An Irony

Many, many times I have thought how sad I am that my father did not live long enough to meet his grandson, Severin. My dad loved, loved kids - especially babies. As a Baptist pastor in different churches in Texas and Oklahoma, he loved to grab babies and absolutely devour their cheeks. When he "dedicated" babies in front of the church, he would only very reluctantly hand the baby back to the young parents - and only after turning around and showing the choir the little rosy-cheeked lump to an enormous round of "AAAAAHHH!"

Incidentally, he also really loved older people. I think he enjoyed the good-humored company of the "Prime Timers" at our church more than any other group of people. Our family took a two week vacation to Yellowstone on the church bus with the Prime Timers when I was 12, and I can tell you that it is still a highlight of my life.

But back to young ones. Luckily my step-sister Amy and my cousin Gwen (my Dad's niece) had babies, so I am glad he got a taste of being a grandpa.

And now back to Severin. I know that Dad would have adored him. I wish, wish, wish he could have met Seve - sometimes I wish it so strongly I can hardly stand it.

But there is an irony here. If Dad had survived his heart surgery in 2005, there would be no Severin. The complex causal chain of events that led to Severin's existence would have been different. We would probably still have a wonderful child, though not certainly, but that child would not be the same Severin. A different set of reproductive cells would have met up at a different time to create a different personality.

Severin could only have been created in this particular reality, this particular arrow of time. So even my father's death is part of the web of interactions that led to Severin's existence. And more broadly speaking, every single event that has ever happened in the entire universe has been required to make this present exist, Severin included. If a star on the other side of the galaxy, or a galaxy on the other side of the universe, had formed with one less droplet of matter, everything would have been different today.

So my father, Cecil Eugene "Gene" Stark, and Severin Eugene Stark exist together in an entirely connected, star-crossed relationship that somehow, sadly, requires them to never have met.

It's really sad. It's really beautiful. Perhaps there are possibilities that I cannot know about. And that's about as far as I can go with that.

Good for Vermont and Iowa

In honor of Argentina's legalization of gay marriage, I am reposting this essay, originally written on April 8, 2009:

Good for Vermont and Iowa. The Vermont legislature voted with comfortable margins to override the governor’s veto and legalize same-sex marriage. In Iowa, the supreme court voted unanimously that not allowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

These are great steps that promote two fundamental American principles - support for the family unit and fair governance.

In Iowa, the court consulted studies on children raised by same-sex couples, including findings by the American Academy of Pediatrics showing that children raised in same-sex families do just as well as children raised by different-sex families. This is based on empirical evidence rather than myth, circumstantial evidence or ancient morality codes. Surely even our common sense tells us that two loving parents can do a great job at parenting. We should support that as a society.

Even if the court had found evidence that showed a slight disparity in the ability to raise children between same sex and different sex couples, we should consider how the state should be involved with families. We live in a society of day care, divorce, single parent households, and severe income inequality - all of which present challenges to raising children. One could argue that these situations are different, because they are not officially endorsed by the state, and the status of marriage is an endorsement by the state. Fair enough. But a lack of that endorsement can also have adverse effects on the family. Despite not being the ideal situation, no one would suggest doing anything to a single parent to make raising his/her child more difficult. No one would suggest taking away a child from a mother, simply because there is no father. No one would suggest applying some sort of government approved label to that home, such as “not an ideal family.” That stigma would be another difficulty on top of difficulty. But an additional difficulty is exactly what denying same-sex parents the status of marriage accomplishes. By denying them that status, the government is making an official judgement call on the household’s legitimacy, having tax implications as well as emotional implications for the family within society. (Obviously suggesting that a single parent being denied the status of “marriage” is similar to a gay couple being denied that status is not relevant, as no one denies that marriage requires more than one person).

There will always be a fine line between child welfare and the freedom of individual families. Basically, same-sex couples will have children. That is certain, as it is a fundamental aspect of existence for many people. Is it in those children’s best interest for their parents to be denied the status of marriage?

But this is all COMPLETELY hypothetical, as the objective evidence supports the conclusion that same-sex couples can effectively raise children, just as different-sex couples can.

We might also consider that homosexual couples did not necessarily choose their orientation. Shall they be denied access to marriage based on that one difference? If so, then what is the alternative? Separate but equal (civil unions)? A life in the shadows? A life without partnership and/or children?

