that is a metaphysical/philosophical question.
Science leads us to the beginning of the universe and hits the wall at the Big Bang. There was no empirical nature, time, nor space prior to the Big Bang. In fact, one cannot even say "before" the Big Bang because "before" implies time! One can only say prior (logically, not chronologically).
So the awesome enterprise of science has its limits. In fact, you seem to embrace "Scientism" - the view that anything knowable is determined by science. But that is self-refuting. Consider these two propositions:
1). "Only things that are empirically verifiable are real".
2). "Only things that are scientifically verifiable are real".
Now, proposition #1 itself cannot be empirically verified!
Proposition #2 itself cannot be scientifically verified! So both propositions fail their own tests and are therefore self-refuting.
"I also don't believe you are characterizing atheism accurately. I have a particular world view, which does not include religion or a higher being, but does include science, naturalism, and humanism.
KH> Your worldview is under the broad heading of Naturalism (there is nothing beyond or outside of nature; nature is all there is, was, or ever will be). Atheism is a sub-heading resulting from Naturalism. Nature is taken to mean in this sense as the material/physical world of time, space, matter, and energy.
Traditionally, the definition of atheism is the belief that God (or gods) does not exist. This is also the definition by leading atheist and editor of the Encyclopedia of Philosopy, Paul Edwards.
Absence of belief in God just means you believe God is absent, i.e. that he does not exist. That is atheism.
Define yourself as you please, Rob. But keep in mind that "without" or "lacking" belief in God is just a description of one's own psychological state. It says nothing about whether God exists.
Also, keep in mind that atheism is a belief about reality. Atheism is just as much a claim to know something as is theism. Atheism is the acceptance of the proposition that no supernatural being(s) exist.
1). All views make truth claims.
2). All truth claims bear the burden of proof.
3). Atheism is a view and makes truth claims. Theism is a view and makes truth claims.
4). Therefore, atheists and theists share the burden of proof.
More in a moment....
K
"Atheism is the acceptance of the proposition that no supernatural being(s) exist."
This is not true. Atheism is the lack of belief in the proposition that supernatural being(s) exist. The proposition that supernatural brings exist necessarily must come first, before it can be denied. (The proposition is "supernatural being(s) exist.") The proposition is NOT that no supernatural being(s) exist. This would be like making a proposition that no apple trees exist. How could you make this proposition unless it has been previously posited that apple trees exist? Remember, you are proposing that God is real and exists. You accept this proposition, you believe it to be true.
Take the word "atoxic." It means not toxic, just as atheistic means not theistic. So an atheist is someone who does not believe in theism, and nothing more. It is a denial of a positive (theism), not an acceptance of a negative. There is a very significant difference.
I also do not think that someone who does not believe a proposition to be true has any burden of proof. Only the person making the proposition has to justify, prove, or rationalize what they propose.
If I say that it is possible for carbon to form five covalent bonds, it is up to me to prove this proposition. I could also say that carbon cannot form five bonds. It is impossible to prove that carbon cannot form five bonds, but it is possible to prove that carbon can form five bonds. Now, if someone tries to form pentavalent carbon and fails repeatedly, and many, many other chemists also try and fail, then the statement that carbon cannot form five bonds is true conditionally, UNTIL someone proves otherwise. Perhaps no one ever will. It cannot be absolutely true, since we don't know everything about carbon yet. However, it can be proved absolutely that carbon can for five bonds.
Consequently, I cannot prove the non-existence of God. I can say I do not believe that (the proposition) God exists (is true). I can deny the positive until someone proves otherwise. I know you don't like to hear this, but if you make the claim that God exists, it is up to you to prove this is a true statement. I guess this brings us back to this exact issue.
However, it can be proved absolutely that carbon can for five bonds.
Should read:..."that carbon can form four bonds."
"I cannot say that I believe there is no god. That is logically impossible".
KH> It is not logically impossible to prove a negative. It's just that some negatives are much harder to prove. Consider:
My bike is not in the basement.
