I am not sure this follows. Why couldn't God actualize a possible world in which every person freely chooses Him? If everyone makes the same choice, then does it negate the freedom in that choice?
I don't know if you're familar with the story of Job, but it says that Satan told God that Job was only righteous because God protected him. And God allowed Job to suffer at Satan's hand, just to prove a point: that Job would pass the test. But suppose God devised a possible world where Job was not tested. Don't you think that Job, Satan, and a whole lot of people who have read the story would have missed out on a major chunk of character-building? Love isn't love, and faith isn't faith, if it wilts in the face of adversity. Should God devise a possible world where character is never developed?
I can discuss infinity, but I cannot understand it.
I didn't say we could grasp infinity, but that we could grasp the magnitude of the choice before us.
I don't understand how eternal hell can await the lost if God is all-loving - unless we redefine hell as a preference rather than a punishment
Is love ignorant of justice? What about the victims of criminals? Can God love both the criminal and the victim without being unjust?
It all depends on the definition. If God is a powerful despot who does not match up with our feelings of what is good, but commands the death of children (like in the Old Testament) then perhaps no moral person would bow to this God whole-heartedly
By their own testimony, they knowingly defy God and prefer eternal torment over swallowing their pride. This isn't a matter of definitions but cold, dead defiance. And again, who defines "good" or "moral"? What is the reference point? And children die by disease and accident to this very day; isn't God cruel for allowing that? Or might there be a greater good in eternity? What about testing the character of those left behind?
If good is only good because God says so - then it is arbitrary.
Of course it's arbitrary. Is it any less so if we do the saying so, instead of God? As for his nature, scripture is his communication to us; he has told us what we need to know about him, what we can grasp. We don't get it from ourselves. He has fulfilled prophecies and raised Jesus from the dead, complete with over 500 eyewitnesses; what else is he supposed to do? What would it take? What would be accepted as proof, that a die-hard atheist couldn't explain away?
Thanks for the conversation - Good stuff.
You're quite welcome. It's a good mental workout. ;-)
"Should God devise a possible world where character is never developed?"
If everyone chose correctly, then wouldn't our characters be good? Does God need to create damned souls to build the character of others?
"I didn't say we could grasp infinity, but that we could grasp the magnitude of the choice before us."
I thought that the consequences of the choice were infinite.
"Can God love both the criminal and the victim without being unjust?"
So God does not love the criminal? Then why did he send his Son in your theology?
"And children die by disease and accident to this very day; isn't God cruel for allowing that? Or might there be a greater good in eternity? What about testing the character of those left behind?"
It it difficult to see the suffering of a child being justified by it being a test for another person. I think faith in an ultimate good can be a good thing, but it's dangerous ground to make definite claims about things like that.
I will also leave the proofs of Scripture, prophecies fulfilled - 500 eyewitnesses etc. for another time. Whether there is a good case or not for the reliability of Scripture is a different conversation.
"Of course it's arbitrary. Is it any less so if we do the saying so, instead of God?"
"We don't get it from ourselves."
But we have no choice but to get it from ourselves. We are born with a brain in our head and a heart in our chest, not a Bible in our hand.
Would you mind answering a few questions regarding your opinion of Heaven (God) and Hell (not God) as I find this the most interesting part of our conversation so far.
1. Can atheists have good qualities? Fruits of the spirit?
2. Do all good qualities come from God?
3. If so, do atheists lose these good qualities when they go to the place of "not God"?
4. If so, where do these good qualities go? And is the atheist recognizable anymore as the person they once were?
5. If they do not lose these good qualities, then is part of God in hell since he is the source of all things good?
"If everyone chose correctly, then wouldn't our characters be good? Does God need to create damned souls to build the character of others?"
God doesn't need to do anything. ;-) The question is whether we are all-knowing, such that we are sure there is a possible world where no one will suffer. All I can say for sure is that this world is the one God chose, therefore it must be the best possible world. Otherwise we'd have to wonder why anything good happens, if God is not supremely moral and both just and loving. And again, if God is not the reference point, there is none, and nothing can be called "good" or "better" because it's someone's mere opinion.
"I thought that the consequences of the choice were infinite."
Yes, that's what I'm saying. We know that we will spend eternity in one of two places, and we are capable of choosing between them.
"So God does not love the criminal? Then why did he send his Son in your theology?"
I wasn't clear on that, sorry. God does love the world. But he would not be just if he treated the criminal and the victim the same. To ignore crimes is hardly loving, is it. So what I meant was that he would be showing no love for the victim if he withheld justice.
"
It it difficult to see the suffering of a child being justified by it being a test for another person. I think faith in an ultimate good can be a good thing, but it's dangerous ground to make definite claims about things like that."