I certainly do not regard myth or religion as an enemy. I regard it as an essential element in trying to understand our existence and spirituality today. But ancient writers had an ancient understanding of the world, so basing our laws today on the prevailing moral code of their day, at the expense of observation and reason, is surely not advisable.

Even to those good folks who have a hard time processing “gay marriage” because of prejudice, religious or otherwise, we might ask what our society should base its laws on. Ancient authority? That uncomfortable feeling that you get around gay people (most likely because they’re different)? Or empirical evidence, based on the best scientific data available, coupled with values that no American disputes - support for families and equality of governance.

Check out this link for many endorsements of same-sex marriage by medical organizations.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

Here’s one example from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP)

"The basis on which all decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest [is] on the best interest of the child. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals historically have faced more rigorous scrutiny than heterosexuals regarding their rights to be or become parents. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared with parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child. Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared with heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children. The AACAP opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation against individuals in regard to their rights as custodial or adoptive parents."

Guest Post from Kris Maloy

My friend Kris Maloy read the exchange between myself and Wade Burleson here. He offered this comment which I asked if I could post. I will paste a little more back and forth we had in the comments section.

I've enjoyed reading your blog posts. I thought I might add my 2 cents to it, but then I thought I'd just send it here, and you can post it if you like, or not:

It is just these considerations that you and Wade have discussed--of the reality of and nature of Sin, of Salvation, the Problem of Evil, the Foreknowledge of God, the problem of Penal Substitution, the confluence of the issues of religious diversity, religious evangelism, and positive conduct (i.e. your question about a single mom doing her best and living well and rightly, but as a Hindu)--that have led me to become a practitioner of Zen. (Just to be clear, I am not a Buddhist and one need not be Buddhist to become Zen).

Zen, at least my particular brand of it, would answer those questions in the following ways (grossly oversimplified for brevity):

"God" is really a concept of being. God is not a creator being, or a being at all, but the very force of creation, the ground of all being in the universe. One should meditate, pray, or whatever, to try their best to see the universe from this vantage point.

Thus, appeals to a God who can act for or against us are futile. (There is no problem of evil if "God" is not a being who chooses whether to act.)

The concept of "sin" is really a concept of the health of the soul, both individually and collectively (for a Zen person seeks to realize that all is really one and we are all connected to each other and all things). To "sin" is not to defy any set of "rules" or doctrine or the "will of God"--a false construction--but to act in such a way that one's spirit is diminished rather than enriched. Acting in such a negative way diminishes the collective spirit of all things and increases disharmony in all things, but centrally in one's own existence. There is no problem of sin, or of evangelism and religious diversity, if the measure of our conduct and beliefs is simply whether they are enriching or diminishing given the situations in which we find ourselves.

the Problems of Evil, the Foreknowledge of God, and Penal Substitution are also "solved" inherently if one does not believe in a God who chooses and acts: There is no choice on the judgment of all based on the sacrifice of one, there is no discussion of whether God answers prayers or allows children to die of starvation and brain cancer if God is simply not a being who makes such decisions, and there is no need to believe in foreknowledge, since such a thing is impossible. This only comes into conflict with the doctrine of omniscience if one chooses to believe in a master and creator God.

Instead, "evil" is really the manifestation of the fact that we are all connected, and some act in ways that are diminishing and/or misguided. We all make choices that effect all of us collectively and all of us together determine the path the world takes (at least in so far as we have an effect--in the great cosmic scheme of all things, we don't have much of one[!], other than our effect upon one another).

It is my belief that the Christian solutions to the aforementioned issues are much like the argument for the Geocentric model in the 15th century--the equations worked, but only with quite a lot of complicated contingencies, whereas the Heliocentric model was elegant, and simple...but very uncomfortable for many. Similarly, I have found Zen to be simple and beautiful, and enriching...but lacking the god concepts to which many are accustomed and feel that they need, whatever intellectual tap-dancing may be needed for them to avoid calling into question their cherished beliefs and traditions.

Interested to hear your response, should you like to make one.

Melody and Guitar

I often tell students that the guitar is a rhythm instrument and not a melody instrument. The tremolo picking demonstrated here clearly shows the error of my ways! It's different than the developing, expressive vibrato of the cello for instance, but what lovely sustain and persistent attention it provides. Wow.

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC."

-Kurt Vonnegut, as quoted in "Vonnegut's Blues For America" Sunday Herald (7 January 2006)

Blog Adventures yet again part 4 - final installment

Paula said...