A zebra is not in my bathtub.
There are no ice cream factories on Jupiter.
There are no invisible unicorns anywhere in the universe.
There is no God.
On a scale, these negatives are gradually harder to prove. But none of them are logically impossible to prove. If I could find a way to test for God that is impervious to God's resistance and search all of reality simultaneously, I could disprove God. (Note: that is practically impossible but not logically impossible).
"This is not true. Atheism is the lack of belief in the proposition that supernatural being(s) exist".
KH> I strongly urge you not to accept this line of reasoning and newfangled definition of atheism. Again, when a person says "I lack belief in X" that's only a statement about the mental or psychological status of the person. It says nothing about the status of X.
A dog, rock, or baby lacks belief in God. That says nothing about the existence of God.
Atheists have long recognized that it is notoriously difficult to prove there is no God. So the popular trend is toward agnosticism. YET, many want to maintain the rhetorical impact of the term "atheist"! The division usually is:
Hard Atheism: "I believe that God does not exist", or "It's not possible for God to exist".
Soft Atheism: "I personally don't believe God exists but I cannot prove God does not exist".
Soft Agnosticism: "I personally do not know whether God exists".
Hard Agnosticism: "One cannot know whether God exists".
As you see, there is very little difference between "soft atheism" and "soft agnosticism".
"This would be like making a proposition that no apple trees exist. How could you make this proposition unless it has been previously posited that apple trees exist?"
KH> Agreed. This is where it gets interesting! Let me offer some instances of Burden of Proof (BOP).
1). If a theory or proposition is established or generally accepted by the various sciences or prominent communities, whoever wishes to overturn it bears the BOP.
2). In a formal or collegiate debate, the person making the affirmative bears the BOP.
3). If a person makes truth claims about reality, that person bears the BOP.
4). When debating (informally) or dialoguing on a question (e.g. "Does God Exist?") anyone engaging the question bears the BOP.
Now, what intriques me is that the human community has always overwhelmingly affirmed that a Supreme Being exists (#1). Therefore, it seems the atheist bears the BOP. In fact, it seems the only instance in which an atheist does not share the BOP is #2 ("Be it resolved that God exists").
So the atheist or agnostic can either be silent or step up and respond when asked why he lacks belief in God. If he responds, he shares the BOP.
Further, I don't merely lack belief in unicorns, I don't believe unicorns exist. I can't prove it 100% but I see no warrant for believing it, i.e. no good reasons, scientific data, nor acceptance within a prominent community.
Yet, one cannot say that about the existence of God! I've listed some good reasons, certain scientific data points to the possibility, and there is widespread acceptance within a prominent community.
One more case it point. Overwhelmingly, the human community at one time accepted the Earth was flat, and the observational science of the day seemed to confirm it. But eventually, those who proposed otherwise met their burden of proof.
Rob, does my last post make sense?
K
Kevin,
Sorry. I've been busy, and haven't had time to really thing about what you wrote.
My first thought at reading your post was a quotation attributed to various people, including Frank Zappa, paraphrased: "Just because two million people think I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong." Just because 2 billion people believe in Christ doesn't make him any more real than if only you believed in him. This argument caries no weight, and is fallacious (argumentum ad populam).
Now I can, very clearly, state why I believe no god(s) exist. I have explored this extensively, by reading books on atheism (most importantly Homer Smith) and reading the Bible. I have read Lewis and many other theists. Studying other religions is also relevant to my thinking. They are all simple superstitions that don't hold up to reasonable examination. As is often said, reason is the enemy of faith.
It is largely due to lack of evidence of any sort that I can see, including doubtful accuracy and authenticity of historical documents such as the gospels (i.e., the fact that they were not written by anyone who actually knew Jesus and that they plagiarized each other and other documents), the fact that much if not all Christian tradition and theology is taken outright from other religions (the fish from Mithra, the Golden Rule from Confuscius, and so on), and the behavior of people who belong to the Christian faith. In short, the simplest explanation of all observable evidence is that all religions are make-believe and exist to provide some way of controlling people or of providing a common focal point for societies.