It's equally dangerous to presume that God must answer to his creatures. I think we need to remember that God sees a much larger "world" than we do.
"But we have no choice but to get it from ourselves. We are born with a brain in our head and a heart in our chest, not a Bible in our hand."
Why do you think God had people repeat and write down his words? Are we born with all the knowledge we will ever need, such as how to eat, bathe, dress ourselves, talk? We have no problem saying children must depend on adults to tell them these things, so why is it wrong for God to make people depend on him for knowledge about him?
As to your questions, let me try to explain this way. As I said, "good" and "bad" need a reference point, of which God is the ultimate one. But the decision point between heaven and hell is not good/bad, but faith/non-faith. Which place you go is decided the moment you die, based solely on what you did with Jesus. (Of course this is for the time since Jesus came; before that is a different story, as scripture tells us; "In times past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent"). After that comes judgment, and all will be judged according to their deeds. If you were saved and did something bad, you will lose rewards. If you're lost and did something good, you will lose a degree of suffering. That's the best I can understand from what God has told us. My description of hell as "the place of not God and therefore not good" is probably too simplistic, but the idea is that it's a place to get away from God. I won't pretend I have all the details of what that means, but at the same time I don't think atheism has the omniscience required to say God has not met the qualifications of ultimate justice and love. That's all I've been trying to say.
And quickly:
Yes, atheists can exhibit many fine qualities. There is someone in this blog who can attest to that. And it puts many Christians to shame. How would we tell them from the fruit of the Spirit? We're human and can be easily fooled. But rest assured that God knows.
"Bad" is the absence of "good" just as "dark" is the absence of "light".
Sorry, that last line was meant to be up with a previous paragraph.
"The question is whether we are all-knowing, such that we are sure there is a possible world where no one will suffer. All I can say for sure is that this world is the one God chose, therefore it must be the best possible world. Otherwise we'd have to wonder why anything good happens, if God is not supremely moral and both just and loving. And again, if God is not the reference point, there is none, and nothing can be called "good" or "better" because it's someone's mere opinion."
But if words like good, best, better, etc. only have meaning because of what God says is so, then any world God created would be the best possible world - even if there was rampant suffering all the time with no relief. In your definition the words "good", "better", etc. lose all relevance to how they are used in the everyday world. They are God's "mere opinion". And I supposed they could change at any time. Perhaps God's nature changes? Perhaps the rules will be different tomorrow? Is consistency a virtue? What if God declares that it isn't? We have no firm footing on which to move forward - perhaps faith will be declared evil tomorrow? On the contrary, a relative position is one of strength. It doesn't mean everything changes all the time, it means that everything depends on everything else. Like a building where every bit is required to keep it stable. And that doesn't leave no room for some "necessary", consistent theme, but that's another conversation I think.
"But the decision point between heaven and hell is not good/bad but faith/no faith"
This doesn't seem to support your view of heaven = God, hell = not God where God equals all goodness. As you say many atheists have many very good qualities, and assuming they will be the same people in hell, I'll have to surmise that there will be some aspect of God in hell - and of course that a "universal reconciliation" where "God is all in all" will never really happen in your view. And yes, perhaps the Dalai Lama will be trying to help the poor in hell - why not?.
In conclusion, I think that your overall view, as I understand it in this context, shows a confirmation bias. When a thought affirms classical Christianity, it is good. When it does not affirm it, then we are putting our own judgement and ethical intuitions above God.
Your view requires us to ignore our ethical intuitions and our own judgements when making decisions about various views of the Bible and of God. But we can't even begin to accept or deny various views about the Bible or God without our own ethical intuitions and judgement. It's self-refuting.
I will leave the discussion here. You are welcome to the last word - I will publish it on my blog along with our other conversation. Thanks again for a spirited and, most importantly, good-hearted discussion! I appreciate your efforts towards a coherent theology. Good luck to you and perhaps we will converse again some time soon,
Steven
"But if words like good, best, better, etc. only have meaning because of what God says is so, then any world God created would be the best possible world"
I disagree. The best possible world is a matter of God's choice among all possible worlds; he only chose one out of many. The fact that God allows people to be sentient beings means there can be less than optimal worlds.
"In your definition the words "good", "better", etc. lose all relevance to how they are used in the everyday world. They are God's "mere opinion"."
Yes, as I've said, they are arbitrary according to God's choice. But whose choice would not be arbitrary? And no, God cannot change, although his boundaries for us may change. The rules have changed through history, but it has been a path to an end, and that end is Jesus Christ; he is the final revelation. Think of it as good parenting; you don't give a toddler the same responsibilities as a teen. And if God cannot be considered "firm footing", who or what would you propose as a replacement? God is not fickle like the god of Islam whose sovereignty does operate in a moral vacuum.
