We’re swimming in the same end of the pool then because that is as it seems to me as well. If only the pedestal didn’t have to be made so high.
And we, as we are, are already transcendent. We often have practical free will, the ability to stand back from the impulse of instinct and emotion to consider practical repercussions, to notice that others are persons like myself, and to consider the cultural implications as well. But could we have attained even this much transcendence without all that messy evolution? I have no reason to think so. So our involvement in achieving a less bloody, less cruel world is absolutely necessary. What gives rise to God belief puts the power in our hands. The rest is up to us.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
42
MarkD, then I’m in good company. The pedestal we put God on that He doesn’t want?
We’re transcendent already? Hmmm. We certainly yearn for it. But is that it? Impulse control in the light of consequential reasoning? Is our culture transcending? What gives rise to (Judeo-Christian?) God belief is exposure to that blind committee elephant.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood the site but possibly you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not saying a post on a popular site needs something so brand new, nor so academic it would be well suited to a publication for peer-review. I’m definitely not saying that. But should popular philosophy / theology blogs be held to rational scrutiny? Of course. One reason I am obviously commenting under this post is to make people (most probably theists) aware that there are very good atheistic / agnostic responses to this kind of theodicy. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the tu quoque I’m afraid. When I read that comment it sounds too much like a drowning swimmer asking the lifeguard to drown with them rather than accept the help available.
I’m glad we don’t agree on the last point. I would like to know how someone is going to make that argument.
“My claim is that there very well could be a requirement for a substantial number of the members of C to have some property, P, but that not every member needs to have it.”
That’s an interesting claim but it is just that. That claim would need to argue the basis upon which P is needed by substantial numbers yet a minority don’t need P. It would need to make a case for the justice of such a system. And that just takes us back to the original question. We’re no closer to an answer as far as Christianity is concerned. Maybe I’m too Humean, but the analogy adds nothing either. The ‘strength’ of the analogy is that we can see, and reason, the obvious advantages of members of C being over six foot tall. We know why. We can do empirical testing and build statistical models to test this condition and see if it gives an advantage. The point is, the Christian apologist doesn’t know why in the poe. The honest ones even tell us they don’t know why. This is why us Humeans are so sceptical of arguments from analogy. On the face of it it looks like a convincing comparison but it’s not. The key issue here is knowledge. The analogy is only convincing because we already know how C relates to P. Christians don’t know how ‘C’ and ‘P’ relate in the poe.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
45
Aye. Very good. We have to do the compassion, the inclusion of all, from a position of privileged helplessness.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
46
My apologies for not replying to you directly. It is not for any other reason than I prefer to keep a single dialogue going and then I don’t confuse different people’s arguments. My apologies to Christy that I have done this too. Please be assured it is nothing personal to either of you.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
48
I understand completely, no apology necessary, au contraire.
Well, we’re not making any headway here on the tu quoque… you honestly don’t believe the position you’ve come to has any difficulties, any downside, anything counterintuitive? If that’s really the case, I’m afraid rational discussion between us is pointless. If you do, why not admit it? This is not a point-scoring forum.
It seems to me that you’ve moved the goal posts on your next point. You said,
I said, well, maybe not. At a site like this our goal is not original scholarship. So you respond with, no I’m not saying saying it needs to be so brand new, but held to rational scrutiny. Fine agreed.
So on that count, you gave an argument that if one person can flourish without suffering, then all people should be able to flourish without suffering. I responded by showing the form of that argument to be invalid in the technical logical sense (which is quite different than labeling something an informal fallacy). That doesn’t mean your specific claim is false, just that it is not a valid argument against me.
Your response didn’t acknowledge that (you present yourself as knowing your way around philosophy, so I assume you recognize what I’m talking about). But instead said, “Interesting claim, but you’ve not argued for it.” Well, I wrote 2000 words and gave reasons. So when you critique those reasons with an invalid argument, and I show that to be the case, it seems like the onus is still on you to argue for why I’m wrong.
I will talk all day with people who disagree with me, so long as they can take critique as well as they give it. I’m not sensing that here.
Even in a great world you still have people who will reject what God says and listen to a “snake”.
In a world slightly less as great you still have brothers killing each other.
In America almost 500,000 people die a year because of tobacco. On this planet we have enough enough resources to feed every human and animal yet we have kids that literally starve to death.
So let’s say God takes away all things that can hurt us. We can’t even bite in tongues accidentally. People would still choose evil. Millions would still choose evil. Or let’s say God makes it to where we can’t choose evil. Then we have no free will. More people will die in America from behind a wheel by drinking , texting, or not paying attention than by the virus most likely.
Or as I mentioned somewhere what if humanity and civilization was partly to blame for fracturing the wilderness and forcing animals to smaller ranges which means more likely the chances of coming in contact with the viruses and so on.
Thanks Jim - I think I’m going to leave it here. I believe I have made my points and I feel that you are making points which have less to do with the academic arguments now and sound more like someone who wants to make the issue personal (suggesting someone is “presenting” themselves a certain way and claiming they are unable to handle critique). I don’t want the discussion heading in that direction so thanks anyway. I hope you, and anyone else reading on this thread, stays well at this difficult time and considers a more rational response to suffering and evil than the fideistic response Christianity gives.