In your previous post, I would argue that the following holds true. It is increasingly hard to disprove the following statements:
My sister lives in Illinois.
I have 23.5 pair of underwear.
There is an elephant in my pocket.
There are invisible pink unicorns that can fly.
A flying spaghetti monster created the world.
In fact, can you logically disprove the last statement? Is that not the same as asking me to disprove the existence of God? You can certainly point out that there is very little, if any evidence of a flying spaghetti monster, and that rabid anti-theists made him up to prove a point. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Kevin, I'm a bit off today (or lately). We can continue this conversation later.
Rob, take your time and answer when you can - but please do because you are bringing up great issues.
You are correct in defining argumentum ad populum. But I didn't use it. If 2 billion people claim to be followers of Christ that is evidence in favor of him - not a 100% proof. Argumentum ad populum is typically "the majority believe X, therefore X is true". Obviously, the majority can be wrong.
Reason is the enemy of blind faith, not biblical faith per se. We all exercise various levels of faith everyday. I know statistically that a major airline will fly me to Chicago safely. But I can't garauntee it 100%. But based on what I know, I place my faith in the airline. Therefore, it's reasonable faith.
Superstition is an irrational belief. How can you honestly say Christianity is irrational when I have sketched out some lines of evidence in rational support?
BTW, it is very irrational to say that something can come from nothing uncaused. Yet Naturalists are stuck with that in light of the universe not being eternal.
Next, I think you've been misinformed on the authenticity of the gospels, borrowing from Mithra, and the Golden Rule.
First, the gospels are better attested than virtually any documents from the ancient world.
They were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the eyewitnesses.
They were written closer to the events they purport than most ancient works.
They were supported by sources even earlier.
They pass with flying colors the earmarks of historicity (bibliographical tests, internal tests, external tests).
There is no good reason to dispute the traditional authorship of the gospels and early testimony as to that authorship (Polycarp, Papias, Clement, etc.).
It was common in that day to use respected sources when writing. That's why there is Synoptic dependence on Mark in addition to original material. There is no "plagiarism" as such.
Even if the "fish" was co-opted from Mithraism, that is just a cultural expression much like the "one way" sign was co-opted by Christian youth from the "peace" sign in the early 70's.
BTW, don't let anyone tell you that Christianity was borrowed from Mithraism. As Edwin Yamauchi of Miami of Oxford has shown, nothing could be further from the truth.
Versions of the Golden Rule did pre-date Christ, but he put his affirmation on the Golden Rule. A good rule is a good rule.
You cite the behavior of Christians as evidence against Christianity. Since when has the standard of Christians been the standard for Christians?
Finally, I agree with your list of incremental difficulties and pointed out something similar. But it is logically possible to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As I said, if I could invent a Flying Spaghetti Monster Detector and search the entire universe with it simultaneously - making it impervious to any of the FSM's powers, I could disprove the FSM. It is practically impossible for me but not logically impossible. This shows that some negatives are harder to prove than others, not that it's impossible to prove a negative.
That's why I never ask anyone to disprove God.
Rob, based on your posts, I have a question: How should God, if he exists, reveal himself? What evidence should he supply?
Kevin H
"They were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the eyewitnesses."
There is not one word in the Bible that was written by someone who actually knew Jesus.
The earliest Gospel is dated to no earlier than 70 AD.
Paul never even met Jesus and was only in Jerusalem once (or twice?). In fact, Paul essentially ignores the whole virgin birth and resurrection that is central to Christianity. Reading Paul gives no information about Jesus. It's as if he is writing about someone else, a hypothetical spiritual being,
and somebody co-opted his writings to be about Jesus. There is not one single documented word written by a contemporary or Jesus'.
(Please don't bring up Josephus, as it is widely known that his mention of Christ is a later 3rd or 4th century addition.)