"On the contrary, a relative position is one of strength. It doesn't mean everything changes all the time, it means that everything depends on everything else."
I'm sorry, I don't see this as an improvement over the fact that God himself never changes, and that he has brought us to a point in time by the path of his choosing. What you're describing is the opposite of a firm footing, something like a world where the laws of physics may vary from day to day. A world where nothing can ever be depended upon is completely meaningless and purposeless. Aren't you arguing that "good" is meaningless then? Would it be okay with you if tomorrow child molesters were seen as heros?
"This doesn't seem to support your view of heaven = God, hell = not God where God equals all goodness. As you say many atheists have many very good qualities, and assuming they will be the same people in hell, I'll have to surmise that there will be some aspect of God in hell - and of course that a "universal reconciliation" where "God is all in all" will never really happen in your view. And yes, perhaps the Dalai Lama will be trying to help the poor in hell - why not?."
(continued...)
(... continued)
The only reason we can claim being "good" is by Jesus' imputed righteousness; that's why he came. But this imputation is not forced on anyone; you have to choose it by your own free will. So the only truly "good" people are those who are in Christ, and they will all be in heaven. And everyone in hell will be "poor" and needy, but no one will be given aid. Hell is not a picnic or a party.
"In conclusion, I think that your overall view, as I understand it in this context, shows a confirmation bias. When a thought affirms classical Christianity, it is good. When it does not affirm it, then we are putting our own judgement and ethical intuitions above God…"
I disagree. My view is based upon the evidence for Jesus having risen from the dead, and for more reasons than I can put in a blog comment, that he is God. Therefore all things are to be measured by him, and he has told us his values and requirements in the Bible. In contrast, the foundational "givens" of atheism are based upon nothing outside of ourselves. And since we only know a portion of what God knows, we have to trust him for the rest. Faith is all God asks from us; faith in who he is.
And in all honesty, I think even the most hardened atheist has to admit that by their own definition, they too suffer from a confirmation bias. They begin with the premise that human reason is the measure of all things, such that whatever doesn't match up is "bad". I don't see any difference between my alleged confirmation bias and yours.
"Your view requires us to ignore our ethical intuitions and our own judgements when making decisions about various views of the Bible and of God."
Again, I disagree. You keep ignoring the fact that God is not limited to this life or dimension; your view requires us to make the finite the judge of the infinite. I've explained these things to the best of my ability, but your own philsophies are far less satisfiying IMHO. I could ask you how anything could ever come into exsitence out of nothing, or how a giant explosion could possible result in complex order, or how information can ever arise by chance. Atheists typically brush off the question of origins because they claim they are only concerned with change. But if they can ignore questions about origins, they have no right to demand answers about origins from theists; it's a two-way street. This all ultimately comes down to whose presuppositions are better, and I've never seen an atheist give a satisfying defense of theirs.
I agree that we've pretty much exausted this, since arguing about presuppositions can never be resolved. And I thank you as well for being calm and reasonable, unlike so many other atheists I've encountered. But let me leave you with this:
I am a Christian for one reason: Jesus rose from the dead. I believe he is God in the flesh, and I accept the testimony about him. I believe he is trustworthy, and I relate to him as family. This is no academic exercise for me, but something much more, a relationship with my creator. I want to spend eternity in his presence, and try my best to encourage (not frighten or lay guilt) others to do the same. Being reconciled with God is what this is all about, and it happens by believing what Jesus said about himself, about his rising from the dead. I don't have all the answers, any more than anyone else, including atheists. But I have a package that makes sense to me, and I look forward to eternity as a time when "bad" is no longer remembered for those who did the one, simple, free thing required to escape evil. I hope someday soon you'll come to see that God really does love you.
Paula asks what we would replace God with, if He is not the ground of morality. My argument is that it matters not whether we say God is the ground of morality or not, we still must rely on our reason and ethical intuitions. A theist may state those things come from God, an atheist may state they come from evolution and societal pressures. Either way, God as an absolute ground is an idea that has no bearing on our search for morality.
ReplyDelete"The fact that God allows people to be sentient beings means there can be less than optimal worlds."
This is odd. Paula puts a value judgement on to God's decision to create sentient beings. Where does that value originate? I still say, according to her definition, that any world God picked would have to be labeled "best possible" since God did it. So this doesn't make enough sense.
"God is not fickle like the god of Islam whose sovereignty does operate in a moral vacuum."
Paula says that God is the ground of morality, that morality is whatever God chooses arbitrarily, yet she describes the God of Islam as "operating in a moral vacuum" and the God of Christianity as good. Once again, how would a person make that distinction without an outside standard, independent of God, to judge God by?