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. ;-)

Steven Stark said...

"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?

Paula said...

"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".

Paula said...

Sorry, that last line was meant to be up with a previous paragraph.

Steven Stark said...

"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

Paula said...

"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...)

Paula said...

(... 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.

Blog Adventures yet again part 3

Paula said...

But if God has foreknowledge, then He knows which people will make poor choices.

So you're saying God cannot be moral if he can't come up with a possible world where no one chooses poorly? Then even in this scenario God has not really allowed anyone the choice to reject him. And if that's the case, why bother with letting history play out, and just create people in their final state of already having made the choice?

But it is completely irresponsible to give a child of 2 a pair of scissors

We are not children, and we are still only responsible for that which we can comprehend. Then the question is what we can comprehend, but since God has told us we are responsible for choosing, and what the choices are and their consequences, then how can we whine about not knowing? A child has no concept of consequences, but we do. And the fact that we are here discussing the possibility of people spending eternity in hell proves that we understand the choices.

Then no one would go to hell. For we cannot grasp such things.

I disagree. God told us point-blank what the choices are or we wouldn't be discussing them. You and I understand that eternal hell awaits the lost, therefore we have grasped the fact that this is possible, and we are thus responsible.

And I still find it incoherent that a person would willingly choose an eternity of misery unless they cannot grasp the situation

And I still know that many have willingly done so while sane. It's pride, the unwillingness to let God rule over us. It reminds me of the very first Star Trek episode, where Capt. Pike was captured by aliens who created a virtual paradise for him. They were amazed that he would rather live in a real world of suffering than a pretend world of bliss, and Pike said something to the effect that people don't like having "gods" over them, even if they're benevolent. Many people I've met online have stated that they would rather be tortured for all eternity than bow to God.

(continued...)

Paula said...

(... continued)

How can a person defy God to his face?

Ask Adam. ;-) Or Satan. And God has given evidence of his existence, though many just deny it. I often ask how the SETI project expects to identify intelligent communication when they deny that DNA is a code. Either the univers screams "design" or it's the most amazing accident, and if the latter, then nothing can ever be called "intelligent". That's just how I see it.

What of the Dalai Lama would be left if his good qualities were extinguished?

What do you think the residents of hell will do for all eternity? Feed the poor? What "good qualities" will matter? Your argument is based upon the premise that goodness is not relative to God but only to ourselves.

So if God rules, and it is simply because He is powerful, then there is nothing inherently more just than if the majority ruled.

I disagree, because God is just by definition, and morality is relative to him. Without God as the reference point, everything is relative, and morality is a mere opinion. I believe goodness only has meaning in relationship to God as a reference. Saying people are good is like saying which direction is "north" in outer space. Everything depends upon a reference point.

But I am not sure that threatening a person with after-life punishment…

This "choose me or die" is a straw man, as I've tried to explain. The fact of God's nature eternal and omnipresent is why there can only be "God" and "not God"; there are no other possibliities. This is not God being mean but simply God being constrained by his own nature.

I sympathize with having difficulty attending church - when you think about these things as much as you obviously do, it can be difficult to find a community sometimes!

Actually, my convictions about church attendance have nothing to do with community. I love to be with other believers, but neither Jesus nor the apostles ever set up "church" as we know it. Jesus said "The time has come for people to worship God in spirit and truth, not in this place or that". The apostles said we are the Temple of God, and we have God's Holy Spirit within us. There is no need for the external trappings of religion. (I love the irony of people saying "this isn't a religion but a relationship" while they're standing in a sanctuary and talking to a clergyman.) But that's another big topic for another day.

Steven Stark said...

"And if that's the case, why bother with letting history play out, and just create people in their final state of already having made the choice?"

Very good question.

"So you're saying God cannot be moral if he can't come up with a possible world where no one chooses poorly? Then even in this scenario God has not really allowed anyone the choice to reject him."

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?

Better yet, why not create the perfect combination of freedom and determinism by never giving up on anyone? People would have free choice, but given eternity, surely everyone would be ready for everlasting love, for finding the purpose for which they were created, at some point.


"And the fact that we are here discussing the possibility of people spending eternity in hell proves that we understand the choices."

I can discuss infinity, but I cannot understand it.

"You and I understand that eternal hell awaits the lost, therefore we have grasped the fact that this is possible, and we are thus responsible."