As far as Christianity borrowing from other religions, this is factual. Even the most fundamental concept of the last supper (breaking bread) is not an original Christian concept. Neither is baptism, a virgin birth, resurrection, or communion.
I did say all religions are simple superstitions. A superstition is a belief that is not founded on reason or knowledge. That is the definition of a religion. Organized religion has fought reason for thousands of years, and continues to do so. It cannot exist if reason prevails, and it will fight to the death to survive. Only by teaching people NOT to think can religion survive, because religious beliefs don't stand up well to scrutiny, and neither do other superstitions such as astrology, ghosts, crystals, etc.
I do, however, really like your idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster detector. Pretty funny to think of. :-)
Any, more later.
As an example of Christianity taking fundamental ideas from other religions, take the concept of Satan, which changed after the Babylonian exile. Before the exile, Satan was sort of God's Attorney General and was not depicted as evil. In fact, he (or the devil) are only mentioned a few times in the old testament. After the exile, Satan became the source or leader of evil forces, in battle with good. This is because of the Zoroastran religion, dominant at the time of the exile, which is typified by a struggle between good and evil. The Jews imported this concept, and it became dominant in Christianity.
How should God reveal himself? I thought about this for a long time. My answer is that I would believe in God if people would stop killing each other in His name.
There is not one word in the Bible that was written by someone who actually knew Jesus.
KH> The evidence is against you on this. Matthew was a follower of Christ. He wrote/superintended the Gospel of Matthew.
John was a follower of Christ. He wrote/superintended the Gospel of John.
Not only do these works have eyewitness details, but other earmarks of historicity. We have Papias, Polycarp, Clement, and others who testify to the traditional authorship of the Gospels, and zero evidence otherwise.
Further, Mark wrote mostly Peter's recollections and material, Luke compiled his Gospel having looked into written and oral sources.
The earliest Gospel is dated to no earlier than 70 AD.
KH> Even if that were true that is earlier than most things from the ancient world - the earliest copies of which were written 500 to 1,000 years after the events they purport.
But it's not even true! The trend in New Testament studies is to date them even earlier. Colin Hemer has done a huge work on the Book of Acts which dates it around 62AD. That pushes Luke earlier, which pushes the other Synoptics even earlier.
Paul never even met Jesus and was only in Jerusalem once (or twice?). In fact, Paul essentially ignores the whole virgin birth and resurrection that is central to Christianity. Reading Paul gives no information about Jesus. It's as if he is writing about someone else, a hypothetical spiritual being,
and somebody co-opted his writings to be about Jesus. There is not one single documented word written by a contemporary or Jesus'.
KH> We have no record of Paul meeting Jesus prior to the resurrection. But after his post-resurrection encounter he spent time with the orginal disciples. In fact, he interviewed them thoroughly, i.e. he uses the word historeo in Galatians, which means "to investigate for historical and personal knowledge".
Also, Paul was writing further instructions and theology to those already familiar with the basics of Christ's life.
But do you realize how ignorant it is to say that Paul did not mention the resurrection? He spent much time on it - particularly 1 Corinthians 15.
With all due respect, you need to read the primary sources first before you start going to all the atheist and skeptic websites! And I can tell you do because you use all the catch-phrases and mis-information found there.
Don't take offense at that. We all have a tendency to do this.
(Please don't bring up Josephus, as it is widely known that his mention of Christ is a later 3rd or 4th century addition.)
KH> Sorry, Rob! That ain't true! In all probability we have some Christian interpolations from the 4th century. That is, some commentary was added to the text to elaborate Josephus' comments on Jesus. We have two core Jesus passages in Josephus. There are only a few phrases that are questionable in the longer passage. Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University, the foremost expert on Josephus, affirms this.
As far as Christianity borrowing from other religions, this is factual. Even the most fundamental concept of the last supper (breaking bread) is not an original Christian concept. Neither is baptism, a virgin birth, resurrection, or communion.
