Entry 1877, on 2017-09-18 at 21:46:18 (Rating 4, Religion)
I recently spent some time with a colleague discussing how to deal with a fundamentalist Christian's irrational ideas that he had recently become aware of. I have to say that this fundy keeps his crazy ideas pretty much to himself and is otherwise a perfectly pleasant and reasonable person, so there was no real need to try to "convert" him, but sometimes the need to try arises - such as in a debate situation - so I thought I might describe my technique here.
I have had varying degrees of success with this in the past, from complete rejection (because some people are never going to change their views) to moderate success (for example, a person admitting to changing his opinions, or one who was on the road to enlightenment: that is, believing the same thing as me, and I am fully aware of how arrogant that sounds).
But where I have had some successes it has never been using just one technique. In addition, it is never easy to tell which method of persuasion is likely to be effective for a particular individual, so I have created a three step process which formalises by debating technique...
Step 1. Use facts.
My first instinct when debating controversial issues is to use facts. In general the issues I support can be easily supported with good evidence. But most people who believe in irrational ideas didn't get to that point by following the facts, because there never are many supporting them. So it often follows that they can't be moved by using facts either.
In addition there are always facts on both sides. Sometimes the "facts" on one side are barely facts at all (hence the quotes) but many people will believe an extremely doubtful or weak fact if it supports what they want to believe, even if there are a hundred which are much more certain against them.
Step 2. Use logic.
When step 1 fails it is often useful to try a process of logic. A complex idea can be broken down into a series of steps which logically follow and are difficult to deny. There doesn't necessarily have to be any facts involved in this because logic usually transcends facts.
Step 3. Use morality.
If both facts and logic fail a good backup strategy, depending on the actual subject under discussion, is to use a moral or ethical argument. While morals vary from one person to another to some extent, there are common concepts shared by most people, including fairness, non-violence, and freedom.
So now I should give an example. Obviously I'm not going into details because half my readers won't have even got this far and are unlikely to want to read 20 pages on the subject, but I will use a very condensed version of how I would handle the issue. So here's an imaginary debate between me and a fundamentalist Christian...
Fundy: The Bible says that God created humans, so evolution cannot be true, and following events described there it makes it obvious the world is only 6000 years old. The Bible also says that it is the inerrant word of God and that the devil is always trying to find ways to deceive us with false truths. Without the Bible to guide us we will have no moral compass and there will be increased violence and evil around the world.
Me: You say that evolution cannot be true yet almost every expert in the world has concluded it is. Also there are many lines of evidence which anyone can understand which show evolution is an accurate theory to describe the variety of life on Earth. The age of the world cannot possibly be that short and I can show you evidence from geology, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and many other areas of science to show it is almost 14 billion years. The time light has spent travelling from distance galaxies shows this, for example. Let's get these fact-based claims out of the way before we move on to the other stuff.
Fundy: But the Bible has been shown to be accurate, so how can it be wrong? Also there are many scientists who don't believe in evolution or an old Earth. Here is a list of URLs for you to look at. Not following the Bible leads to you rejecting God's offer of salvation and you just don't want to admit his authority.
Me: The Bible is full of errors if you are prepared to accept scientific and historical evidence. For example, there is no evidence at all of major stories like Genesis, the Flood, Exodus, etc. These so-called scientists you cite are not publishing in scientific journals so I would say they are not practicing scientists. In fact most of them work at Answers in Genesis. If they are only looking in one place they will never be able to look at all the evidence. Let's keep to facts and forget about God's salvation for now.
Fundy: You have your facts and I have mine. Many serious researchers are religious and you cannot reject their research so easily. Also science changes all the time. Who can tell when a new theory might come along and contradict the Big Bang or evolution? You say yourself that science can never prove anything with 100% certainty, so why are you so sure that science is right and religion is wrong?
Me: Instead of just offering an opinion on who is doing science and who isn't, we should look at a standard which is widely accepted. People who are engaged in science publish in reputable journals. Anyone who isn't doing that isn't really doing science. They might still be right, but based on past experience the scientific consensus is far more reliable than anything else. And you are right, we can never be 100% certain of anything, but it is still reasonable to accept a theory which is 99% likely to be at least a good approximation to the truth (like evolution), instead of one we can be 99% certain is wrong (like creation).
Fundy: You may say that but because you have no moral basis for your views they are really arbitrary. Without God to guide you and tell right from wrong, how can your views be taken seriously?
Me: Well this gets back to an old question in philosophy regarding the goodness of god. But first, let me say that using a god who probably doesn't even exist as the basis of your morality seems worse than admitting that we really don't even have a basis. And even if we pretend that your god does exist, how do we know he is good? Is it because he says so? And if your god is good, is he good because he's god, or is he god because he's good? In other words if we know he's good then there must be some external criterion to judge that against, in which case why do we need a god anyway? And if whatever he does is good because he's god then that seems a dangerous view to take because any dictator could make that claim.
Fundy: Wait, what? We know God is good because that's one of the reasons we know he's the one true God. Can you not see the logic in this?
Me: All I can see is a circular argument: God is good because he's God. How do we know he's God? Because he's good. How do we know he's good? Because he's God.
Fundy: You know, that is a ridiculous simplification of a position that theologians have been debating for centuries. Do you really believe you have the answer to such a deep and meaningful problem?
Me: Well, yes. I think it really is that simple. The only reason it becomes complex is because many people want to reach a conclusion that supports the existence of a god. If they just followed the evidence they would see that it's really quite simple: that there is no good reason to believe a god exists.