"Would it be okay with you if tomorrow child molesters were seen as heros?"
According to Paula, if God declared this to be true, then it would be - even if it violated our historic sense of goodness, our inner consciences, etc.
"Yes, as I've said, they are arbitrary according to God's choice. But whose choice would not be arbitrary?"
Also Paula misunderstands what I mean by "arbitrary", and this is clearly because I did not explain what I meant very well. I meant that God's goodness would look arbitrary from our perspective because it may not mesh with what we, individually and collectively, may think is right.
"So the only truly "good" people are those who are in Christ, and they will all be in heaven. And everyone in hell will be "poor" and needy, but no one will be given aid."
By stating that there is nothing good on earth and no good qualities in people, then we have no reference for God. Goodness is only defined by power, not by our inner conscience or collective discussions. And does her description of hell above sound like a moral thing to subject someone to? This punishment would be forever, which means that is does not serve as a deterrent or corrective measure. It is revenge, pure and simple.
She also is trying to bring up intelligent design arguments, evidence for the resurrection, etc. which are off topic to the discussion. These are interesting topics, of course, but they are removed from the discussion on morality, hell, etc.
She is quite right that all humans exhibit confirmation bias. But it's still a good goal to try to point them out.
Paula is really smart and clearly a nice person. I have enjoyed the conversation and she has led me to think about something that I never have before. What do "eternal hell believing" Christians think happens to good qualities in people who are damned - especially if everything good has its origin in God? Paula seems to try to resolve this by saying that goodness does not a actually exist in our lives. But then she also says we will be judged according to the good or bad contained in our deeds.
Man, there is so much writing here. I will be honest that I haven't read ALL of it. The only comment I have to make is that all of this will always come down to believing one of these two possibilities A. The Bible is literally God's Word, or B. People wrote the Bible over time in their attempt to understand God. And, even the most Godly of people out there will never fully understand God while on this earth.
ReplyDeleteAll other arguments between you and a more conservative Christian will probably go nowhere until this issue is "solved" Do you agree with this? Or, do you think you can "persuade" or "convince" anyone of anything that flow well with the Bible even if they still fall into the category "A"?
There are so many "B" Christian believers out there that are really a "B" even though they don't know it (for example, a Christian who doesn't believe that there really is an actual HELL, even though the Bible mentions a literal HELL quite often.
So, perhaps you are doing the right thing by trying to convince all Christians that they actually ARE a "B" category, and they just don't know it.
So, another thought here is: "is anyone on this earth TRULY an "A" or do they just THINK they are an "A"? How many people out there believe God really created the rainbow on a specific day to promise Noah no more floods? etc, etc.?
I am obviously playing devils advocate on myself here. Just thinking out loud and typing as I think.
Happy Fourth! John
Interesting and relevant post Stephen.
ReplyDelete"This is odd. Paula puts a value judgement on to God's decision to create sentient beings. Where does that value originate? I still say, according to her definition, that any world God picked would have to be labeled "best possible" since God did it. So this doesn't make enough sense."
Very insightful, the whole bit of it.
I think it's just difficult for us to wrap our heads around the idea that maybe there aren't some golden tablets in the universe with a prescription for our behavior on them - I think it can cause one to feel disoriented. Because if there are no golden tablets, we must make them ourselves.
I guess since I am considering law as a profession - this concept seems a little less scary - but the responsibility no less frightful. It's up to us to create the world we live in as well as to define the values that shape us.
Appealing to the Bible does no good.... slavery, genocide, and the subjugation of women (and most anyone outside the tribe of Israel) are to be found from Yahweh as commandments. I have yet to meet a Christian who wants to go back to the times of Moses when God spoke directly to the people.
"But that was the OT, this is the NT era or something."
The problem is that if morality is objective and stems from God - then it must be absolute and eternal (enslaving outsiders is always okay) - or God must be able to change his mind. The former is a problem for Christians who still want to fight homosexuality and eat shrimp (using one portion of the OT selectively while ignoring another) - the latter leads us to Euthyphro.
Great blog sir.
Thanks Samuel, I agree. Of course, harmonizing theologies for conservative religion abound. They can justify denying homosexuals equal rights and still find a way to eat ham and buy fancy cars (despite the Bible's words of warning towards being rich).
ReplyDeleteAh well - I enjoy the conversation and there are a lot of good people out there. I liked this conversation because it was judging evangelical religion by a moral standard rather than a standard of proof or anything.
Are you in Oklahoma?
e-mail me and I can give you details. I'm going to OKC later today.
ReplyDeleteI can't seem to locate an email address. Mine is stevenstarkmusic at gmail
ReplyDelete