KH> First, keep in mind that similarities do not prove same source. Secondly, most of what we know about the pre-Christian mystery religions comes after the Christian era. So more than likely, any borrowing or co-opting went the other way! Ron Nash and Edwin Yamauchi are the premier scholars on this.
They point out that there was zero mystery-religion influence on 1st century Judaism. In fact, they resisted such paganism! Any popular or common motif was imbued with Jewish (and then Christian) emphasis and understanding.
I did say all religions are simple superstitions. A superstition is a belief that is not founded on reason or knowledge. That is the definition of a religion. Organized religion has fought reason for thousands of years, and continues to do so. It cannot exist if reason prevails, and it will fight to the death to survive. Only by teaching people NOT to think can religion survive, because religious beliefs don't stand up well to scrutiny, and neither do other superstitions such as astrology, ghosts, crystals, etc.
KH> The issue is not the broad spectrum of religion. Nor is it the various (mis)uses of Christianity. The Christian Scriptures affirm reason, logic, and evidence over and over.
Google these verses:
"Come let us reason together, says the Lord".
"Always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the reason for the hope you have".
"Paul said, 'What I am saying is true and reasonable".
"Hold fast to that which is true".
"Test all things".
"Whatsoever is true...think on these things".
"Paul reasoned in the synagogue and in the marketplace".
"Love the Lord your God with all your...mind".
Paul stood before the philosophers in Athens on Mars Hill and gave a defense of creation by God and the resurrection of Jesus.
How should God reveal himself? I thought about this for a long time. My answer is that I would believe in God if people would stop killing each other in His name.
KH> That would be nice wouldn't it? But that is tantamount to asking God to remove all free will and make us robots. Instead, God is allowing evil for his purposes and will ultimately destroy it.
Keep in mind, if there is no God, there is no real evil.
Kevin H
There is no real evil.
Kevin,
I reject the concept of free will as valid. We have already discussed this. It is impossible for one's will to be free if the outcome of the possible choices are known. As I said before, Free Will, in its only true manifestation, would require that we NOT know the consequences of our choice before making it, and we use our innate senses to determine what is morally good and what is not morally good.
Free will is a cop-out by Christians when faced with the question of why bad things happen to good people, like the students killed at NIU, which is what started this discussion. Now, it has come full circle, and it all comes down to the mistaken notion that choosing whether or not to follow God's laws is somehow free of preconditions. If everything is as you say, and I'll go to hell for something I chose to do, and I know this before hand, my choice is NOT free. I am just a robot making a binary choice. Good, this way, bad, the other way.
I rejected the statement that being dead is in the best interests of the students killed at NIU. If they were alive, they would all argue likewise. I cannot imagine a sane, live person arguing logically they would be better off dead. Since the students are dead, they can't tell you if they are happy being dead, and neither you nor anyone else can say where they are or what they now think.
What I was asking for is for people who follow this so-called loving, benevolent God. That would be miraculous (as in the alternative is more likely). It will never happen.
I posted this comment on another blog today. When I deconverted from theism and realized that there is no god, I felt as if the most gigantic weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I realized that my life is just that, mine to do with as I pleased, and that when I die, that is the absolute end. I am completely at peace with that, and I am happy that I now know there is nothing afterwards. What a relief from what my misguided parents taught me.
Typo in the previous message.
What I was asking for is for people who follow this so-called loving, benevolent God to stop killing each other in his name. To stop using God as an excuse to maim, torture, and kill people.
Rob, at least you are honest about where your view leads you. That is,
"There is no real evil".
Yet, I suggest you don't really believe that in your heart of hearts. Are you willing to say that the Holocaust was not evil? Child abuse? Rape? Some things are really wrong and evil and you know it!
Do you see how ridiculous that is? We know it as people intuitively and historically. The great sages and thinkers of all time have affirmed it - some things are objectively good and some things are objectively evil! And you buy in to some modern notion of atheism and make a ludicrous statement!