Fundy: The Bible talks about people like you who use false logic to try to lead believers away from the truth. You do realise that you are risking eternal damnation for your excessive pride and inability to accept the authority of God, don't you?
Me: I know that according to the narrative of the New Testament your god prefers to inflict people who refuse to accept his dominance with eternal torture. This is the same god who is advertised as being the "God of love" and who has a prophet (Jesus) who preaches understanding and acceptance. This seems somewhat contradictory to me.
Fundy: God gives you the choice of believing in him or not. If you don't accept his offer you deserve all you get. He sacrificed his son so that you could have this hope of salvation, yet you refuse to take it.
Me: It's not a choice I make. I simply cannot believe your god exists. Should I pretend to believe when I really don't? Would God not know that I'm not being honest with him? And if your god wants me to believe in him why doesn't he make his presence more obvious? Why do I have to rely on faith which I cannot force myself to do that?
Fundy: His presence is obvious to most of us. Why do you think that most people in the world are Christians?
Me: Actually, they're not. Only a third of the population identify as Christians and even then that is purely a matter of their societal norms. You are a Christian because that is the history of the country you were born in. If you were born in India you would almost certainly be a Hindu. If you were born in Iraq you would be a Muslim. It seems that the god you follow depends on your culture, not on which (if any) god really exists.
Fundy: Well you seem to have convinced yourself that these false beliefs are true. I have tried to show you the truth but your pride prevents you from accepting it. Don't complain when you end up in Hell.
Me: Am I a bad person? Have I been guilty of any terrible crimes? I donate to charities, I am a productive member of my society, I don't harm any other people. Why do I deserve eternal damnation from this "loving God" of yours?
Fundy: God is just, and he is only doing what you deserve. It is not for me or you to judge whether he is right or wrong - he is God and can do whatever he likes.
Me: So a person who spends his whole life torturing, killing, etc and then accepts Jesus as his saviour shortly before dying goes to heaven, but a person who spends his life doing good, but cannot accept the teaching of your religion because there is no evidence, suffers forever. If that is how your god works then, even if he did exist, I would not accept him.
Fundy: And there's the proof that you are evil.
Me: OK, let's leave it there. Thanks for the discussion.
As you can see, in the fictitious example above (but one based on real experience) the fundy isn't converted on the spot, but I would hope that amongst the points I made: that the evidence is against him, that logic is against him, and that an understanding of basic fairness and morality is against him; there might be something to make him a little bit less certain than he was.
Or, maybe, he might exhibit the backfire effect and just "double-down" on his beliefs because they are shown to be probably untrue. But the three pronged attack makes that less likely because I have found that the final argument (the unfairness of God's punishment) often gets through to people when the more rational points don't.
Whatever the end effect is, debating this way is fun, and any progress - no matter how small - is OK with me.
Comment 1 (4770) by Misfit Vinegaroon on 2017-09-19 at 10:11:45:
That was infuriating to read (The conversation I mean!)! Really great read otherwise. This is why I don’t actively search out debates with Christians. You can show them evidence and facts until you are blue in the face but they will just retort with ‘your pride is getting in the way of your understanding.’ Give me a break.
Comment 2 (4771) by OJB on 2017-09-19 at 10:16:13:
I think the more emotional, less fact-based, argument regarding fairness and how god persecutes those who cannot believe in him is often more effective. That was my point in using three different approaches in the debate. Also, I don't expect an admission like "you are right, my religion is BS!" at the end of the discussion. I just hope to instill a small amount of doubt which might help in future.
Comment 3 (4772) by richard on 2017-09-19 at 14:28:48:
I kind of agree with 'Misfit'. I found the conversation 'frustrating', but not for the same reason. If you really have complete conversations like this with someone you call a 'Fundy' then that would indeed be really annoying. As someone you'd probably put in that 'Fundy' category, I too would hope you never have to endure a conversation as you have fictitously represented above from me. I note however, you did have the foresight to call this conversation 'imaginary' - yet you seem to be happy to use it for your comedic purpose as though it were not.
It should however be imaginary because (& I trust you'll allow me to gently point out) that it seriously mis-represents my views at least, and the view of most other thoughtful Christians in so many ways. Yes - of course it's true that there are plenty of unthoughtful Christians, just as there are many unthoughtful athiests who don't do your view any justice at all either in conversation.
Of course, I have no problem at all with you critiquing what I think should be more kindly be called the 'Classical' Christian worldview, but you then have an obligation to represent the view with intellectual honesty.
There are way too many examples of this mis-representation in your made up conversation to point out here (after all no one likes overly long posts) so here's just one. I chose this one because I know from your previous posts that you already know the Theist view in this regard, and yet you still chose to mis-represent it here.
You had 'Fundy' saying 'Who can tell when a new theory might come along and contradict the Big Bang...'. You know the standard Cosmological argument well Owen, and that it means that the Christian world view has no issue with the Big Bang at all, precisely because it supports it! The BB proves that the Universe had a beginning after all, and therefore 'some cause' adequate to explain the Universe is therefore required. Whether that is actually 'God' or whether it is some other 'natural' cause is not even the issue (that is dealt with in the follow on arguments) - the issue here is whether you fairly represented the Classical view of Christianity, which of course agrees happily with BB cosmology, in terms of the 'creation' of the Universe really did happen.
I'd just want to say 'at least play fair' with your critiques - but of course as you also mentioned above you 'admittedly don't really have a basis' for expecting any fair play anyway. Cheers, Rich.
