Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

A Different Fantasy

Entry 1617, on 2014-01-11 at 15:54:07 (Rating 4, Religion)

This morning I was visited by a couple of religious nuts (two "old grannies" as it happens) who presented me with some church propaganda. I didn't get a chance to talk to them, but if I had, I would have destroyed their silly beliefs with a dazzling display of religious and scientific knowledge, flawless logic, and pure intellect... well, at least that's the way I would see it!

Some people are critical of me when I argue with apparently kind religious types but why shouldn't I? They are the ones who have visited me and attempted to convert me to their childish and sick vision of reality. And it's not surprising when I don't just believe everything they say and point out where they are wrong that they can get just a little bit nasty. And when I demonstrate a greater knowledge of their religion that what they do they generally retreat and never return!

So these people may seem superficially to be well-meaning but they aren't really. If they were members of a political party trying to gather new members would we be as generous? I don't think so. And what's the difference? There is none that I can see.

But to get back to the subject at hand. These people were from the Jehovah's Witless [deliberate typo] Church and they were distributing a pamphlet titled "Will suffering ever end?". My initial reaction might be "yes, when people like you go away and leave the rest of us alone" but that is rather trite so I should look at the subject more seriously.

The material they left contained a whole bunch of rather loosely translated Bible quotes, as if quoting from the Bible would convince anyone who wasn't already hooked into that particular fantasy world! I mean really, if I quoted Darwin would they just automatically believe me? Can't they see that many of us think the Bible is little more than a book of sometimes amusing, sometimes interesting, and sometimes disturbing myths? And quoting Bible verses to prove that the Bible is true seems rather circular.

The general message of the pamphlet seemed to be that God doesn't like all the bad things which are happening but they're not his fault. And things will get better in the future and he "will wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there will be no more death, suffering, crying, or pain" (that also sounds like the unsubstantiated rhetoric we get from some political parties).

I always thought the bad things were because of the free will God gave us. Does that mean in order to make things better we need to give up free will? And if God can make things so much better in the future why has he waited so long? Oddly enough those issues aren't discussed at all except to refer to some Bible verses (Romans 5:12 and 2 Peter 3:9) which contain the usual meaningless drivel.

Naturally, when you look at it logically, none of this makes sense, just like the story line of any other fairy tale doesn't make sense. Next time the JWs visit I'll just say I'm reading a different fantasy story at the moment, maybe I'll re-read some Tolkien like the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion (actually, not the Silmarillion, because it's even more boring than the Bible!)

Comment 1 by richard on 2014-01-13 at 11:55:38:

Without getting bogged into the specific truth claims at this point, (other than to say by way of clarification that I agree with you that the JW's have some serious truth claim problems), just a few quick comments of agreement and questions for clarification:

1 - Yeah, arguments are a good thing. I agree entirely that if you are 'interrupted' at the door by people wishing to convince you of anything, whether it's religion, politics, or the virtues of a particular vacuum cleaner, and you have an opposing opinion, it is absolutely ok to be able to express that freely for the purpose of gaining (and/or imparting) more information.

The word argument has unfortunate negative connotations. Philosophers understand argument as positive 'case-making' rather than negative 'arguing', and of course it is the manner of discussion that distinguishes between the two, and anyone who gets 'nasty' in any way (on either side I hasten to add), is guilty of 'arguing' rather than effective case-making, and it's just plain rude. Such intolerance shows the real intention is something other than 'together discovering the truth'.

2 - As for seeing no difference to a political party membership drive, that one surprises me. Do you not think that perhaps there is a significant difference between the two, wrt the particular 'truth claims' involved, i.e. the 'extremely long term' implications are as different as it is possible to be? Doesn't that at very least makes the grannies efforts a little more understandable if not more tolerable, or even commendable? Again, that their view happens to be wrong is irrelevant to acknowledging the very real obligation felt by them to 'help others' in this way. This same level of obligation hardly exists for political party membership choices.

3 - I agree entirely in the principle that 'quoting the bible to prove the bible is true' can be circular and unhelpful, but on the other hand, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between (attempting to) prove a particular point of reality by comparing 'text from a document' to observed phenomena, and simply (attempting to) prove the document itself is true. For example, it is entirely reasonable to quote Darwin (along with showing how what was written actually aligns with reality, via 'science' - observation etc) to show that Darwins particular claim was true. This is the basis of all scientific publications. It also happens to (as a side effect) suggest that his writings can be trusted. Same goes for any document, including the bible. So the questions is was this document merely trying to prove the bible was true, by quoting itself (it may have been, knowing their publications LOL) or was it trying to make some reality claim about suffering or another particular feature of reality? There is a subtle difference.

Finally, of course it is equally ok to politely say 'No thanks, I'm busy' or even 'I think you are completely wrong and I'm not interested in any discussion', and expect that to be the end of it. Thus if you wish to start a discussion with anyone at the door, it is indeed your free will choice to bring that 'suffering upon yourself'.

So, final clarification (since you mentioned it first) - free will (alone) is not the cause of any 'bad things' at all. Bad things (of this type, that involve free will) are only caused by exercising that free will to make bad choices. To eliminate bad things, you only need to eliminate either free will OR making bad choices. Anyone with enough information/clarity/wisdom can then choose to avoid making bad choices, but has not lost any of their free will. It is a fascinating discussion in philosophy, as some feel you ONLY actually have free will IF you actually make the 'bad choice', but I do not see that as necessary at all. What do you think?

Comment 2 by OJB on 2014-01-13 at 20:29:32:

I bet the "truth claim" problems you see for the JWs aren't the same as what I see! :)

1. I don't think anyone would disagree that anybody visting you and trying to convince you of the veracity of their worldview shouldn't be surprised if you debate them. Of course, there's no need (in general) to be personal and nasty!

Unfortunately "argue" is often a better word than debate or discuss because the whole thing seems to be a bit unstructured. But, as I said above, I try not to make it too personally insulting.

2. Actually I really don't see much difference. Both political parties and religions are motivated by similar ideas, I think. They both think their ideas are right but generally have almost zero real evidence, they both think your life will be better if you join them, etc. Also, some of both just want more power, influence, or money.

3. There was no reference at all to any real phenomena in this document. There was just stuff like: "How do we know the Bible is true? Because it says so in the Bible at such and such a verse". Just utterly stupid and ridiculous! If it was more like "here's what the Bible predicted and here's what we actually see, and the two agree" I would be more impressed.

I actually enjoy debating with people (in case you hadn't noticed) so the comment about these people bringing on suffering was just me being facetious.

Regarding the bad things. I was referring to the type of stuff that people have little or no control over. For anyone who claims their god is loving and caring I just tell them to do a Google image search on child cancer, or African famine. They usually get the point.

Comment 3 by Richard on 2014-01-14 at 06:02:55:

1: Cool
2: I understand these are similarities, as you see it. The difference I pointed out is however the significant one imo, which btw applies whether it turns out to be true or not, would you agree?
3: Yeah, very sad that. My comment on that circular argument comment in your post was simply to offer the thought that perhaps was better expressed as: if Darwin (or the Bible) did in fact turn out to be true after all, then how is it possible to demonstrate that without actually quoting them. :) Thanks for getting that already tho from my poorer first attempt. Lol

My comment about 'suffering the door debate' was similarly light hearted. Wasn't actually meaning to critique you there at all, Owen by offering that additional thought.

Finally, regarding bad things. Forgive me, but I responded to your specific comment about relating 'bad things' with free will. Some of these other bad things are indeed far more complex. African famine however is not, as it is easily and demonstrably solvable by us (I.e. humanity as a whole) within a week should 'we' choose to make the right choices, as I mentioned above. We can't blame God for what is our failed responsibility, one that is clearly given to us in the Bible (wink). Of course this is still true with or without Gods existence. Things like child cancer and (only some) natural disasters etc where free will is less involved, are far more puzzling to us all. There are thoughts I could offer on this, which while being somewhat consistent with my world view, still don't promise to satisfy you (or even me, fully). Just one thought: Even with some extreme events like earthquakes, floods etc, much of the loss of life is still the result of bad free will choices, sometimes poor planning or sub standard engineering. Not always, I agree, but the vast majority of life loss could be avoided, should 'we' freely choose it over economics (dare I say greed) and/or convenience, (not moving to a safer location).

Comment 4 by OJB on 2014-01-14 at 11:47:02:

2. I really can't see any difference between politics and religion. Both are based on fairly thin evidence and both have their genuine believers who really think their worldview makes the world a better place. What really is the difference?