Second, God's knowing, or anyone else's knowing the outcome of a decision in advance does not mean the choice is not free. God can know infallibly what we will freely do. This only entails that he knows what we shall do, not what we must do.
Something can be determined from the standpoint of God's knowledge of it, yet still free from the standpoint of the actor. Had I "chosen differently", God would know that from all eternity!
Knowing what your child will choose does not mean the child's choice is not free when it is offered.
Consider:
1). Without volition (free will) there is no possibility for significant love and personal relationship.
2). God gave free will to facilitate significant love and personal relationship.
3). God gave free will knowing it would result in sin, falleness, and evil.
4). God gave the fact of freedom, we perform the acts of freedom.
5). Significant love and personal relationship are necessary for the Best of All Possible Worlds.
6). Therefore, God gave free will to actualize the Best of All Possible Worlds.
Logically, God apparently has to "put up with" a certain amount of evil in order to feasibly bring as many as possible freely into loving relationship with himself.
Thirdly, you said,
"If everything is as you say, and I'll go to hell for something I chose to do, and I know this before hand, my choice is NOT free".
Why not? We do stuff like that all the time! Have you ever done something you wished you handn't- all the while knowing you'd regret it? Ever said something hurtful even though you knew it would hurt?
I'm not trying to trap you, Rob. But your own language betrays you. You keep talking about "good" and "bad" and what's "best". Should you just assert that it's your opinion, I would suggest it is more than that, i.e. there is just a direct, intuitive knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. We are in touch with it, and it is objective (although often subjectively applied or acted upon).
On your view, you shouldn't complain about the NIU students. That was merely organisms in conflict and survival of the fittest.
BTW, did you freely come to the conclusion there is no God?
Since you can "do with your life as you please", does that mean you have free will?
What does happiness, comfort, "peace", or convenience have to do with what's true?
I don't think you've rejected God. I think you've rejected a caricature of him.
Kevin H
Kevin,
Christians and Jews and Muslims have done such an excellent job of making their religions and their gods caricatures that my help is inconsequential and unoriginal.
Your comments about who wrote the gospels and when they wrote are incongruent with current scholarship. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John did not write them. They were dead by the time the gospels were written, and there is no historical proof otherwise. Josephus is perhaps the worst example of evidence for the existence of Jesus you could cite. No serious scholar considers that the text you refer to was present in the original manuscripts. It was inserted hundreds of years later.
Also, please recall that I didn't complain about the NIU students being dead, I merely stated that I doubt THEY would feel it was in their best interests to be dead. They were caught up in something beyond their control, and I was simply disagreeing with Craig. Whether or not they have a soul is irrelevant.
Finally, since no higher authority has placed any conditions on how I live my life, I do, in fact, have free will. I can make decisions about how to live my life without consulting some book. And yes I have "done something [I] wished [I] handn't- all the while knowing [I'd] regret it," which is in complete conflict with the concept of free will. If I knew I would regret it, then my choice wasn't free.
And yes, I did deconvert using my own mind, making my own decisions. I read the Bible extensively, I read the Koran, I read countless books on the history of religion, by Christian apologists and critics, and thought carefully about some very interesting websites like www.truechristian.com and www.godhatesfags.com. I read hundreds of quotes on religion made by people whom I had deep respect for, people I considered intelligent and careful thinkers. People who accomplished far more good in their atheist lives that anyone I knew who was a theist. Then, one day I had an epiphany. It was my road to Damascus moment. It was all make believe! It came to me in a flash, and I knew it had to be true. I was just resisting letting go because I had been brainwashed from the time I was a child, and I was taught to be scared about the possibility that God did not exist.
I know you don't like this, but the defining moment was when I realized that there simply cannot be a God if so much evil had been done in his name by his followers and their leaders, and in fact, by the followers and leaders of ALL religions, without exception. So much hate and bigotry. So much evil done by the early Church. It was all about control and money and not at all about some poor guy who was supposedly crucified two thousand years ago.