Comment 4 (4773) by OJB on 2017-09-19 at 23:05:55:
I actually tried to present some of the more rational points made by fundies. If I had gone out of my way to make them look bad it would have been much worse! I wouldn't put you in the fundy category. You don't really believe the world is 6000 years old, that the global flood happened, etc... do you? This was not supposed to be humour, although I admit some religious serious discussions seem like they are!
I clearly said it was a discussion with a fundy. They don't tend to have sophisticated views. Yours are far more nuanced, although also very confused, of course. The person I mentioned at the beginning of this post was not you, by the way.
I am very happy to critique your view... when I figure out what it is! :)
You say the "Christian worldview" (whatever that is) has no problem with the Big Bang yet every fundy I have debated with rejects it. Do some Googling - rejecting the Big Bang is very common. I find this very superficial relationship between the Big Bang and creation rather contrived, to be honest.
I think I represented the fundy worldview quite accurately. In fact it was almost a "steel man" version of it. I have heard that exact view stated many times by fundamentalists. Maybe you don't really count as one using my definition.
Comment 5 (4774) by richard on 2017-09-20 at 07:25:49:
I think there's a compliment in there - thanks. he he. Yes - I do not hold 'religiously' o a 6000 year old Universe, as do large numbers of the Christians. It isn't enforced by the Genesis account at all, which after all is not supposed to be a scientific account it's a descriptive account making a single theological point - the Universe had a beginning - caused by God.
For many years science thought it was eternal, and has only recently caught up - and that science is commonly referred to as the Big Bang. Interestingly, that term was first used as a term of ridicule by Fred Hoyle ( I think from memory)? He thought the idea was rubbish, but eventually with the discovery of background radiation had to admit that it was true, and he as brilliant as he was, made the point that the Big bang actually more closely resembled the Biblical account of creation.
So can I ask - in what way is the relationship of the Big Bang to the idea that the creation of the Universe had a cause 'very superficial and rather contrived'? i.e. IF God did 'cause' it, how do you think it would appear to us now - if not like the BB?
Comment 6 (4775) by OJB on 2017-09-20 at 10:41:48:
If you don't believe in the 6000 year age of the Earth and you do treat many Bible stories as metaphors then I wouldn't class you as a fundy. You're still nutty of course (no offence) but not in the same league as the true fundy! :)
If you think that the fact that Genesis gives a starting point for the universe and agrees with the most common interpretation of the Big Bang gives it any sort of credibility then you would also need to give the same level of respect to many other myths: Norse, etc. You would have thought God would have given a few more details if he did it. That's what I mean by superficial.
If God caused the universe it could appear any way at all. If we found it started with a "Big Freeze" that would fit. Or a "Little Pop" or anything. Religion makes no real predictions which can be tested. All you are doing is retrofitting data when you can and claiming metaphor when it suits. I'm sorry, but that is either delusional or dishonest (sorry about this, I didn't intend this to get so confrontational).
Comment 7 (4776) by OJB on 2017-09-20 at 10:47:05:
Sorry to go on about this, but sheesh, this is really bad. I mean using your trick (which is what it is) I could look at any old book or myth or any fiction, look for similarities with scientific fact, ignore the many places which are untrue by claiming they are metaphorical and say: there I proved the Christian god exists, or Thor, or Sauron, or Shiva, or anything.
Comment 8 (4777) by richard on 2017-09-20 at 12:20:50:
As always - No offence taken, and I don't see this as confrontational at all. Funny though that in a post including the word Logic, that you are making multiple logic errors in your attempt to discredit my queston re the BB. Saying 'it could appear any way at all' maybe true, but so what? Logically it MUST only appear one way - the way it actually occurred. So...what's your point again?
These relatively recent scientific enlightments re the preciser details around the 'creation event' don't change anything that requires some Christian / (or Theist) retrofit as you suggest? I am doing no such thing! This stuff about 'If WE found it started - insert some other way here...' changes nothing - it only might IF 'We found' it in fact never started at all. BUT sorry - that's not the prevailing scientific view - not our fault!
Nor btw does it remove the necessity of any world view including your own to explain it. Current materialistic attempts are (paraphrased quote) 'sheesh - really bad'.
RE Norse etc and Comment 7 - IF the Norse worldview has a creation account that at least fits well with current BB cosmology then yes - it does deserve 'initial' respect (but only specifically wrt that idea alone). As you well know however, that clearly doesn't make it an adequate or potential world view. The most rational world view is the one that can best account for ALL the myriad aspects of the reality we observe, both material and immaterial. It's that cumulative analysis / case that help us (respectfully) reject Norse or Thor or Sauron as serious potential answers to the big questions - funnily enough including 'Facts, Logic, and Morality' among many others.
So invoking them (wrt this BB question alone) is another logical flaw - I never ever claimed 'this proves Christianity' as you imply I am trying to do at all. Just that this particular Christian world view puzzle piece does fit ok with our current scientific understanding, even though you chose to suggest otherwise in your post. Isn't that just a (quote) 'delusional / dishonest' mis-representation of the facts? Cheers. :)
Comment 9 (4778) by OJB on 2017-09-20 at 15:19:23:
My point was that the details of the BB could have been anything and still fitted the Bible narrative because the *only* prediction the Bible makes which seems to be true (even that is uncertain) is that there was a starting point for the universe. On that basis the Bible could have been used to support almost anything.