I am not sure I follow here. 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. I am also not sure how grasping the fact of a possibility equates to understanding the weight of that possibility and the information required to make that decision. I can grasp the possibility that the world might end tomorrow, but I doubt I understand the weight of that possibility - and I think I have no good reasons to think the world will end tomorrow.


"Many people I've met online have stated that they would rather be tortured for all eternity than bow to God."

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. They might to save their own skin I suppose, but perhaps that is not real bowing. If God is goodness itself, compassion, love - then who would not submit to this - except perhaps those who are emotionally damaged or mentally impaired or sociopathic. And who could liberate one from such bondage? Perhaps only God.

I will leave the intelligent design argument for another time.

"Your argument is based upon the premise that goodness is not relative to God but only to ourselves."

If good is only good because God says so - then it is arbitrary. It could be anything. If God declared killing children good, would you accept this as good? Of course He would never do this because it would be against His nature (don't read the book of Joshua....), but how do we know it would be against his nature? Because of our own thoughts and feelings about what is good. So even if we try to split the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma by declaring God to be bound by his own nature to be good - we still define that goodness in terms of our own feelings and thoughts - else it would seem arbitrary to us. And if we appeal to mystery - we can't see all ends so we don't know what will end up being good - then we are effectively declaring God's actions arbitrary from our point of view. In other words God could command anything, and no matter how evil it seemed, we would still use the word "good" for it. How would we then choose to act in the world? Our actions, which we would try to make good ones, would not match God's - the supposed grounding of what is good.


Thanks for the conversation - Good stuff.

Blog Adventures yet again part 2

Paula said...

Steven,

You're very welcome.

Does creation with foreknowlege not equal causation?...

I don't believe it does equal causation. If I invent a game and set the rules, I am not determining who wins. Now of course we didn't have any choice but to play this game of life, yet not even God could choose whether or not to exist, and how should he ask us this question before we exist? Yet at the same time, we can't expect God to not be allowed to create sentient beings, just because they might make poor choices. I view all this as something like children playing in a fenced-in playground. They are limited in that they cannot go beyond the fence, and there are rules against hitting, cuttin in line, etc. But the children are not told what to play; they are not micromanaged. Yet if some children choose to break the rules, or jump the fence, the adults are not to blame.

And I believe God created each person with the capacity, the free choice, to either accept or reject him.

1. Of course - if God is powerful, then He can do what He will. But should we call it good if it does not match what we normally mean by "good"?

Where did we get our sense of "good"? If we can judge God, then he is below us. Yet at the same time, since I believe we get our sense of morality from him, it stands to reason that he would not violate them. We can hardly think God would live on a lower level of justice that us fallible humans. So then the question is whether we have all knowledge, such that if justice does not happen in this life, we know it will never happen in the next either. That is, we can't say that God will not right every wrong eventually, even if it only happens in the next life. So there will be ultimate justice, and as I said, we have to trust God for this. That's what faith is all about; it proves that we are not "fair weather friends" to God. So when we ask what is good, we need to consider eternity as well as this life.

2… Wouldn't this be forcing them away? Once again, why shut the door forever?

Some argue that it's because God (and even human spirits) will go on forever. But I wouldn't be satisfied with that answer, and we don't have enough information upon which to answer that question. But here again we either trust God to be just, or we don't.

3. I do not think the freedom to forever damn yourself is a freedom that anyone would want to have...

Of course nobody wants that. But it has to be on God's terms. And what is he asking that's so hard? He pays the price and only asks us to trust him. How can this be unfair? To use your analogy, it would be like giving the child the scissors, then asking for them back because you can be trusted with them and handle them safely. Sometimes a good parent has to give a child a limited chance to fail, but if the child stubbornly refuses to give back the scissors, they can't rightly blame the parents for their pain. And remember, we are not as innocent as children. God only holds us responsible for what we can grasp.

I don't think a person, when confronted with choosing eternity with God or with "not God" would pick "not God" - unless they were mentally ill or did not understand the situation -

I disagree. Many choose "not God" out of pure pride. They knowingly choose out of hatred for God, regardless of what it may cost. These are the ones who defy God to his face. But many more reject God out of ignorance, and this is partly the fault of Christians who are unprepared to defend the faith and articulate these kinds of answers. Our "Christian education" is pathetic, a school where no one ever graduates. I rant about that often in my blog. Yet at the same time, I believe that God is not only just but compassionate and understanding of our weaknesses and failures, and will see to it that any who would choose him has the chance.