3. Yeah sure, there is no problem quoting the Bible or anything else, as long as it doesn't just end there. To support Darwin or the Bible we should quote it then show how the material quoted has some relevance in the real world. I think we both agree on this idea. We just disagree whether there's much in the Bible which actually does reflect the real world!

I think the "why god allows bad things to happen" question is a theme which often has more success in making religious people question their views than more logical and rational debates about the nature of reality. As I often say: people usually believe in a religion for emotional rather than logical reasons (even if they won't admit it) so a more emotional argument might be effective in introducing a bit of skepticism.

So let's ignore all the "blaming the victim" answers you gave and stick with child cancer. Why does your god allow that? What does that have to do with free will and/or bad choices?

Comment 5 by richard on 2014-01-14 at 12:38:12:

2 & 3: Yep - we pretty much agree except as expected - i.e. the level of evidence involved for some particular aspects of religious belief.

In 2, I was simply responding to the difference with respect only to the grannies motivation for their door knocking, (and only since you brought it up, saying they are not really well meaning). The major difference between politics and (some religions) wrt that is quite simply that some religions alone (including the grannies) entails the concept a soul (as opposed to 'just' physics), which continues to exist after the physical boy dies - i.e. an eternal soul thus with an eternal destiny of 'some kind'. I think it is obvious that their actions then, amount to concern and love, which you have admired in a previous post, regarding far more serious implications. Again, that they could be wrong is not relevant to that particular point. For example, a doctor who travels to third world countries to extol the virtues of antibiotics which will save lives has a similar (significant but far less significant) motivation for doing so. Even if it turns out the doctor was wrong and only believes he has antibiotics, but was actually peddling sugar pills, while the real power to save is not actually there after all, the reality of the motivation involved remains unchanged.

I'll take your statements about bad things, to mean that yes, sadly some religious people who don't take the time to think enough about why God allows bad things to happen, can be persuaded by the emotional (rather than rational) arguments presented by athiests, to which I agree with you. Sad but true. I don't see how else to read that comment?

Regarding child cancer, which is truly one of the saddest things anyone can go through and I have already agreed it is one of the difficult to deal with theologically. However, before I present some thoughts, which I have already said, don't promise to fully satisfy any of us, I am sure you know already that the famous athiest Bertrand Russell posed exactly the same question in statement form when he said: “No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God.”

This question is one that everyone (including athiests) have to consider. So I'd first like to ask you, (since this is your blog after all), what your advice as an athiest to the child and the family of the child with cancer is? I am aware of a few possibilities, but am genuinely interested in your own view. Only fair that you answer your own question first...

Comment 6 by OJB on 2014-01-14 at 13:12:34:

So you think the religious people have more admirable motivation because their fantasy world includes the idea that we can attain eternal happiness? I don't see that as being that much different from political ideas. I'm sure that many people think that our civilisation can exist happily indefinitely if we just follow their political and economic agenda. The difference isn't that significant, really.

I don't think Betrand Russell meant that literally because people can convince themselves of anything if they are sufficiently brainwashed. Maybe he should have said people shouldn't believe in God when they see the evil things he allows to happen (if he existed, of course).

I honestly don't know what my advice would be to someone in that terrible situation although obviously it would depend on the person involved. By the way, I would not exclude encouraging religious belief if that made them happier at the time.

The interesting thing though is this: belief in god only makes sense if he doesn't exist because if he did exist why does he allow this sort of thing. If he doesn't exist the bad stuff makes sense, but pretending a god exists might make some people feel better when nothing else helps.

Comment 7 by richard on 2014-01-17 at 12:56:49:

Interesting reply Owen.
1 - Nowhere did I suggest a more 'admirable' motivation - you just assumed that. I am just suggesting it is more 'justifiable by comparison'. There is a subtle but important distinction in those terms. But anyway - I find it hard to believe that you have honestly failed to recognise the obvious difference being discussed here. Namely that your 'fantasy world' involves me being dead for eternity, which makes any brighter outcome to 'civilisation' (your only offering) hardly significant as a motivator to me or any other dead person, when compared to the grannies motiviation of trying to save their immortal soul.

2 - Bertand Russell didn't mean it literally - of course not, as I am sure thousands of people who believe in God have already refuted that 'literal claim', simply by sitting at the bedside of a dying child. Why would anyone mis-interpret his statement as anything other than your paraphrased version of it. Of course that's what he meant, and what makes you think anyone is suggesting something literal?! I was merely pointing out that this isn't a new question and that yes - all Theists (whether Christian or not) have to deal with it.

3 - Appreciate your honest reply, and I agree with you too, that it would be an incredibly sad and difficult thing to be faced with, and the details absolutely depend on the specific people involved. Again though, I think this is a bit of avoidance. I am simply asking for what you feel are the general range of possible (i.e. intellectually honest) explanations that you think are compatible with your world view.

4 - I do agree that pretending a (non existant) God exist might make people feel better, when nothing else helps, and your acknowledgement that you might not exclude that if you thought it would help is a significant demonstration of your real compassion Owen in such a terrible circumstance, given the contrasting pull for 'truth' as you see it, that is obvious in your blog. I want to applaud the admission, but also acknowledge that I personally would struggle to reconcile those two opposing forces IF I honestly felt that the religious views offered weren't true. However, IF I really believed they weren't true, then I would also recognise that 'in the end' it really doesn't matter at all, so why not.

We mustn't however confuse that with an argument for his non existence by claiming the religious are just using it in that way. There is no evidence that the religious are using it in that way, and furthermore, even if they were, it makes no difference at all to the question of its actual truth of course.

On one thing I must disagree with though - You said 'If he doesn't exist the bad stuff makes sense'. Actually, if he doesn't exist then labelling it as 'bad stuff', makes no sense at all. Then it would just be 'stuff'. The term 'bad' implies a departure from the way things 'ought to be' and without a MIND to define it, there is no concept outside our own preference of what 'ought to be', there is just 'stuff (or similar - LOL) happens". It's the old moral grounding problem popping up again. If HE does exist then the WHY can be considered, as it has been for as long as theists have been considering it.

I will do that in a following post as soon as poss', as long as you are prepared to acknowledge in advance, what is already obvious really, that they have to be considered based on the initial assumption that God does in FACT exist as described - they cannot be analysed (or critiques) as proofs for or against his existence. Rather like 'miracles', which are entirely 'reasonable' IF a being with the power and creative ability to create the Universe actually exists, and not reasonable if no such being exists.

Comment 8 by OJB on 2014-01-17 at 22:18:29:

Right, so moving on from all the trivia let's get back to the big question: why does your god let bad things happen.

First of all, you claim that "bad" has no meaning without god. I disagree and we have had this debate before so I can't see the point in starting it again. Let's just say that there are things which any reasonable, sane person would consider to be bad. I know that isn't quite as well defined as a specific rule imposed by a deity but at least it's real.

Now, why does God create us with a sense of what is bad then allow those things to happen anyway. I'm talking about disease, natural disasters, etc which affect innocent people such as children here. OK, let's hear your justification of this one...

Comment 9 by richard on 2014-01-21 at 15:42:24:

Trivia – or important foundational guidelines to make appropriate sense of a very fair area of discussion. Obviously, I think the above tends to be the latter.

I agree we don’t need to go over the moral grounding problem again. It was only brought up because you chose to stand on that specific moral ground when talking about there being ‘bad things’ in the first place. And saying that any reasonable sane person can recognise what is bad, is something I completely agree with, this is the very basis of this particular argument for theism. Well done for correctly describing reality, but a correct description of our agreed experience is not at all an explanation for it.

Anyhoo – on to the question you pose: Sorry for these two very long posts. These ideas are still as brief as possible, but still lack the full explanations needed you can easily find elsewhere on the net, but probably only in sites (and from people) you don’t like. I very much suspect you know this stuff in advance anyway, and are really just looking for something to critique here, which is ok by me, as long as you don’t draw incorrect conclusions simply because I haven’t been able to elaborate.

As always, the disclaimer is that while I believe these are ideas that are fairly consistent with mainstream Christian doctrine, I am no real authority on it, and others may even disagree on my personal interpretation. All these philosophical discussions are simply both of us musing about the reality we both experience.