And you cannot pick the tiny pieces of the Bible which fit the current science and conveniently ignore the bits that are wrong because you claim they are metaphorical. Imagine we had a theory which showed the universe always existed. What would you say then? Probably that the beginning of the universe described in Genesis is metaphorical. There's just no credibility there.
You claim Christian mythology explains the real world better than other myths, but does it? The beginning of the universe comes from Genesis, yet the vast majority of that book is clearly untrue. So on that basis we would reject the Christian view as being unreliable. If that's the case what are you debating about?
Comment 10 (4779) by OJB on 2017-09-20 at 15:20:53:
But you clearly cannot be persuaded with facts or logic so why don't we get back to the technique described in the post and try discussion point 3. Do you believe the New Testament where it says you need to accept Jesus as your saviour or suffer eternal damnation?
Comment 11 (4780) by richard on 2017-09-21 at 14:51:37:
And I stated that because the only point of the 'creation account' in Genesis is that the Universe had a beginning and God did it, it simply can't be faulted when the facts do fit that, as much as you'd like to make up scenario's to do it.
You can 'imagine' any scenario you like to defend your claim if you want, but I already stated that an eternal universe would indeed be an issue for the biblical account. Better imo to deal with facts though not imagination, and the fact is - there is no issue there. Just admit you were wrong on that point and let's move on.
Actually it isn't true at all to assert the vast majority of the book is untrue, which of course is why the debate still goes on. Oh and by the way it is of course also unnecessary, tiresome and rather unkind to insist on inserting the word 'mythology' after every occurrence of the word Christianity, when the question of whether it is mythological or not is the very topic of our debate. It's simply not using sound logic to beg the question like that, and 'pounding the podium' in this way is a rather weak debating tactic - no offence.
So why exactly can I not be persuaded by facts and logic?
Comment 12 (4781) by richard on 2017-09-21 at 15:16:53:
To answer Comment 10: You have stated one of the teachings of the NT in a very short, somewhat crude way, which doesn't do it any 'justice' at all but in short my answer is Yes - I do believe that. BTW - Why is that a surprise when that is one of the defining characteristics of a 'christian'?! Clearly you have a plan... :)
I believe discussion point 3 was supposed to be 'Morality'. I suspect your issue as described in the above post is more about 'Justice' (or in your case Injustice - by God) - which of course is a derivative of morality. If the first wasn't a universally recognised feature of the world, there would be no need for Justice would there.
So - Ignoring the incredibly obvious question about how you feel you could justifiably claim the moral high ground IF God exists (or in fact account for the existence of morals and Justice at all as an athiest - a topic we have discussed before), I'll rather ask a simpler question:
Do you believe that Justice (in principle) is a moral thing, or do you prefer to believe that guilty people (the guy that robs your house for example) should keep your stuff and go free?
Comment 13 (4782) by OJB on 2017-09-21 at 15:26:17:
In answer to your comment 11...
Right, I've lost your point here, but here's the facts: the Christian creation myth makes many claims including that there was a beginning, what that beginning was like, the order of creation, its timing, and many others. There is one small point it gets right which would have been very easy to get right purely by luck. This is not a strong case to take religion seriously. Do you disagree with any of this?
Here's the definition of "myth" I was using: "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events" (Oxford Dictionary). Is there any of this you have a problem with?
Comment 14 (4783) by OJB on 2017-09-21 at 15:28:53:
In answer to your comment 12...
So a defining belief of Christians (including yourself) is that "unbelievers" (including me) will go to everlasting torment in Hell. Let's get this out of the way first. I want to check that I have your position on this right.
Comment 15 (4784) by Miriam on 2017-09-22 at 20:10:45:
[Can you make that captcha image bigger for people with older eyes?]
My Christian uncle used to enjoy the Latter Day Saints visiting.
How many are allowed into Heaven?
150,000.
How many members have you got?
More than 150,000.
Well, it would not be very Christian of me to join then, as I might push you out of Heaven.
Comment 16 (4785) by richard on 2017-09-23 at 16:13:19:
Comment 13: Because I too think facts and logic are vitally important - I have no problem with your assessment, in that this fact alone does not make a serious case for 'religion'. Of course not - since there are many religions and not all use Genesis. I assume by 'religion', you meant just those religions that hold to the Genesis account (as a basic theological account, it has no obligation to be anything more of course). I have no problem with that at all - quite agree. This of course wasn't ever the point of my post about it, was it.
Wrt Myth: Well of course, given that particular definition chosen by the Oxford dictionary, I am happy to accept that I cannot argue with your choosing to use it. However, I believe the point still remains, (as I think we all know) that the term carries a commonly
understood meaning suggesting that a myth is a 'story' that has since been proven to be untrue. Because this clearly is not the case in the case of Christianity or Theism, then it is very good that you have educated all readers to the precise meaning. We can thus be assured that according to the Oxford Dictionary definition, it actually confers no judgement at all regarding the truth of a story, only the 'typical' content. This then means that all origin stories (including whatever yours is) are thus appropriately termed 'myths'. Thanks for the clarification. Given that undeniable truth, I again ask - so what's your point (motivation) in bothering to use it again, and again?
Comment 17 (4786) by richard on 2017-09-23 at 16:22:46:
Comment 14: Obviously there is more to it than that - (and it is not something that I am remotely happy about at all either - just to be clear) but again why would you be surprised that I must therefore say Yes to that question. I confirm that for you though, so you can respond as you plan to - even though you chose not to answer my straight forward question about Justice.