(continued...)

Paula said...

(... continued)

I doubt you think that non-Christians are wholly evil people. There is much good in everyone. Are you suggesting that when non-Christians die, then they lose all their good qualities?

Not at all. I said that the PLACE of not God is devoid of good. But many people, even Christians, do not know the difference between saved/lost and judgment. What I mean is that our fate is sealed the moment we die, so what is judgment for? Certainly not to decide whether we go to heaven or hell. Instead, judgment is for payback for how we lived. Those who go to heaven will possibly lose rewards, while those who go to hell will get a degree of suffering in line with how they lived. But we don't have much detail beyond what we can deduce from general principles. So this question cannot be answered completely, but yet again, I appeal to God's nature and choose to trust him.

Please define "holy"

Technically, it simply means "set apart for some purpose". What I mean by it here is that God is faultless and perfect. As for whether God loves the damned, scripture tells us that Christ died for us while we were still sinners, and that he loves the whole world. We have no detail on what that means for eternity for the lost.

This is not the opinion of the many, many atheists who volunteer their time and energy everyday to make the world a better place.

Why? Isn't this inconsistent with "nature red in tooth and claw"? If we are all a cosmic accident, there is no purpose, no altruism that matters. Who is to say that helping to make the world nicer is "good"? Some people think they should molest children; can we ask them? Why not? Where does morality come from, if it's accidental? Does the majority rule? What if the majority thinks cannibalism is a virtue? We have to remember that not everyone shares our opinions on morality.

Thanks again for the conversation! And please know, as a side note, that I do not reject Christianity or religion- rather just its evangelical, conservative incarnation.

You're quite welcome. :-) And while I don't especially like being broad-brushed (I am both evangelical and conservative), I agree that The Institution as I call it, or Churchianity, has a lot of faults. It might surprise you to know that I stopped "going to church" after 47 years of faithful attendance and active participation.

Steven Stark said...

"we can't expect God to not be allowed to create sentient beings, just because they might make poor choices."

But if God has foreknowledge, then He knows which people will make poor choices.

"it would be like giving the child the scissors, then asking for them back because you can be trusted with them and handle them safely."

But it is completely irresponsible to give a child of 2 a pair of scissors - not matter what stipulations. It seems that to give a finite human being the capability to damn him/herself is even worse.

"God only holds us responsible for what we can grasp."

Then no one would go to hell. For we cannot grasp such things. And I still find it incoherent that a person would willingly choose an eternity of misery unless they cannot grasp the situation (as you mentioned) or unless they are mentally ill. Do people who choose to torture themselves seem right in the head to you? Or do they need help? And who can free a person from this condition except God's intervention?

"These are the ones who defy God to his face"

How can a person defy God to his face? Many people deny the idea of God as put forth by conservative religion. I could say that your belief in Hell is an act of defiance towards the true God of never-ending, persistent love who never fails and never gives up on anyone. Why not? You may not believe in this God, but you wouldn't say you were denying God because we are defining God differently. And many simply do not believe that God exists (at least the God of classical theism, or Yahweh in particular). Many people don't think unicorns exist. That doesn't mean they don't like unicorns or the idea of unicorns. I like unicorns.....

" I said that the PLACE of not God is devoid of good"

I am not sure I am understanding you here. If the place of "not God" is devoid of all good, and all people have some degree of goodness in them on earth, then wouldn't it make sense that the personalities of the damned would have to be changed and that all their good qualities would have to be either extinguished (or saved?). What of the Dalai Lama would be left if his good qualities were extinguished?

"Does the majority rule?"

Not necessarily. But if it did, why? Because it is powerful, right? So if God rules, and it is simply because He is powerful, then there is nothing inherently more just than if the majority ruled. We are getting into the Euthyphro Dilemma here, which I love to discuss, but it's a different offshoot. I will just say that Christians who claim that God grounds morality, still believe that right and wrong is written on our hearts (or else God's laws would seem completely arbitrary to us). This means we must rely on our ethical intuitions and our reasoning to ground morality, and this is no different than what non-Christians believe.

"We have to remember that not everyone shares our opinions on morality."

This is true. But I am not sure that threatening a person with after-life punishment really changes the morality of something. We have to ask if morality is real and consequential here and now or if it's not real and consequential and is only grounded in an afterlife punishment.

I sympathize with having difficulty attending church - when you think about these things as much as you obviously do, it can be difficult to find a community sometimes!