I looked at the evidence for the historicity of Jesus and could not find one reliable piece of data that was incontrovertible. Half the stories in the Bible were inconsistent with historical evidence. Camels weren't domesticated until 1000 BC. Nazareth did not exist as a town when Jesus was supposedly born. There is no record of the census that caused Joseph and Mary to travel, and even if there were, there had NEVER been a Roman census that required people to travel to their home towns. On and on and on. If all of these alleged facts were untrue, then how much faith could I put in the rest of the book? How reliable is a book that is filled with thousands of errors? Would you teach Chemistry from such a book?
I realized that since Christianity has and does consider reason its enemy, as a consequence, it cannot stand the test of rational examination. It must have something to hide if it has fought reason for 2000 years.
Many prominent Christians had something to do with my deconversion, but the list of people is too long to cite here. People who are considered leaders and whose opinions our government value. One turning point was when Bush called our involvement in Iraq a "crusade," and I realized he truly meant it: a crusade against the Muslims.
Kevin, we are arguing from two sides of a coin. I told you I would listen to your evidence, but I cannot find anything convincing about it. Every issue I raise you brush-off as irrelevant or misguided.
Happiness and peace are all there is. Christianity teaches misery, suffering, hate, and war. I prefer to not make people suffer, not to hate or be intolerant, and not to kill people in the name of an imaginary supernatural being.
One final question for you. Who do you think God would be more appreciative of or love more, a person who blindly accepts whatever he/she is told by manipulative people, who follows an arbitrary set of rules without thinking about them, and just dumbly goes through life repetitively mumbling prayers to this God because they are told if they don't, they will go to Hell, or a person who uses to the fullest extent possible their brain and ability to reason, who examines all the evidence for and against God, and who independently decides that the religion founded around that God was false, hateful, and contrary to reason, and therefore decides that this God does not exist? The first person spends his/her life waiting to die for some reward for being obedient, whereas the second person spends his life living, knowing there this is all he/she has?
Peace,
Rob
Rob, first, just a quick note on free will. I take free will to mean "the power of moral self-determination". Therefore, we often freely take an action knowing in advance the moral consequences.
But that is the least of our problems here....
I call it as I see it. And I risk driving you further from God by being hard on you. But my hope and prayer is that I'm instrumental in a better "epiphany".
You have gone from a religious fundamentalist to an atheist fundamentalist. You were a misinformed theist and now you're a misinformed atheist!
Therefore, I conclude your issue with God is spiritual/emotional and not intellectual. I have answered every allegation against Christianity you have made with evidence! I gave you evidence and quoted sources! Your replies were not to give me counter-evidence and sources but to merely re-assert what you already said! To just deny gets us nowhere in the quest for truth.
Speaking of which, Nazareth did indeed exist during the time of Christ. The contention that it did not derives from the fact that modern-day Nazareth is not the Nazareth of Christ's time. Modern Nazareth is about 25 miles South of original Nazareth - a very small area, only about 40 acres, which has "drifted" South. See the work of scholars Bob and Gretchen Passantino for more.
Most impressive are photographs of a steep cliff where original Nazareth may have been. Luke tells us they attempted to throw Jesus over a cliff in Nazareth. http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/naz2.html
I heard the no-camel allegation years ago. There is good evidence that camels were in fact domesticated as early as the Scriptures say. Including:
Old World Civilizations--the Rise of Cities and States, Goran Burenhult, gen. ed. Harper/American Museum of Natural History: 1994.
Ancient Near East experts Kitchen and Gordon write:
"The mention of camels here and elsewhere in the patriarchal narratives often is considered anachronistic. However, the correctness of the Bible is supported by the representation of camel riding on seal cylinders of precisely this period from northern Mesopotamia" -Kitchen/Gordon
I have many articles on the Census in Luke. It is a difficult, but not insurmountable, problem. If you really wanted it, I could give you some references - including some evidence that the Romans had some censuses that required people to travel.