Comment 18 (4787) by OJB on 2017-09-24 at 11:45:35:
Re comment 15. Yes, I always enjoy visits by Christian zealots too. The last couple of times I haven't had time to talk to them, unfortunately. They don't know how lucky they were!
Comment 19 (4788) by OJB on 2017-09-24 at 11:51:39:
Re comment 16...
That specific example involved the types of Christianty which take the creation myth seriously but all so-called proofs of, or evidence for, religions are absurd to some degree. Even quite rational and inteliigent commentators like William Lane Craig are ridiculiusly easy to refute.
All religious stories are the first type of myth and most of them are also the second type (a widely held but false belief or idea).
Comment 20 (4789) by OJb on 2017-09-24 at 11:56:03:
Re comment 17...
So I think you are saying that the vast majority of people in this world (including me) will go to Hell, and that it will be a very unpleasant place, possibly involving suffering in eternal fire? I never know what you believe and don't believe because you totally arbitrary believe some of the Christian myths and not others.
Comment 21 (4790) by richard on 2017-09-25 at 09:28:43:
RE: Comment 15: Meant to acknowledge that earlier - That's a funny one Miriam, I enjoyed it. Just to clarify however - They will try to suggest to you otherwise, but LDS (aka Mormons) are clearly not an example of 'Classical Christianity'. Oh, they use alot of the same religious vocabulary, but their meanings behind the words are totally different. Basically they believe in totally different God(s) and have a completely different view of Jesus to that of biblical Christianity. Hence their founder needed to write his own set of literature to explain all that.
Comment 19 (being mere assertions), is to vague to take seriously. I could just as easily say that even the quite rational and intelligent atheists are ridiculously easy to refute, but that doesn't help the conversation at all. Same with a simple assertion re myths.
Comment 20: Obviously, there is plenty of room for disagreement in some of the specific details in the biblical accounts, but they are relatively inconsequential when compared to the overall point of the passages. For example just to be clear and transparent for you, however tragic it is, yes it does appear that the vast majority of people will be in a place where they are separated from God. The bible (including Jesus and others) gives various really unpleasant analogies for this experience, because there is nothing to compare it to that we can yet comprehend, including fire. But whether an actual fire exists is debatable and actually somewhat trivial, compared to the actual point being communicated. The Christian view is quite straight forward really. A place without a shred of the 'essence' of God in it, being the only true source of all the good things like Love, Joy, Peace, Comfort, etc will be 'hell'.
You understand that no Christians (who are really trying to to be true to the meaning of the word - Christ followers) like the doctrine of hell one bit. Oh some nasty examples who call themselves Christians like to revel in the idea that they don't plan to go there, but this isn't a truly 'Christian' thought at all. This is obvious because whatever you think about the truth of it - the whole 'story of Jesus' is about God doing something to prevent that from happening for anyone who wants to avail themselves of the gift. The most well know bible verse in the world explains that clearly. It is so well known that i don't even need to quote it - do I?
Finally, It is unfair to assert (again) that I totally arbitrarily believe some myths and not others. There is nothing arbitrary about my beliefs. I hope these posts communicate - that while you may scoff at them, I always try to come to them by very serious consideration of both the Biblical account, and the scientific evidence, (where it isn't shaky and more philosophically motivated than verifiable). All the while keeping an honest and open mind to the possibility (and in fact considering the incredible evidence for) a universe that is more than just physical matter, but contains immaterial realities as well. Hence I am happy to try to explain for you how I come to any of them and of course you will disagree. With very unpleasant doctrines like hell however, once one comes to the conclusion that Theism is real after all, and that the Christian world view provides the most accurate accounting of reality of all theistic views, (all for too many reasons to go into) then you have to have a good reason to dismiss doctrines like Hell, no matter how unpalatable they are. There is (unfortunately) no good reason to dismiss it, because while we ALL hate it - it is not in the least bit irrational - as part of the overall view.
Comment 22 (4791) by OJB on 2017-09-25 at 12:27:17:
So you think the exact interpretation of Hell is of no consequence? I would be extremely happy to be separated from your vile god - that would not be a bad thing for me. OTOH, being nuked in everlasting fire doesn't really appeal so much. So which is it? This is a big decision I need to make, so I need to know some details here!
Do you ever just pause in your current thoughts and think about your beliefs in a totally different way?Given that the actions of your god could easily be construed as those of capricious, revolting bully, did you ever think that worshipping him is not the right thing to do? Maybe you have been sucked in to following an evil god, not a good one. The fact that he wants to torment the majority of humans, including some really good people, seems to make this clear.
Maybe arbitrary is the wrong word because there is clearly a consistent process there. Basically, your sort of Christian believes everything in the Bible, until the scientific facts make it too hard to do so any more, then you say that particular part isn't literal, but the rest is. It's similar to the good ol' god of the gaps argument.
But my whole point here is to concentrate on the moral and emotional aspects of this, rather than the facts (remember the point of the post?) So how do you feel being a supporter of a god who is going to torture me (and most of your fellow humans) for eternity? Even if you really thought this evil monster actually existed, why would you follow him? (I'm *not* going to make a comparison with Nazi Germany here! There, I didn't violate Godwin's Law because I used apophasis instead. Pretty cunning, huh?)