Part 1 – Foundational principles that must be first acknowledged:
1 – God exists: The rest of this explanation clearly only makes sense if we assume this. Otherwise we are simply left with the atheist answers for child cancer (something like ‘Tough luck’, ‘That’s the way it goes’, ‘It will soon all be over’, or even worse as some famous atheists have considered ‘Why don’t we just end it all now’?).
2 – Given (1) then the ‘Mind-Body’ problem we all ‘perceive’ in reality then (and only then) makes sense. In short – we have not just a body but a soul.
3 – Given (1, & 2) then there is infinitely more to reality than just our briefest of lives on the universal (or eternal) timeframe – as difficult as that is for us to comprehend. In short we have an ‘eternal’ soul.
3a - Doctrine Alert: Thus that soul MUST exist post death, and as you well know Christian doctrine states that will either be with God, (what is termed heaven) or without God (what is termed hell).
4 – Given (1, & 2) then the Morality ‘problem’ (an objective grounding for a judgement about child cancer being bad) then (and only then) makes sense. Only the theist can claim that this is not the way it ‘ought to be’. Sorry - I am not meaning to keeping ‘pounding the podium’ with this, but it is needed in the list for this discussion – be patient…
5 – Given (1 & 2 & 4) then the concept of us having real ‘Free Will’ then, (and only then) makes sense. (Free will being the ability of our soul to make a ‘conscious choice to ‘rebel’ against what our soul can recognise as what is ‘objectively good’ or ‘what ought to be done’). Again this is a normal feature of reality we see every day.
6 – Doctrine Alert! The Bible describes the world as originally created ‘unbroken’, and the assumption is that it was without the ‘genuine evil’ under discussion, though we can’t confirm these details. By details, I mean lets avoid a ‘creation’ discussion, I mean ‘created unbroken’ just in terms of the notion of ‘evil’). However using (5) it also describes how ‘we’ both historically and we all (me too) continue to choose to place our own authority above Gods, and make free will decisions, accepting the consequences (whether we understand the significance and nature of them all or not).
7 – It is also obvious (and this is completely externally of any religious doctrine) that some free will decisions taken long ago in history can and do continue to have affects on individuals completely uninvolved in the original decision – in varying degrees and both for better and worse. Ever read the story book ‘Because a little bug went Ka-Choo’ to your kids when they were little? Or watched ‘Connections’? While the latter documents detectable connections, many such ‘results’ are extremely difficult to verify /confirm, especially across longer periods of history. The fact remains that it is impossible to absolutely rule out the possibility that one or many historical decisions that ‘humanity’ has made in the past have not even in part contributed to the occurrence of some undesirable events (even some cases of child cancer). Note however, that I am not subscribing as some do to some form of ‘Golden Age’ fallacy wrt to cancer in particular. This is simply one of many general principles in the overall discussion of all sorts of undesirable effects.

Whether (7) is a factor or not, the question becomes, then WHY might God allow it to occur?, (or put another way – why might He not intervene to prevent it)? That's covered in Part Two...

Comment 10 by richard on 2014-01-21 at 15:48:02:

Part Two – Some Ideas to resolve the question...

8 – Firstly, It is logically possible that God COULD have morally sufficient reasons for permitting some evil in the world? The answer is an obvious – YES - Very simply, either by achieving a greater good or preventing a greater evil. We see this in reality all the time: we allow ‘lesser’ evils to occur because we thereby achieve some greater good or else we prevent some worse evil. One doesn’t need to have the magical ability to transform an evil act into a good act in order to have a morally sufficient reason to permit it. This notion of collateral damage, while undoubtedly regrettable, is not ‘evil’, and logically sound.

9 – Secondly, Does Christian doctrine suggest it is regrettable to God? Or IS He actually pleased by such events, i.e. gets ‘pleasure’ from them? Again the answer is obvious. NO, of course He is not pleased by it – that would be cause for complaint.

Note however as an aside, that IF God is really ‘GOD’ and HE was actually pleased with evil - where does that actually get us in our case against his existence - nowhere! – We might have cause for some complaint about His character, but it does not change the truth, and where does it get us to complain? About where it’d get the Jews if Hitler was really God!

Fortunately, though there is no adequate reason to assume that there is evil in God, based on plenty of other evidence.

This is very clear, in the way He provides SO MANY ways in the real world to try to prevent as much ‘evil’ as possible. From natural ways, such as the abundance of medicinal substances found in plants and all the technology available to modern medicine, right up to (doctrine alert!) the central Christian doctrine of ‘Salvation’. Call it what you like, but it is unique in that it clearly shows the intention of God is to ‘fix what we broke’, and the lengths to which ‘God’ went to in order to ultimately do this. Sorry Owen – I’m not meaning just to preach here, it is simply completely relevant to this qn of evil.

Put very simply, If God really wanted genuine evil to occur (i.e. just for ‘fun’ / for no morally sufficient reason), the world would be a TOTALLY different place. Put very simply, IF God IS ALL GOOD, then logically evil can still exist. IF God IS ALL EVIL, then NO GOOD CAN EXIST. If He exists and is a combination of both, then again put plainly: You are welcome to complain to Him about it, and best of luck with that!

So – The question then becomes – how do (or can) we assess the ‘overall’ balance of Good vs Evil, that might suggest a morally sufficient reason for say, the child cancer some unfortunately experience.

When considering this question – keep in mind the analogous position you and I both have as a Father to our own children, who we love very dearly and would prefer NEVER experience evil or pain of any kind at all.

10 – Firstly given (2, 3,4 & 5, and 3a in particular) then it logically follows that there is a unfathomable re-alignment of the equation that describes the overall ‘significance’ of all the suffering experienced by child and family experiencing cancer, when compared to the ‘eternal good’ that might be involved. As absolutely horrible as it is, the suffering experienced in their short lifetime is a completely insignificant blip compared to ‘eternity’.

In fact, as terribly heart-breaking and confusing as it is for the family left behind, the Christian doctrine provides hope that the child has simply passed more speedily than them into a far better place, and that they are far happier there than they ever were (or ever would be), in this ‘stage of their existence’. This is NOT to suggest for a moment that it is Gods preferred option over the long and still happy and rewarding life that is suggested as more usual by both normal probability (experience) and also the Bible.

So, it turns out it is morally sufficient for me to allow my own children to experience the relatively insignificant blip of suffering caused by an anti-virus injection to prevent the longer term pain and suffering of a serious disease. Or the pain of the dentist chair to avoid the longer term suffering they’d have without it. We don’t find that odd or immoral at all. Actually it’s the reverse – when carefully considering the overall ‘good’ achieved, the pain and suffering is morally OBLIGED! We would berate a parent who let their child die in a house fire when they could have just broken both their legs being thrown from the 2nd floor window. War councils too understand this principle – that great pain can in fact be a justifiable moral obligation when it achieves far greater good.

11 – Given (10), we must then ask, WHO is in the BEST position to accurately make a correct judgement on the overall good vs evil involved in our universal and eternal experience? There are only two possible options - Is it us, or is it GOD? The obvious final answer is that it is GOD ALONE, who has the vision, knowledge and character, to make that assessment. We are quite frankly COMPLETELY non-equipped to make that assessment, and it is nothing but arrogance for us to suggest otherwise.

I personally find this a ‘reasonable’ line of thinking - IF GOD EXISTS. That does not mean I am at all fully satisfied by events of this nature when they occur – the above comprises a 'logical' line of thinking – I fully agree with you it does not deal with the powerful emotional reaction we all experience to such things.

I have respected you enough to answer this question honestly and frankly, knowing all along what you already think of it. Thus I hope you will respect that in return when you respond.
Cheers, Rich.

Comment 11 by OJB on 2014-01-21 at 20:49:39:

1. Sure, we are discussing why God, if he existed, would allow bad things to happen, so let's start by assuming he exists (just as a thought experiment) and see where that leads.

2. OK, there could be a god without souls existing but that is a common belief in religions so let's continue.

3. I think I can see where this rather sad explanation is going, but sure, I'll humour you. Let's assume the soul is more important than the body.

4. I disagree. I think anyone can say that child cancer is bad and many people with no religion do. You're just wrong about this. However, let's continue.

5. What has a soul got to do with free will? The concept can exist fine without any supernatural element. Well, let's continue anyway.

6. Clearly the world could not have been created unbroken or the potential for all the evil which now exists could not have existed.

7. Yeah sure, I agree that decisions affect the future. There's nothing too controversial there. And yes, the question is why does God not intervene (according to the Bible he did heaps of intervention in the past).