For what it's worth, I think you are most disturbed by the Problem of Evil and suffering and fallible people doing horrible things in God's name. I feel your pain! It is thorny.
Finally,
One final question for you. Who do you think God would be more appreciative of or love more, a person who blindly accepts whatever he/she is told by manipulative people, who follows an arbitrary set of rules without thinking about them, and just dumbly goes through life repetitively mumbling prayers to this God because they are told if they don't, they will go to Hell, or a person who uses to the fullest extent possible their brain and ability to reason, who examines all the evidence for and against God, and who independently decides that the religion founded around that God was false, hateful, and contrary to reason, and therefore decides that this God does not exist? The first person spends his/her life waiting to die for some reward for being obedient, whereas the second person spends his life living, knowing there this is all he/she has?
KH> It depends upon which "God" you're talking about! Since the issue ultimately is the claims of Christ and his identity, I can only answer you according to what the Christian Scriptures say. That is, God requires humility. "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble".
God appreciates sincere intellectual questions and Jesus responded to them. Paul was an educated, cool-headed intellectual if there ever was one. What God does not appreciate, is inappropriate pride.
Only you can make this personal determination. Craig and I are praying that God will smooth your intellectual and emotional path to Christ.
Kevin H
Kevin,
Let me rephrase: " whereas the second person spends his life living."
... whereas the second person spends his life living it to the best of his ability, whose goal is to leave the world a better place, whose efforts change people's lives for the better, in a manner that treats others with dignity and respect, who is tolerant of diversity, who admonishes those who hate and are intolerant, who is honest and who promotes honesty, who is kind and humane to other species (especially dogs and horses), and who follows the Egyptian maxim to do to others what you love and do not do to others what you hate.
Do you think the Christian God would find that acceptable way to live one's life even if a person did not believe in that god and did not worship according to that god's dictates? This is the age-old question of faith versus acts.
You don't have to worry about being hard on me. I can take it. I can cite sources that contradict your sources. We are both using other people's opinions to form our own, and I don't find your sources convincing (e.g., Josephus mentioning Christ).
I've heard the story about Nazareth being somewhere else and then moved, but I've also heard the story that the word was mistranslated and really comes from the word "nezer" that means branch [of the line of David], from a prophesy in Isaiah. The other problem with your hypothesis is that Nazareth is not mentioned in any census or map or list of cities in that region from documents dating before the second century. Not even Josephus mentions it, even though he mentions more than 40 other Galilean cities. The Old Testament doesn't mention it, despite mentioning more than 60 cities. There are other explanations, none consistent with the actual existence of a town called Nazareth. In any event, Jesus was from Bethlehem.
Another major problem I've never heard a good explanation of is how Jesus could possibly be of the line of David through Joseph, if Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Lineage is transferred from father to son, so unless Joseph was Jesus' actual father, then Jesus was not of the house of David. The other problem with this is that the Gospels get the lineage from David to Joseph wrong and are inconsistent with each other. A disproved explanation is that Mary was of the house of David.
Jesus' death occurred after that of John the Baptist, when Caiaphas was Priest and Pilate was whatever he was. John the Baptist could not have died before 34-35 AD, because Herod Antipas did not marry Herodias until 34 AD. I would expect that the Bible would get the date of Jesus' death correct, and it wasn't before about 36 AD, most likely at Passover in this year. This isn't a big deal, but accuracy is important if one is to trust a source. There is also considerable evidence based on Jewish holiday tradition that Jesus was not executed at Passover, but rather in the autumn.
As Thomas Paine wrote (and he is a lot smarter than I am): "it is, I believe, impossible to find in any story upon record so many and such glaring absurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods, as are in the books (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). They are more numerous and striking than I had any expectation of finding, when I began this examination,..."
There truly are thousands of inconsistencies, mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the gospels alone. How can one trust a book unless it is accurate? I know that all of these problems have been dealt with by apologists, but they have been equally dealt with by scholars. Is the Bible correct with respect to the facts and dates it presents?
Post a Comment