Comment 23 (4792) by richard on 2017-09-25 at 21:05:12:
Honestly Owen, I actually completely sympathise with your line of thinking but in fact you misunderstand the Christian doctrine of Hell. You have opened this Pandoras box though (using a moral outrage quote sounding very much like Dawkins) so as I stated - I'll try to explain where you are also (like he does) mis-representing the classical Christian position. Not because I think for a second you will accept it's validity any more than before, (I'm not that naive) but only because it's not intellectually honest for you to continue to mis-represent it as you have above in your blog. Sorry in advance for the unavoidable length of this...
1 - God does NOT want to, and He is in fact NOT going to torture anyone for eternity. Rather, He is only going to honour their choice of whether they want to accept his particular terms of forgiveness or not. If not - as I said he is then going to allow those individuals to have their choice and be separated from Him - in spite of the fact that He has provided ample warning that the experience is apparently as bad as the torment described.
2 - The reason He MUST do this (in fact whether He wants to or not) is because He MUST be perfectly just, as according to His nature - which means He is perfectly JUST. Hence my earlier reference to Justice (which you chose to ignore btw).
3 - The one thing that is undeniable is that IF God exists and is 'perfectly good' then 'evil' must have Justice. We all understand the need for Justice, as we openly demand it whenever we see 'injustice'. Trouble is - we also know without doubt that we are ALL guilty (when considering the impossible standard that must be applied against Gods standard).
4 - Consider a perfectly fair Judge that understands and will adhere to the Laws absolute requirement for Justice, encountering 10 criminals for whom the stated punishment is death. We forget that the Judge has NO obligation to let any of them off their punishment at all. If he lets them all receive the punishment they rightly deserve, he is NOT a moral monster at all. There is no moral crime here. Justice is being done as it has to. In fact - the Judge would truly be morally wrong if he 'arbitrarily' ignored their crimes and let them off. In any moral justice system, including NZ's he'd be fired if he did this - no pun intended btw). That's the bad news - we are all guilty and if there was NO escape - we'd all deserve the punishment and we know it.
5 - BUT what if there is a clause that says an official representative of the victims may choose to accept the punishment on behalf of the criminal if they wish to, granting undeserved freedom to the criminal. Amazingly, justice is actually done only in this case, because ONLY the actual victim has the right to decide whether the incredible exchange is a fair one - no one else can make that decision. In the same way you alone are perfectly free to decide to let me off a $50 debt I might owe you - (or not as you choose!) no one else can make that decision for you. Note too that if 10 people owe you $50 you are free to forgive 5 of them the debt, and have NO further obligation to forgive the rest at all, simply because you decided to let 5 off. Again - no moral crime occurs on your part whatever you decide.
6 - Only Jesus (as God, according to Christian doctrine) is able to adequately represent the 'victim' of our crimes (which are of course against God as our creator and the only rational source of absolute morality - the laws we break every day). And only Jesus (born as a human being according to Christian doctrine) is able to adequately represent the criminal that deserves to be punished.
7 - The criminals are also completely free to choose the chosen terms of the exchange, (basically acknowledging the truth of the situation and it's chosen remedy) - or they may prefer to reject them as ludicrous. At no point in this exchange is the Judge involved in any moral crime for the results of their decision.
Finally - yeah - very cunning huh. :-) To answer the 'non-challenge'. Whether we like him or not - Hitler did exist. In the same way God exists whether we like Him or not & as God gets to make the rules whether we like 'em or not. Hitler though wasn't God, and thus didn't create either his 'victims' or the rules he as another mere creation was also subject to - yet he chose to violate so heinously. Also Hitlers victims really were innocent. We are not. Also Hitler didn't provide a relatively painless and ultimately rewarding way of escape. So the non analogy is completely invalid.
Comment 24 (4793) by OJB on 2017-09-25 at 21:39:01:
Wow, I'm sorry, but that's sick. How can a sensible, fairly moral person, like yourself think this is OK? You're worshipping the most hideous monster this world has ever known. It's disgusting. Do you think I really have a choice? How can I pretend to believe your god exists? I don't have a choice at all. And that's the way you god made me!
Can't you see that Christianity is totally morally corrupt? It's really no different at all from that other regime I didn't mention. Only religion can make a good person accept something so evil.
I'm feigning this moral outrage, obviously, because I don't believe a word of it, and your religion is just a very, very dark fairy story.
Comment 25 (4794) by richard on 2017-09-26 at 06:58:11:
In short - you asked, and I tried as graciously as I could to answer your question about the morality of the situation, knowing what your 'choice' of response would be. I thought at least you'd respond with more than just assertions of bad morality, but explain what is immoral about it. The fact is Owen, serious philosophers (not just 'couch referees' like you and me), have tried to find fault in the morality of the Christian worldview and failed.
Comment 26 (4795) by richard on 2017-09-26 at 07:24:31:
Also, to answer your remark in comment 22 about 'my sort' & the Bible changing when science discovers something. Actually you've got it partially wrong there too, sorry. It's perfectly true that as we catch up in our understanding of the physical world through science, that we realise that some of our interpretations of the biblical meanings can be updated to reflect that. But there's actually nothing wrong with that at all as you suggest.
What isn't true is that the bible has been proven wrong. For example when the bible say talks about sunrises and sunsets, back when science though earth centrically, we'd have reasonably thought that was a literal interpretation. Now we know that it's a representation of a different physical reality. However, we still happily talk about sunrise and sunset, and still the biblical reading communicates the meaning it originally intended to. The change hasn't actually caused a problem for biblical accuracy. This isn't a problem for the biblical text, it is inconsequential to the meaning, & it is US 'catching up'. For the bible to say talk about Cosmic Background Radiation (to suit your need to understand origins in 2017) would have made it appear nonsense to the less scientifically competent readers in 2000 BC - so the author has a very real problem there. In fact you should see that the fact that there are still no real solid contradictions, (i.e. nothing has been proven as completely wrong, but merely re-interpretable as we learn more science), in all the vast amount of biblical content is not only remarkable - it's downright miraculous)!