8. God could have greater reasons but this is just an argument from ignorance.

9. I get the impression from reading the Old Testament that God was quite happy with a lot of his murdering and torturing actually. I agree that you god could exist and be a sadist. We aren't debating existence here (refer to point 1) just what kind of god he is if he does exist (clearly an evil, sadistic one).

10. So you say all the bad things that happen are somehow balanced by some undefined greater good and that god can't do any better than that! So maybe he isn't sadistic and evil, he's incompetent! He must be one or the other really. Or not exist at all...

11. So now your god makes judgements about his own behaviour and we just have to accept that. Why should we? How do we know he is good?

It's incomprehensible to me that an intelligent person would believe such a pile of illogical drivel. Try this: take "god" out of the above argument and insert a powerful person. Would you just believe him when he says what he is doing is for the greater good when there is zero evidence that it is? Would you just believe him when he said he knows best? Would you believe him when he said your child suffering from cancer was for the greater good? How many despotic monsters over the years have used that sort of argument?

Be honest here, if you didn't already buy into the whole god myth would you accept such a weak argument? Would you?

Comment 12 by richard on 2014-01-22 at 09:29:38:

Thanks Owen. Yeah I did already agree with you that this topic is arguably the most difficult to deal with both logically and emotionally, for all of us, and that I knew you wouldn't like it. However difficult it may be to accept emotionally, it does not fail the logic test. Some of your responses do that...

4 - You made the very same mistake in logic again Owen - stating that many non religious people do say child cancer is bad has no explanatory power at all. They are able to do this only because they happen exist in Gods world - the one with transcendant meaning or purpose. All morality is a contract between MINDS alone. If I drop scrabble pieces randomly on the table (a purely physical system of moral law generation) and it spells 'Be nice to everyone' not only would that be a miracle of probability, it would hold absolutely no 'real' moral authority with it. Exactly why should I take any notice, and so what if I do or don't? A purely physical universe simply cannot create anything but relative morality, just an agreement between human MINDS based on their collective preferences. BUT So what if my preference is to torture and kill. Where's any genuine authority for you to have a problem with that from? If anyone was to start abusing your family members, you would NOT complain simply by saying that as a group we have agreed that this isn't right, so you should stop. What real authority is that?! No - you would react appropriately because it is objectively wrong, but some external authority MUST account for that for it to make any real sense.

5 - Many philosophers understand that a non physical cause (i.e. soul) IS required for free will, as (similar to above) a pure physical world involving nothing but a series of chemical reaction (no matter how complex) cannot create any 'agency' at all - those reactions must (and do in our universal experience) abide by physical laws each and every time in exactly the same way. This also explains why the very rationality we are employing to have this discussion (and difference of opinion) is impossible to account for in a purely physical universe.

If you took god out of the equation and replaced it with a powerful person, then yes I would tend to agree with your assessment of them, but then that is the logical basis of point 11 isn't it, the difference in power and perspectives between the two. Any 'person' powerful enough to make the difference explained in 11 meaningless IS God. And if I didn't buy into God as the most reasonable and plausible explanation for the features of reality we all see (i.e evidence) then this discussion would be not only pointless but also impossible.

Comment 13 by OJB on 2014-01-22 at 13:12:38:

Yes, the problem of evil is a classic issue in theology and philosophy. It has been around for thousands of years and a satisfactory answer has never been given. I would say that is because there is no answer, simply because the question has a false premise: that god exists.

4. I don't see this as an error of logic at all. It has nothing to do with logic. I offer an alternative explanation to the existence of a near universal sense of right and wrong. You say it comes from god, I say it comes from millennia of social evolution. My case is supported by the facts. Saying that it is logically incorrect is itself logically untrue!

5. Ah yes, the old free will question, another issue which has been debated for millennia with no agreed result. Maybe this is because the meaning of "free will" has never been defined. Different philosophers have different opinions on this but there are certainly many who think we have free will without the need for a non-physical universe.

So basically you are giving god a "free pass". Any behaviour deemed evil in others is OK in him because he is very powerful. Can you not see the problem here?

Comment 14 by richard on 2014-01-23 at 17:52:03:

Good one! ;-) As long as we clarify and say 'a satisfactory answer for you has never been given'. Most difficult questions in the world have some degree of debate or dissatisfaction. So the best we can do is come to a conclusion that we personally feel most reasonably deals with all the various dissatisfactions. Obviously we both see that people come to wildly different conclusions that 'satisfy' them best overall.

4. The logic error I referred to previously was claiming that the mere description of the observed fact that 'many non religious people do say child cancer is bad' is itself an evidence or explanation for the claim that no transcendent authority for that 'standard' is necessary. I stand by that claim. I wasn't at that point labeling as illogical any explanation you might have for the mere observation you gave (and we both agree on btw) - simply because you hadn't provided one, until now in comment 13: a millennia of social evolution. Whether your case is supported by facts is debatable, especially if these facts turn out to simply be the circular observations you have provided thus far. But yes - that was the topic of another post so I won't get into that further - the logic error I mentioned was however in this post. :)

5. While I agree with you that there is and has been lots of debate, on free will I must be missing something because I don't think it's that difficult a concept really. Surely, it is obvious and irrefutable that the most sophisticated robots (purely physical entities) that we have created (actually we have done that as 'intelligent designers' - LOL) have no real free will at all - they may have that 'appearance' in some specific areas, but we know it is actually an illusion, as all 'decisions' made are pre-prescribed and occur purely from strict observance to physical laws alone. In a purely physical universe, this means we are no different to those robots, except in our 'evolved' complexity - so the best you can say, is that the illusion of free will is a bit better. That is all. However, we as individuals have absolutely no real capability to defy the physical laws causing our neurons to fire in a certain way. Once again - Any attempt by the philosophers you call on who say we do have free will, in spite of what appears to be obvious as I have described, are obliged to provide some decent evidence to support that claim... just saying they think that gives us nothing to work with.

I honestly do see and understand the final 'free pass problem' you outlined, and accept that you wish it to be be characterised that way, because it suits your purpose. However, this is something we are all sometimes forced to do in philosophy - to avoid ever increasing circles - For example in the cosmological argument for God, the idea of God himself not 'needing a creator' because the claim is that he is eternal is critiqued - and yet atheists happily accept exactly the same principle occurs at some higher level than our 'physical' universe. Both ultimately require the same level of trust/faith/acceptance that this is 'just the way it is' to avoid infinite circularity problems.

This particular moral example however, is not trapped by this kind of free pass. There is plenty of evidence for it's validity as just one explanation for this problem when we recognise that we use this principle all the time! All 'children' (who lack the understanding they need) will perceive behaviour such as a painful medical procedure as evil. However, while they don't like it, they are prepared to accept it on the basis that there must be greater good to come, because: a) they know their Father is more powerful than they are (in terms of knowledge/understanding in this case); and b) he loves them, so is allowing the action for their well being (this knowledge of love is based on their past experience).

You might say that there is a difference between child cancer and a painful medical procedure, and of course there is, but that difference is only that we do not have the ability to confirm for sure the overall moral balance of allowing the act to occur. In terms of the point under discussion, there is no difference. So yes - I can see the problem you presented, and suggest it isn't as much of a problem as you would like to suggest.

Comment 15 by OJB on 2014-01-23 at 21:22:41:

Surely you don't think anyone has developed an answer to the problem of evil which is acceptable to the majority irrespective of their worldview? I mean, clearly religious people have their little fantasies about it, but these mean nothing to more analytical people. And I'm sure the obvious logical conclusion means nothing to those who have convinced themselves that their god is real. This is not the same thing as many other issues where there are well accepted answers.

4. Debating whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support one theory or another isn't really a problem in logic, it is one in analysis of evidence. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the observation that many people share the same moral values which doesn't require any supernatural element. So I think you're wrong on that.

5. I disagree. Free will is a very difficult concept and I have both listened to philosophers debate it and debated it myself. In most cases the problem is actually defining exactly what free will is.

I disagree that circularity and special pleading is needed in both religious and scientific theories. There are many alternative ideas to the origin of the universe and these are treated as speculative while evidence for them is researched, unlike religion where we are just expected to accept some whimsical statement purely on faith.

So you equate us to children who lack the ability to see what is best for us. Can you not see that this argument can be used to accept any regime which claims ultimate control? Why should I accept the Christian god knows best? Why not a Hindu god? Or some new age concept of god? Why not an intelligent or powerful human? This is a very dangerous concept to take on faith and has lead to many atrocities in the past.

Can you tell me what the positive outcome could possibly be which makes child cancer justifiable? Is it that the child ends up in heaven? What about non-Christian children? What about intelligent animals? It all makes no sense and you are just trying to justify a primitive myth created by desert nomads by retrofitting the facts.

Comment 16 by OJB on 2014-01-23 at 23:17:59:

Have a look at the page for "the problem of evil" at Wikipedia. There are dozens of possible explanations there, and most of them are incompatible with each other! Clearly the problem has not been solved.

Why? because there is no problem. It's like asking a question about any fantasy: why didn't Gandalf do a certain thing in the Lord of the Rings? Because it's a fantasy and the author can have him do anything he likes, just like the Bible! There is nothing of any real consequence to even discuss.

Comment 17 by richard on 2014-01-24 at 11:55:48:

Where have I said that a majority view has been found? You said a satisfactory answer has never been given. So again - definitions.

4 - Fine - you disagree - Except you haven't provided any grounds for WHY a millenia of evolution is sufficient to explain why we share the same moral values, or why a purely physical process even has the ability to create 'obligation' in any real sense. You have just assumed that we should accept that?

5 - Yes - I totally agree that it depends on the definition of free will. If you are forced to define the free will as the illusion I described then sure you can make the contradictary term 'free will' work for you. However, we were specifically discussing morality, and this is why I'm sure you can see that an illusion definition of free will is certainly not sufficient in that context, as it renders any real morality also an illusion. Although I see you actually agree with anyway, saying there is no problem.

And BTW once again - Fine - you disagree with p5 in my comment 14, (actually we already knew that) yet provide no sounds reasons for disputing the plain evidential reasons I gave in that post for claiming that free will is impossible in a physical world. Why should we simply take your word for this?

Comment 16: The fact that there are lots of 'incompatible explanations' in Wikipedia about the problem of evil doesn't mean that they all have the same level of explanatory power, or that they all must be false, so this does little to suggest that there really is no problem to deal with.

Of course I agree that on your world view there is 'no problem of evil' and nothing to discuss, yet empirical evidence for some reason shows clearly that everyone since recorded history has a powerful (even suicidal!) need to both fight it when they 'see it' and to discuss it - as you demonstrate in this very blog thread. This is in spite of the fact that on your world view, even this discussion make no sense?! Your actions in 'fighting the very minor evil of my ignorance' refute your own claim.

I suggest to you that it's easy to say that real evil is an illusion( as logically demanded by your world view, not mine), but in reality that is intellectually dishonest (or people are fooling themselves).

Here's just one reason why: When a big strong rapist arrives at someones front door demanding their daughter (simply in order to follow a millenia of social evolution and pass more of their genes onto the next generation - as such actions are far more likely to do, than not doing it) then how should Dad respond appropriately under your world view? This would be: "Yes, I really want to complain about this, but I actually understand that my objection is merely my own preference and has no more moral authority than your own preference to rape - our personal preferences are both simply merely the illusion created by a millenia of social evolution and because I see that you are more powerful than me, and will win any battle I might try to make for my own preference, I will therefore avoid all that nonsense and hand her over to you now, (so that I might still be able to pass on more of my genes to the next generation tomorrow).

On the contrary, we say rape is objectively wrong (why?) and we fight for our daughters well being, her honour, her VALUE, even while knowing the rape won't kill her (ie it won't prevent her contributing very nicely to the 'survival of the fittest' - he big, strong, powerful, AND has a tendancy to rape - what more could you ask for in evolutionary terms)? Why is that? Don't even think of telling me that perhaps we simply don't understand the 'greater good' that this apparent evil does in evolutionary terms. LOL

And furthermore, we put the rapist on trial, and are prepared to find him accountable for what we really understand is simply him following his own millennia of social evolution - and in the trial - we all listen to the prosecution and the defence discuss rationally whether we should find him guilty, in spite of the reality that all these discussions are bound by physical laws, so all outcomes (and any illusion of rationality) is really all preset by chemistry and physics.

Sorry Owen, but my millenia of gene history simply doesn't allow me to reach the same conclusion as you when considering all these observed facts. Oh well, never mind - no real consequence anyway. :)

Comment 18 by OJB on 2014-01-24 at 15:45:54:

4. Well I'm not sure what exactly you want. All I can say is that many research findings indicate that moral behaviour of various sorts has arisen in many species and that an evolutionary process seems to be the mechanism driving it. Just Google it. Start with "evolution of morality" at Wikipedia.

5. So we agree that the term "free will" is difficult to define. I'm increasingly realising that "morality" is just as hard. I suspect you are thinking of some "higher" function, but to me morality is just a refined set of rules which makes living in social groups easier.

I don't remember you giving in any reasons why you think free will is impossible in a physical world but until we define what free will is there is little point in debating it anyway.

You will find that in science the explanation for most problems converges on an accepted theory. In theology (and some philosophy) the possible set of explanations seems to get bigger rather than smaller. The fact that after thousands of years of effort we still have so many possible explanations for the problem of evil indicates to me that there is no way to decide on which explanation is the true one. I agree there are many possible reasons for this (maybe it's just a really hard question) but surely my explanation that the question is meaningless deserves some credit!

Discussion of the problem of evil is entirely consistent with my worldview. I offer an explanation (based on my worldview) which explains it simply and perfectly.

I'm sorry to have to say this but yet again we have problems with definitions. What is "real evil". According to you it has some supernatural basis, no doubt. According to me it might be something else entirely. You can easily try to prove a point if you define that point in terms of what you set out to prove. We agree there is evil. You say evil requires the supernatural. Therefore the supernatural must exist. Sorry, it's not that easy!

And here we go again. What is "objectively wrong". I can't agree or disagree with any statement including those words unless you tell me what they mean. Again, you most likely define them in supernatural terms where I don't. Rules against behaviour such as rape evolved because a social group cannot live together if it's members are violent to each other. It's really not that hard and it does involve a very well understood and observable "greater good" (the survival of the group) unlike the undefined and non-existent one you seem to believe in.

Of course you can't reach the same conclusion as I do. You are trapped in a fantasy-based worldview which can only lead to one conclusion. I have no similar restriction.

Comment 19 by richard on 2014-01-25 at 01:40:04:

OK - I agree that it does appear that this discussion on evil has run it's course, but it was fascinating and surprising. I am surprised that on the one hand you say that you offer an explanation based on your world view that explains it 'simply and perfectly', then on the other hand say a) that there is 'no way to decide which explanation is the true one' and b) at this late stage fall back to a problem of different definitions both for 'free will' and 'real evil'. Surely these are things that you (and/or Wikipedia) should have very clear, if claiming to have answers to these questions?

Defining those terms is pretty basic Philosophy 101 really, and I think the illustrations I have given so far, make the definitions I am using pretty clear. If you wish to claim I am choosing an incorrect definition simply because it helps my world views case, then by all means point out your corrected definition in less vague terms than 'might be something else entirely'.

The funny thing with your last comment about dismissing my conclusions due to my fantasy based world view, is that I was not invoking it at all in my examples - I have to date attempted to use reason/logic to predict the behaviour that should be expected under YOUR world view to see whether observed behaviour actually matches - and pointed out that it does not. I believe you can see that too, or you would be quick to point out the error in logic or observation in my examples, rather than resorting to a problem of unclear definitions.

A supernatural world view hasn't even come into play at this point. It isn't being used TO REJECT your world view, because all that has happened is an observation that your world view doesn't appear to match reality in some fundamental ways.

Your last comment is classic, pot calling kettle black. It is impossible to avoid similar 'restrictions' in either direction, if in fact this is occurring at all. Cheers. :)

Comment 20 by OJB on 2014-01-25 at 10:07:55:

My explanation is that there is no explanation because it's not a real question. It's not a real question because it pre-supposes a god exists and that he's good. Therefore my explanation that no explanation is necessary is totally consistent with the observation that none of the other explanations have gained acceptance.

In fact you have never defined any of your terms and you will find that they are poorly defined in philosophy, at least if the discussions I have seen are any guide.

I have never seen a single example of you pointing out any logical or factual problems with my view on this subject. And you are entirely driven by the need to conclude there is a supernatural explanation for these phenomena. Few experts would agree with you on this.