Well @jstump, I finally got around to reading your article. I like the way you merged the philosophy with the science in a way that didn’t require a whole lot of expertise in either one. So thumbs up for the writing. As you admit yourself, it is a problem in the sense of being a genuine conundrum and not one a Christian can solve without addressing at least some theological assumptions, I wouldn’t think.
further, everything we understand about life implies that viruses have been around about as long as life itself. We can confidently say that life as we know it would not exist without viruses.
That is the point I’m working up to.
As a comparison, think about earthquakes. These are the result of tectonic activity, without which the planet would probably be totally covered by water or totally covered by land—neither of which would allow for the kind of life we see now. So we might wonder why God created the Earth with earthquakes, and the answer is: removing the possibility of earthquakes from our planet takes away other aspects of the world we couldn’t live without.
You’ve shown that the issue with the virus is akin to other surprising creational gifts like earthquakes in that life as we know it wouldn’t exist otherwise. But of course as you concede that begs the question: why doesn’t life exist otherwise?
[I’ve withdrawn the rest of my original response for further consideration. Upon further reflection it seems presumptuous to suggest a major re-working of your concept of God as if that was something held lightly.]
Kierkegaard’s paradox of faith. The eternal entered time.
God bless them for their service. Jesus said there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. He also asked what reward we think we deserve when we love only those who love us. (Even the worst do that much!) Finally, Jesus was fond of reasoning “how much more …?” So, putting it all together, if there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for for one’s friends, how much more do those deserve who risk their lives for strangers, most of whom are ungrateful for what they’ve received?
I think Wesley got it right with his “quadrangle”: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. For you, experience is primary, and I would say the same for myself, but for different reasons. Either way, some will choose a different one of the four as their primary element, and they aren’t necessarily wrong.
But I think faith becomes shaky when it rests on just one or two legs. If someone seeks to justify their belief entirely on the basis of reason, their faith is ready to fail. Someone else justifies faith in Scripture alone (sorry, Sola Scriptura believers), and they must live in a silo free from outside evidence, and their children’s faith (judging by the evidence) is also on shaky ground. And as Protestants, most of us are great at shaking off tradition. I would never put it on top of my “cube,” but we do ourselves a disservice when we neglect 1,000 years of spiritual experience prior to the Reformation. That’s one reason I value groups like Renovaré.
I also appreciate your note about taking comfort in past experience. I’m sure you know this is a common theme in the Psalms, and it’s a fact of discipleship. The truth, in this case, isn’t known by facts; it’s a process, which can be known only by experience. Spiritual experience comes from the practical experience of following Christ. It’s like the difference between knowing how to ride a bike and knowing about bikes and the rules for riding them. The desire for spiritual experience is rarely met by epiphany or revelation, except in rare cases like Paul on the road the Damascus. “If you hold to my teaching, you truly are my disciples. Then you will know the truth.” Being a disciple comes before knowing the truth.
Sorry I’m late to the party. I liked your essay, but the bit about the number of viruses was slight overkill. (Finding a nit to pick.) I think the gist of your natural evil argument is the “cost of creation,” which I agree is correct. For the earth to provide the kind of environment that sustains biological life, certain conditions must apply (plate tectonics, atmospheric conditions, weather, oceans and tides, etc.). Life on Earth wouldn’t be possible without what we call “natural disasters.” By the same token, the creation of biological life entails certain costs that come along with it – namely, death and things like viruses, cancer, birth defects, etc. Now, I’m going to get Pascalian on you and say that if Christians were exempt from natural disasters, virus, disease, birth defects, etc., then it would become obvious pretty quickly who was on the “winning” side. But then where would faith be? The same applies to the search for proof of God – whether in science or philosophy. If it were found, wouldn’t that be the end of faith?
Mainly, though, I appreciated your focus on God creating a people for himself. I hadn’t really connected the corporate aspect to the problem of evil, but it makes perfect sense. Not everyone has the same experience of God, either. The foot cannot say to the hand … and so forth. There are individual and corporate aspects to salvation, and the same goes for sin. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I’m intrigued by the book The Emergence of Sin: The Cosmic Tyrant in Romans. The author takes the view that sin is an emergent property. Not sure I agree, but it’s an interesting thesis.
Of course, you’re right that our species had to go through the evolutionary process to have the cognitive capabilities that we have. The same path carried with it the capacity for empathy, communication, and love in the mature sense. On humans as cooperative and culture-making, love to hear your feedback sometime on my latest essay/podcast. Right up your alley (and @Christy’s) when/if you have time.
Just getting back to this thread… I’m not sure I’m on board with this description of faith. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, “Father Abraham” won’t send Lazarus back from the dead to warn the rich man’s brothers – not because it will take away their freedom or negate the need for faith, but because it won’t work: “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
I’d suggest that points to the knowledge of God being a different kind of knowledge than the kind that deals in proofs (I’m guessing you agree with that). We see things “as” when concepts are supplied to help organize that data (to get Kantian on you!). Without those concepts, we’ll never be able to see natural disasters as anything other than tragedies.
Thanks for the Emergence of Sin link. I’m going to check that out.