Besides it's exactly what atheists do as well. For centuries they said no God - the Universe was eternal, then science said whoops no - looks like it had a beginning. No they are scrambling to come up with naturalistic theories that are all simply inadequate in explanatory power. Then science also said whoops - looks like there is incredible fine tuning to the physical constants of the universe - with no physical necessity for this to be so - one of the most powerful arguments for 'intelligence' there is. So atheist scientists come up with a fairy story called the Multi-Verse - for which there is no evidence - (since there can't be by the current definition of science) purely to scramble to avoid the implications. Notice I didn't say science comes up with that. I wouldn't defame glorious science that way. So there's nothing inherently wrong about updating your interpretations as we all learn more together about the world.
Comment 27 (4796) by OJB on 2017-09-26 at 12:35:10:
So quickly regarding the case for the facts. How do we decide what is true in the Bible and what isn't? It's what science shows is true and what isn't. Why do we need the Bible at all? Obviously, we don't.
But getting back to the moral argument again (which is my main point). Some philosophers might see Christianity as moral and some might not. In my experience, it's only the Christian philosophers and theologians who do claim it is moral, but I would be OK to look at counter-examples of that. Clearly there is some aspect of subjectivity to morality and people easily warp what is fair and reasonable to suit their immoral and irrational religious beliefs.
However let me ask you what your opinion is. What do you think about this deal your god offers: we use the intelligence and reasoning power he gave us, we conclude he doesn't exist, we live a good life and try to be moral, we get tortured for eternity.
But we could live a life of pure evil, accept Jesus on our death-bed, and go to heaven.
Anyone who thinks this is moral really needs to have a look at themselves. Again, you are either the mindless slave of a truly evil monster, or - a much happier thought - your revolting god doesn't exist. So, which is it?
Comment 28 (4797) by OJB on 2017-09-26 at 12:40:31:
By the way, I don't hate Christians, I hate Christianity. And there's an interesting parallel here with Islam. I spend a lot of time criticising Islam as a religion but, in general, I don't blame Muslims. Both of you are victims of a mind virus and it often leads good people to do bad things. Maybe if you understood that I view Christianity in a similar way to how you (and I) see Islam, you might understand my perspective better.
Comment 29 (4798) by Richard on 2017-09-28 at 15:03:57:
Comment 27: of course we need both, because with complete respect to Science it has 2 major flaws. Firstly it is limited by definition to physical empirical stuff, and so by definition cannot hope to answer questions outside of that reliably, whether God exists or not. Secondly, science doesn't deal with Historical events (completely). While it quite fairly explains that some historical events like the Resurrection are extremely in likely under normal circumstances, (i.e. It defies natural' it is impossible for Science to confirm it didn't happen. The bible provides the historical eye witness accounts, to multiple miraculous events like the resurrection (all that could have been easily discredited at the time, but weren't) that fills the gap that Science simply cannot do for historical events.
Re the moral question. Again, I will try to answer your question with 'fear and trembling' (lol)...
Totally understand and even sympathise with the sentiment and moral impulse you express. However, the problem is you are viewing that without the 'eternal focus' required to adequately 'judge' it. And ultimately there are also details not clear...
1 - Compared to eternity, the time spent in pure evil before being humble enough to 'acknowledge our hopelessness and need for help' as provided by Jesus is totally insignificant. Obviously not to you or I, but that doesn't change it for the Judge or its morality.
2 - If a person who lived a life of pure evil, then 'repents' on their deathbed, then this is therefore no less 'gracious' than those that repent earlier on. It is of course an insignificantly small amount more gracious. There is the biblical story that points out the moral truth that if an employer chooses to pay a worker a certain agreed amount for a days work, than then graciously gives another worker the same amount for an hours work, this is. It not immoral in the slightest, the rightful givers the reward s only being more generous. It's true that the second recipient is luckier. But there is again, no moral crime committed by the giver.
3 - Remeber too that we are presuming a hypothetical situation of a person doing evil all their lives, then truly repenting at the end. The assumption is that they only truly understood the truth of it at that point. In practice however, this is likely to be an extremely rare occurrence. If it occurs well aren't they lucky. As fellow recipients of the same gift, no one will have any issue. They will actually be delighted as they understand it from the Judges perspective We have no clear suggestion though that someone could choose to 'manipulate God, by living an evil life all the while truly understanding the truth, and then 'pretending' to change at the end, and expect that to have any saving power at all. Personally I'd suspect not. This isn't just a formula we are talking about after all.
Comment 30 (4799) by richard on 2017-09-28 at 21:15:26:
Firstly, apologies for the terrible list of grammatical errors in the previous post. I was typing on the iPad and couldn't see the text very well, and was frequently distracted by colleagues, and didn't get a chance to adequately proof read before submitting. e.g.
...cannot hope to answer questions outside of that reliably, LIKE whether God exists or not.
&
While (Science) quite fairly explains that some historical events like the resurrection are extremely UNLIKELY under normal circumstances, (i.e. it defies 'natural laws') it is impossible for science to confirm it didn't happen.