Maybe I missed something. Can you name one single example where my worldview doesn't match the facts. Maybe I missed it amongst all the other material you presented. Do you really think that if fundamental observations of social science, psychology, etc couldn't be explained without a supernatural element that those sciences would be happily proceeding without the supernatural? It's only on your fantasy world that these things are necessary.

As a Christian you must conclude that god exists (and all the other nonsense attached to that religion). I can believe anything I like, I have no fixed religion to lead me towards false conclusions.

Comment 21 by richard on 2014-01-25 at 10:24:03:

One last final comment to ponder wrt a social evolutionary explanation for morality: You stated as your explanation: "Rules against behaviour such as rape evolved because a social group cannot live together if it's members are violent to each other". Violent?! What's violence? That's an 'objectively' moral description Owen. Here again for the record is my definition of Objective Morality: the property (violence) is one of the 'object' (rape) irrespective of each persons personal preference or opinion on the matter. The alternative is the definition of 'relative' morality, because the property of violence is not attached to the object, but an opinion/label attached (relative) to each person. Quite a simple distinction surely? You have been 'forced' to import into your explanation about whether rape is really what we define as 'violent', the prior assumption (before our opinion) that it is. You have to explain why it is a violent act before you can use it in your answer for social evolution. I really don't know how this could be plainer. That's the whole point of the discussion here. In your world view, (social evolution) rape would and SHOULD appear to be the exact opposite of 'immoral' but admirable. The real world however doesn't match - something is 'wrong' here? To answer your question of 'what do I want?' - what I really want is an answer to this that really works under your world view. Cheers.

Comment 22 by richard on 2014-01-25 at 10:31:06:

Amazingly - I started my post 21 BEFORE seeing your latest one Owen. Honest! I have given you two examples in this thread - Rape wrt objective morality and Robots with respect to whether Free Will is possible in a purely physical universe. Both examples having no 'dependance' at all on my world view to be considered - Therefore I am not 'forced' to conclude God exists at all - that old chestnut just doesn't fly. :)

Comment 23 by OJB on 2014-01-25 at 12:16:29:

Re comment 21...

Right, so regarding morality: you think objective morality exists but I (by your definition) think all morality is relative, however that relative morality is one shared by all reasonable humans (yes, a bit circular maybe but the best that can be done with such poorly-defined concepts) and therefore can be used to judge people's actions.

Whether rape is defined as violent or not (I think you'll find that most experts do define it that way) is irrelevant. It is an action which disrupts the society it occurs in and therefore that action reduces the chance of survival of the society. So social evolution kicks in and the activity becomes immoral in that society.

Many actions which were moral in the past (slavery for example, which, by the way, is not condemned in the Bible) are no longer moral. Could it be any clearer that morality isn't objective? Can you tell me what is so hard to understand about this idea?

Comment 24 by OJB on 2014-01-25 at 12:20:10:

And comment 22...

OK, I covered rape in comment 23. Regarding robots with free will: I think that no current robot or computer has free will but I think what we call "free will" (whether it is truly free or not) will occur as an emergent property when these machines become sufficiently complex. Speculative I know, but what part of this discussion isn't?

And I know you'll deny it but believe me, it is very apparent that all your thoughts and opinions are distorted by your superstitious worldview. When you think about it, how could they possibly not be?

Comment 25 by richard on 2014-01-26 at 09:51:59:

Hmm - I think the concepts are perfectly well defined by most experts. It is just the understanding of the concepts and the conclusions that vary. And of course they are not difficult or speculative or 'a bit circular' at all for me - only your world view forces you to accept these 'curious difficulties'.

Oh dear - of course most experts agree rape is violent. Rape only occurs when the victim does not agree to the act. Otherwise is called consenusal (and moral by todays society). The question is for the evolutionist to explain that isn't clear is why have these 'victims' evolved a tendency to disagree with having the strongest genes passes to the next generation, such that it becomes immoral 'now' (even in your relative sense)?

No a specific definition of 'slavery' wasn't condemned in the bible, and the reasons are again one of simple definitions. Do your homework and examine carefully the 'slavery' (as practiced by the Jewish culture) it was a completely different enterprise to the visions of slavery we conjure today when hearing the term (african american and others). It was more like 'paid personal servant', not an immoral concept at all and we have them today - personal assistant and farm managers etc. Sure the bad kind of slavery existed too (and the Jews were often the victims of it!), but the bible goes to lengths to admonish those who treat their 'slaves' poorly in any way at all, it is the first example of employee relations documentation.

Having clarified that tho - it actually means nothing to our discussion on the 'objectiveness' of morality, because the question of 'objectiveness' is not one of 'have our human behaviours changed over time' - of course they have. The question is 'Can we see that the action was somehow wrong BEFORE our behaviour changed for the better', and 'why do not see all current behaviour as best'?

Incidentally African slavery for example was only ended when people like William Wilberforce in England and Abraham Lincoln in America campaigned for it (the latter at the cost of his life). They did so based purely on their Christian convictions - and clearly would not of done obeying your distorted characterisation of the bibles view of slavery.

Finally, it is actually incredible that you think you are somehow immune to 'distortion' due to your world view, when making that claim on me. You claim that you are able to believe 'anything you like' but clearly there are things that you are 'forced' NOT to believe in, (and refuse to) when you go to such lengths to accept speculations and poorly defined concepts to do so.

I am not (and never was) claiming that my world view does not 'inform' my opinions. But this isn't a crime, it is science - i.e. happens in science all the time - Given we agree that fact (a) is true, this would mean that fact (b) should probably occur - oh it does - that helps confirm fact (a). As I said before, in this discussion we haven't invoked any facts from my world view as fact (a) - merely facts from observed reality to examine your world view. That's why this is a red-herring, and the scientific equation goes something like: Given we agree fact (a): the universe is only physical, we should see that facts (b) Free-will and objectively morality cannot exist - Hmmm - both do exist (if we are honest with ourselves) - does this help confirm fact (a). No it does not, (you say) but I am still going to hold to my world view anyway.

I just want you to see that to whatever length you say this occurs to me, applies exactly the same to you. The funny thing is my world view allows is the one for that possibility i.e. free will and the science that is totally dependant on real free will existing! - your tacit agreement above that free will does not exist means your world view does not allow this. Cheers, Rich.

Comment 26 by richard on 2014-01-26 at 09:59:53:

Whoops - edit correction in last paragraph: "My world view is the one that allows for that possibility"... Sorry.

Comment 27 by OJB on 2014-01-26 at 10:42:13:

OK, you think the concepts are well defined. Read the definition of morality at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Clearly there are different types of morality and substantial disagreement.

I made it very clear why actions against the society cause evolutionary change in that society and that is a process beyond evolution of individuals. You seem to have conveniently ignored this and yet again tried to divert the debate into irrelevance.

Well you have one interpretation of what the Bible says about slavery. All I will say is that is contrary to many other people's interpretation. The slave owners in America thought the Bible gave them that right. Yet again the Bible can mean anything because it's just a primitive book of myths.

We see past and present behaviours as right and wrong because our society evolves according to the conditions in which we live. There is no greater source of morality.

I don't have a worldview in the same way as you do. Atheism is the specific rejection of any religious worldview. It's like not belonging to a political party. It gives you freedom to look at the facts without the constant reference to superstition. I would argue that makes atheists fundamentally different from believers.

You think your worldview "informs" your opinion. Let's look at it in a different area: politics. Does a member of the communist party's worldview "inform" his opinions? Does a member of a libertarian think tank's worldview "inform" his opinions? Maybe, but a better word might be "distort" or "limit".

You are trapped in a fake, superstitious mindset which prevents you making choices based on all the facts. Strangely enough, you could say religion has robbed you of free will (whatever that is and assuming it existed to start with! :)

Comment 28 by richard on 2014-01-26 at 20:22:06:

Clearly what was a more reasoned discussion on these topics has disintegrated into repeated assertions and special pleading on your part. Show me again where I ignored your claims on the actions against society and yet again tried to divert? I think readers would agree that I tackled them exactly head on, with reasonable 'questions' and examples looking for answers, and if not, your simply repeating the same old mantras doesn't help advance anyones understanding. It also doesn't make your claims false of course, but (of itself) it doesn't do anything more to convince anyone of their truth. In fact it looks more and more like the tactic of desperation, rather than confidence.

The topic of discussion wasn't the Bible (until you brought it up, so who is really using diversion)? What relevance did the Bible have to the topic of a physical basis for objective morality (your claim not mine), other than demonstrate your obvious personal desire to attack it at any possible moment, even when not relevant.

Hang on - didn't we agree clearly in an earlier thread that atheism wasn't a religion, but it WAS a world view (simply an assessment of the 'world in view') - Now you don't wanna own up to that either? What's going on here?

I suspect you constantly fail to grasp the possibility that ones world view (theism or atheism) is actually the RESULT of the prior 'assessment of the evidence provided by the world in view', NOT the cause of that assessment. The point you miss (or deliberately choose to ignore) is I could just as easily try to claim that your world view forces you to reject any answer which invokes the supernatural. This is flawed (only in the specific circumstances considering the question of whether supernatural solutions exist and may be the answer). It is not flawed in most other circumstances however, where there is no evidence to suspect routine supernatural involvement is likely. Fine.

However, to begin by rejecting a non-physical solution when the very question is 'Could a non-physical answer exist after all, and provide a better explanation for observed reality' - is to apply rules of elimination that are not the result of the evidence being examined wrt to the question, something to which atheists are clearly no more immune to that theists.

It's like saying we want to determine who killed JFK, but remember the killer must be black, so go and find out which black man did it? This is of course nonsense - you must rather be free to let all the evidence for the killer lead wherever it will - The killer could have been Black or White.

So then - contrary to your claim, it is ONLY your world view that enforces you reject some feasible answers to lifes toughest questions. Such a basic level of denial of the obvious in this regard is beneath someone of your obvious intelligence.

In short - I'd love to make a 'better' choice for the explanation of morality or free will based on all your 'facts' Owen, if you would be so kind as to provide anything substantial to work with, in response to my genuine questions on these topics. And with that I will once again leave it there - as all evidence in this thread to date does nothing to suggest anything more useful is forthcoming, and this thread is ridiculously long as it is. Cheers - it's been fun.

Comment 29 by OJB on 2014-01-26 at 21:36:05:

Special pleading? Really? On the contrary, since I don't have any preferred position (unlike you) I specifically reject it. Maybe in your mind you think you tackled my points head on but I think in reality you did anything but.

I only mentioned the Bible as a minor point so there was no need to make it a big deal. It is the basis of Christian morality (and presumably yours) so I guess it is relevant in some ways.

I actually don't think atheism is a worldview in the same way as a religion is. Maybe I did in the past but in this context I don't think it is and I have written in several blog posts how not accepting a religious worldview can't really be seen as a worldview (just like not joining a political party can't really be seen as being political).

Yes, I know you keep telling me that your religious views are the result of careful analysis of the facts, but you know it just doesn't work. There is no way anyone can look at the facts fairly and arrive at the conclusion that there is a god and there certainly isn't any way you can conclude that Christianity is true. And it's not just me who thinks this: if the facts showed the need for some sort of supernatural entity then science would be pointing that way, but as we progress the need for a god just gets less.

I don't reject a non-physical (whatever that is) solution. I don't reject anything as long as it can be examined using the methods of science. If science indicates a god exists I would be absolutely fascinated and would want to know more about it.

Can I say this one more time: atheists do not reject the possibility of a god, the supernatural, or anything else. We just currently think the evidence for one is insufficient, that's all.

I gave you references (did you provide any at all?) to summaries of social evolution, and to morality in a real source for philosophy. What is wrong with those? They both lead to further reading if you need it. There is absolutely no reason to invoke the supernatural to explain morality or free will. I agree a god is one possible explanation, just like it is an explanation for anything, but it is completely unnecessary, so Occam's Razor applies.

I know you said 28 was your last comment but if you do feel like doing another one can I ask you to throw away all the distractions and explain again, in simple terms, why god allows evil to happen. Specifically, what does a non-Christian child who suffers from cancer, then dies, get from your god? And what about intelligent animals, like dolphins: do they have a soul? If they suffer in this life do they get a reward in the next?

Comment 30 by nogod on 2014-01-26 at 23:38:43:

Haven't read all the comments - you both write way too much - especially richard. Do want to say that owen is right that religion is like politics and if you don't belong to a party you are probably not so biased. Also if you belong to a party (church) you are trapped there and arguments of other parties probably don't mean much.

Comment 31 by richard on 2014-01-27 at 10:17:02:

OK - but ONLY since you requested Owen - because this is a doctrinal question - and thus easily locatable if you care to search.

Firstly tho - Yay - another participant - Thx nogod!

You'll enjoy this one Owen - but 'Nogod is probably right' ;-) (In that we tend to write too much)!! I will keep this short. On the other hand - these are not topics that are easily dealt without a lot of discussion and clarification.

Firstly to put world-views to bed - I just want us to be clear and fair to each other - I claim it is nothing but a different interpretation of the available evidence that LEADS to our different world views, it is not our world views that leads to a different interpretation of the evidence. For you to say "you don't have any preferred position" is clearly nonsense and not borne out by the obvious facts in this thread alone. I have no 'preferred' position either - any more than you do! I don't reject the notion that God does NOT exist at all OK - I just think the evidence FOR that notion is insufficient, that's all. Why is that difficult to understand, especially when it's EXACTLY the same stance you are making? Even if you disagree (without foundation) - lets just agree not drag it up every time we disagree on a thread topic, because what you should know better, is that it doesn't actually have any relevance to deducing the truth - of the specific topic under discussion. OK?

So - to answer your specific question - It is my understanding of standard christian doctrine that a) the 'source' of a ANY child getting cancer is not the result of Gods will but one of a number of other possible factors, some of which I mentioned earlier. What ANY child 'gets' (whether what you call 'Christian' or not) is a quicker transition to heaven, (after what is actually by straight-forward and irrefutable comparison of a few short years to eternity), what the bible terms a 'momentary affliction'. This of course does not diminish the tragedy or the suffering for the child at all - it's just the plain (harsh but true wrt to the doctrine) analysis of the facts. That's the shortest answer I can give (for nogod), but I highly suspect this will invoke further questions and doubts, that I would have normally tried to answer for you... Cheers.

Comment 32 by richard on 2014-01-27 at 10:42:34:

Oh - and nogod - I respect your right to state your opinion, but I think it's fairly obvious that religion and politics address fundamentally different questions of the world. Perhaps one could say that we are not so biased (either way), if we don't belong to one 'party' or another (whether that's politics or world-view - left/right or theist/atheist) or perhaps another way of saying that is that those people you admire 'without bias' have simply not yet bothered to make the effort to do enough research to commit to what they feel is the 'option' that makes most sense to them. The difference between religion and politics is this: By simple logic - the options wrt theism/atheism are contradictory - both simply cannot be true - it is impossible to sit on the fence. In politics - both parties could be wrong in your opinion. Simple. Would we find sitting on the fence like that admirable in the scientific realm - would we admonish anyone daring to admit they think one way seems to fit better as biased - they are in the same way - and of course it's just fine. What do you think nogod?

Comment 33 by OJB on 2014-01-27 at 12:55:12:

Yes, I know you *claim* that the evidence leads to the worldview rather than the other way around. You're hardly likely to admit that your crazy worldview leads to you believing crazy things (like rejecting a lot of evolution theory) are you! :)

I still don't think our positions are equivalent. My worldview is consistent with scientific understanding: I fully accept evolution, I reject the need for a god, I accept naturalistic explanations of human behaviour as being sufficient. That's the difference: my position is consistent with that of science and skepticism, yours is consistent with an old religion. My worldview has no preference on whether god can exist or not, just on accepting what the evidence shows.

It is your understanding from standard Christian doctrine... Really? You're starting off with that? Can you not see that this makes you look like mindless slave of a corrupt regime? It's like me starting off explaining a political issue with: well it's standard communist ideology that...

So god isn't responsible for a child getting cancer? Really? I thought he created everything? What sort of incompetent god is this? And you're saying that compared with an eternity in heaven that the suffering of child during their "real life" is trivial? And that everyone goes to heaven? Which standard Christian doctrine is this? What about the intelligent animal question I asked earlier? Do animals go to heaven too?

Comment 34 by richard on 2014-01-27 at 19:29:55:

Ha - that's really hilarious. See the problem with short replies nogod. They need a discussion partner who is prepared to be reasonable and polite. Sadly lacking in this case. No, Owen most of your responses to my short reply are completely inaccurate, and quite frankly dishonest distortions of what I was attempting to communicate in response to your request. I did not say their suffering was trivial, I said the opposite. I did not say everyone goes to heaven. Funny you made some meaningless quip about me pointing out that what I was going to offer is in line with std christian doctrine suggests 'mindless slave' when of course I simply was reminding you that this isn't JUST my own musing, but has support elsewhere - something you do all the time. Also funny that you then claim I am being a slave, but are so quick to object when you think I am saying something that isn't standard christian doctrine.

I am not going to waste time clarifying your (I suspect deliberate) misrepresentations, and diversionary quips until you bother to spend time providing sensible answers to my earlier questions, about free will and morality that aren't 'It is standard atheist doctrine that...'. As nogod points out, we simply haven't got the space here to explain all this - especially not to someone who obviously doesn't really want to politely consider the topic, when they don't agree.

Comment 35 by OJB on 2014-01-27 at 21:07:44:

In comment 10 you said the suffering of a child with cancer is "insignificant" compared with the eternity of good your god could offer. In my dictionary "trivial" has an almost identical definition to "insignificant", so I don't think I'm presenting the opposite view at all.

The term "standard Christian doctrine" to me doesn't inspire confidence! Doctrine: "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group." Doesn't sound like an inspiring source of truth to me! Note that doctrines are shared by religions and political parties, for example.

I honestly aren't deliberately misrepresenting anything. I think you are deliberately answering my questions (or those you even chose to try to answer) in vague terms because if you were honest and straightforward it would be clear there is no good answer to this problem.

We agree innocent people suffer in this life. You seem to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong) this is justifiable because there are greater rewards in "eternity". If this eternity isn't "heaven" then what is it? And does everyone get this reward? And (for the third time) what about intelligent animals? If anyone misses out on this eternal reward is it still OK for God to allow them to suffer in this life? Honest questions... really!

Comment 36 by richard on 2014-01-28 at 17:53:06:

Firstly, I thank you for toning down your question and objection style. We both agree that this topic is very difficult to navigate. I have already acknowledged it doesn't entirely satisfy me either. It just doesn't change (for me obviously) the overwhelming balance of evidence for God, vs evidence against it.

Happy to accept your claim that misrepresentation isn't deliberate on your part - and apologise for that liable. :) Likewise I am not trying to be vague in my answers, but concise - not easy and clearly pitfalls (as I said all along).

I accept that the terms trivial and insignificant are synonyms, and understand your point. I suggest the possibility that the key element causing a 'distinction' is the following phrase 'when compared to...' and tried to acknowledge that in C31 when I said, this does not diminish the tragedy at all. Under a system that does not allow AT ALL for this distinction between 'trivial', and 'trivial compared to some much worse thing', then no justification for 'allowing' suffering like emergency amputations (hardly trivial, but far better that death for example) is possible. So we clearly make that distinction all the time - assessing the two levels of suffering and choosing the (relatively) better one. So all we are both attempting to do here, is assess the 'difference' between <10 years, and 'eternity'. How would you describe that difference? I don't mind of you have a better method, as long as it's accurate.

Std Doctrine - Not surprised in the least it doesn't inspire you as a source of truth. Of course, at that point I wasn't concentrating on defending the truth of these doctrines either. I was merely providing what they were - that's all you asked for. Suggesting why they might be true is a different longer discussion not easy with nogods request for short comments in mind, (which I do accept is preferable).

Happy to accept that there are some things shared by religions and political parties. So...??? Some properties are shared between almost anything. This does nothing to address the significance of the things I pointed out that are both DIFFERENT between them, and ARE relevant to the topic at the time - which was motivation for 'door knocking'.

Remember I said at the start that you wouldn't be happy with the answer. Are you really wanting me to present the Christian 'gospel' in your blog?! As suggested before, I am happy to do this if broken down into single bite sized pieces rather than a bombardment. Again this one is rather too long already huh? :)

I haven't addressed 'intelligent animals' because there is no evidence that they are at all relevant, in the question of moral culpability. What's your definition of intelligent animals that you think might be included - as clearly you have in mind some unintelligent animals you think are not? To bring it right back to the deal ole grannies, they aren't knocking on stable doors because they firstly wish to care for souls they know are involved in these moral questions, like yours, - as I do.

Comment 37 by OJb on 2014-01-28 at 21:32:25:

I think it is only difficult to navigate this subject to the extent that the terms being used need to be carefully defined. Apart for that the whole thing is very easy: the problem of evil is simply explained by the observation that there is no god! Can't get much simpler than that!

OK, I will also accept that you are making a genuine effort. Obviously your attempts at clarity are impeded by the fact that you start from a false premise: that god exists! :)

So you are saying that suffering is OK as long as things are better in the eternity of the "next life". And you are further saying that there is probably a good reason for the suffering existing but we just don't know what it is. Is that your basic argument?

Do we agree that doctrines are of little relevance when assessing the truth? I think it was just unwise of you to introduce them at all because it sort of made you look like a bit of a sheep. Wait a minute, isn't that considered a good thing in Christianity? :)

You can present the gospel as long as you back it up with evidence or point out the logic or the truth or value of it in other ways. But if you are merely presenting it as an interesting poetic piece of fiction then say so.

Some animals seem to have a personalities, self awareness, and can suffer. Yet many religious people say they have no soul. If that's the case they suffer in this life but have no "reward" in the next. Also I presume they can't be held responsible as part of original sin. Why does god let them suffer?

Comment 38 by richard on 2014-01-29 at 23:46:23:

Ha - some nice quips in there - and I am still capable of enjoying them. :) I would hope you remember from past discussions that I never want to be accused of trolling this blog and offending anyone by using it simply to promote Christianity.

I have always restricted my discussions to responses/defences of (obviously what I see as) either gross mis-representations of it, or mis-steps in 'argument logic' offered when you make quite specific assertions against it in your posts. This difference is important, and my responses are 'allowed' in that context I think.

In fact, A careful reading of my discussions shows that the 'absolute truth' of the theist ideas presented by me in these topics isn't the primary focus, as much as the defense of the internal consistency of the logic. In other words, people can and will make up their own mind about the 'truth', so any assertion on our part is pretty meaningless. What they need is the ideas of BOTH sides to be reported accurately and honestly.

It should also be an obvious 'given', that deliberately presenting ideas as possible truth while 'knowing and admitting' they are poetic pieces of fiction, would be both ridiculous and dishonest - so that statement while sounding kinda clever, really isn't (clever, or necessary).

So to end - this blog shouldn't be about what I believe - it should be about what YOU believe, and on this topic this is already quite obvious. Besides this thread is way too long now isn't it. Cheers.

Comment 39 by OJB on 2014-01-30 at 14:01:51:

Well as long as you are still enjoying this (at comment 38) that's good, I guess! You can promote Christianity as much as you want here, as long as you provide evidence of your claims.

You haven't answered any of my questions about the problem of evil at all. You seem to be particularly enthusiastic about avoiding the animal question. I put that one in because it is rarely part of the standard propaganda believers are taught. Maybe it's something you actually have to think about?

I think there are only three possible conclusions: either god exists but doesn't have the power to make the world better, or he exists and he is evil and deliberately allows bad things to happen, or he doesn't exist. When you think about it the kindest interpretation is the last one!

Comment 40 by Jim on 2014-02-08 at 08:34:29:

Good to see that OJB has finally solved the problem of evil after all these years when the best minds in the world couldn't do it /sarcasm.

Comment 41 by OJB on 2014-02-08 at 17:20:20:

What's with the end sarcasm tag again? Is that your latest gimmick? :) Anyway, that was a nice piece of sarcasm in fact because superficially it does seem rather presumptuous of me to think that I have solved one of the great dilemmas in theology all by myself!

But the thing is that the title "problem of evil" is a bit misleading. It's only believers who insist there is a god who have a problem. For the rest of us the whole issue is perfectly straightforward: the natural universe is a tough place and sometimes bad things happen. It really is as smile as that!

Comment 42 by OJB on 2014-02-14 at 13:17:00:

Looks like Richard has given up.

The thing is anyone can manufacture an answer to any problem with any theological system they want, but you need to look at not whether the answer is possible or not (just about anything is possible) but whether it is probable. None of the excuses (that's all they are) attempting to justify the problem of evil are likely.

I have seen similar excuses for the inconsistencies in Christianity, Islam, belief in UFOs, ESP, and many other superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs. They can't all be right... but that can all be wrong!

You can leave comments about this using this form.

Enter your name (optional):


Enter your email address (optional):


Enter the number shown here:


Enter the comment:

Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add.
You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies.
Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).