&
2 - Is a complete disaster isn't it - Sheesh! It should have read: A person who lives a whole life of evil, then 'repents' on their deathbed, may feel 'less deserving' of forgiveness to us (and understandably so), but given an eternal frame of reference, the difference becomes far less significant - and God is gracious to all who repents - whenever that occurs. Put another way - If some particular level of evil were to be a critical cut off line, then there is nothing at all to prevent all of us from being below that line from Gods eternal and perfectly 'sinless' perspective. But luckily for all of us, this is not the case. There is the biblical story... AND then graciously gives another worker the same amount for an hours work, then this is not immoral in the slightest. The giver of the reward is only being more generous... It's true that the second recipient is luckier, but there is no moral crime committed by the giver. They are free to dispense their rewards as they wish.
Comment 28: I have never ever thought you hate Christians Owen. I believe I have a reasonable comprehension of where your feelings are directed - and of course I would probably feel the same way given your convictions about the real world. This is why I always am happy to have these online conversations and never ever feel personally offended by your often witty but quite cutting remarks. I hope people following these chats can see that and recognise that 'offence' for me only ever kicks in when I believe that there is a distorted Christian view being described and then attacked. I have no issue that people disagree with Christianity, but it is important they choose to disagree with a fair and true understanding of it not a false one. :) Of course I can guess you feel this same offence against Christianity because you feel it is a similar distortion of the true understanding of the real world.
However, I might also comment that there is always the question of why you feel so much against Christianity when you do acknowledge that whether it matches your view of reality or not, it undoubtedly is still the greatest source of goodness, charity, and development in history. The historically bad things done by people (falsely in the name of Christianity) pales into insignificance when compared to the good it has produced. So even if it didn't match reality (and of course I believe it does) it would still produce a better safer, kinder more loving world than any other worldview we know of. So one wonders why the level of problem with it?
Comment 31 (4800) by OJB on 2017-09-28 at 22:14:51:
Well clearly I disagree with just about everything you just said, but I don't want to get distracted from my main point, so can you answer one thing: do you, personally, think it is OK for your god to send me, and the majority of people on this planet, to Hell for whatever reason he might have, especially given that we have no choice about following his rules, whatever they are.
Comment 32 (4801) by Richard on 2017-09-29 at 20:43:29:
I don't want you to get distracted either, I am only answering your questions after all. Your question in this case is pointless though. My opinion on the matter has no value or impact on its truth. I also don't like the truth that if I jump off the sky tower believing I can fly, truth doesn't have any obligation to me. I already agreed above that no one likes this truth, but (sticking to your main point remember), it is not immoral for the above reasons. Again you might not like them, but they are logically consistent. Also because as the universe and all in it are all His creation, He is completely at liberty to define the rules, and let us make our own choice. Not sure what more you expect here. Cheers.
Comment 33 (4802) by OJB on 2017-09-29 at 21:18:48:
So you don't like what your god has done? Is there any chance that your god could be evil then? Have you ever considered that possibility, or do you just blindly follow whatever he says? Just forget about the religious dogma and think for yourself. What conclusion must you reach?
Why can he make whatever rules he likes? Because he has the power to? So might is right? How are these rules logical? We have to make a decision and all the evidence indicates one thing yet we get punished when we follow that path, and your god made us that way?
Face it: he's either the most evil monster ever or he doesn't exist. The atheist interpretation is far more moral than the religious one.
Comment 34 (4803) by Richard on 2017-09-30 at 09:52:33:
This has inevitably become circular (on your part). I've just explained why it isn't evil, but required justice matched with the only way out for us that satisfies both the requirement for justice and our free choice. And of course all the evidence does indicate one thing, when it is all examined carefully. Again we could come back to asking what IS evil ( aka objective morality - still the main point), in your worldview and how do you justify it? You are using a step-ladder of evil, to climb up and slap God in the face, forgetting that without God, the very step ladder you must climb to do it has no logical basis for existing in the first place. We can only comprehend 'evil' if there is a standard of 'good' that's not being met. That standard has to have an external source or its meaningless, being personal preferences only.
Comment 35 (4804) by OJB on 2017-09-30 at 11:55:13:
Well it seems to me that you are the one with the circular argument. You must believe that what your god does is OK, even if you don’t really think it is moral yourself. Why? Because he’s God and what God says must be moral. It is a circular argument.
And I think your deliberate obfuscation of what is really a very simple issue is just your way of coping. It’s a type of cognitive dissonance where you must believe your god is good even when he is clearly evil.
Can you not see how dangerous this sort of unthinking acceptance of dogma is? This is the real problem with religion, where good people (like yourself) start believing evil things.
Comment 36 (4805) by richard on 2017-10-01 at 09:51:08:
Well, it seems to me that perhaps you choose misunderstand my responses, when they differ from your own, although I thought they were perfectly clear. I have repeatedly said no one (including God) likes this truth, but I have never said that I think it is immoral - having spent alot of time explaining why. Both are perfectly compatible, in the same way that a Judge is not behaving immorally when he sends a guilty criminal to jail, but may not like having to do it.
I'll ignore the next two paragraphs as they are simply repeat your same ole assertions in a new way, without contributing anything that can be rationally discussed. Looks like we are done at last on this one huh. It's been fun as always.
Comment 37 (4806) by OJB on 2017-10-01 at 11:55:26:
God creates a truth which he doesn't like? Why would he do it then? This makes no sense, really. God can choose how he treats us, yet he chooses to be abusive. Why? Again, I ask you to look at this without the blinkers of religious dogma.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE
