Apos,
This discussion is taking place at a very busy season, in which it is very inconvenient to become deeply embroiled in a discussion that is in no sense time-sensitive. Nonetheless, I like your objections and challenges to my thesis, and do intend to address them as soon as possible. Watch this space. I will post my response here, unless the thread gets too long below it, in which case, I will post at a later position.
------------------------------------
Okay, I found a few minutes to jot down some thoughts. I don't know if I will soon be able to respond to whatever challenges you may raise to this present response:
You wrote:
Just a quick note on your comments on what atheists do and think. Much of your initial paragraphs in your large response amount to ad homenim attacks. I've seen exactly the same behavior in many atheist forums where it is the atheists who are claiming that theists are emotional reasoners and sweet logic is on their side.
Actually, this is not an example of
ad hominem argumentation. If I were to say something like, “Atheists are emotional people, so their philosophy is suspect,” I would be using an
ad hominem argument. That logical fallacy is the dismissal of an opponent’s
conclusions, based upon the disparaging of his
character. On the other hand, it is not
ad hominem argumentation to say, “My opponent’s arguments are not rational” (which is what I said).
Ad hominem attacks the character of the person. I am critiquing the character of the arguments themselves—which is the opposite of
ad hominem argumentation.
(I want to clarify that the atheists' arguments themselves are not entirely "irrational." That is, they do not lack some rational cogency. But they do not lead to the atheistic affirmations about the existence of God. My point is that their arguments do not require that anyone rationally reach the conclusion that there is no God. The proof for a universal negative would require far better arguments, and it is not rationally sound to say that any of the ones on the table compel a rational thinker to adopt the atheists' conclusions.)
Of course, in saying that a position’s arguments are all based on visceral, rather than rational, considerations, one invites the possible response that visceral factors are as good as, or better than, rational ones in determining what is true. One could put forward a case for this proposition, though no one would be required to agree with it until compelling evidence of a rational kind had been brought forward in its defense.
Another response that such a statement invites would be an actual demonstration from the other side that this evaluation is incorrect—that is, the presentation of strictly rational arguments that logically demand the atheist’s conclusions. I am saying that this cannot be done, but am very welcoming of any attempts at disproof of my assertion.
I don't believe either statement is true. You claim that Dawkins and Hitchens use emotional arguments. I don't doubt it, emotional arguments are the more persuasive. Emotional arguments backed by reason are more persuasive still, and if you were to watch material by David Smalley, or Matt Dillahunty I think you would see that they are wrapping both emotional reasoning and logic into their arguments. Perhaps you wouldn't.
I truly wish I had the time to listen to every atheist’s presentations in order to evaluate them. I certainly would agree that a less emotional approach than that of Dawkins and Hitchens can be imagined. However, I doubt that anyone, regardless of their Vulcan tendencies, can find a compelling rational argument establishing beyond reasonable doubt the absolute negative that atheism affirms.
For example, the discussion I provided above concerning the existence of evil and suffering will not appeal to many—certainly not to atheists, and as you can see, not even to all Christians. However, the only objections that can arise to it are emotional responses, not logical ones (notwithstanding the seemingly logical challenges you present, which I will address).
It is in the nature of logic to demonstrate, from reliable premises, that some conclusion is necessarily true. I said from the beginning that not all will accept my premises. However, given my premises (which may be disputed, but cannot be found irrational, nor even improbable), I do not think it possible to impugn the logic of my conclusions. If a logical fallacy has entered my reasoning processes, I would be indebted to the person who can show it to me.
By contrast, even accepting the premises of the atheist, I do not think the existence of a mandatory morality can be derived, without resorting to logical fallacies.
What I can say is that people who have had their ability to feel emotions damaged have a very hard time making decisions. I believe that we are creatures of emotion and reason and should practice both in our lives and our decision making.
I fully agree. Emotions play a very large and legitimate roll in our lives and relationships, but not in our logical reasoning. Emotions must stand in judgment over raw logic in certain relational situations, but logic (the more raw, the better) must stand in judgment over emotions in determining or views of ultimate cosmic realities—e.g., things in the mathematical and factual domains.
There are many times, even in relationships, where logic must override emotion—as when a woman has become emotionally infatuated with a man whose history and character indicate a tendency to abusive behavior, or when a parent must reasonably say “no” to a child, while being emotionally drawn to pamper and coddle the child’s feelings. I have used this illustration previously (in other threads): My son broke his arm, and by the time the doctors could get to him, they needed to re-break it in order to set it properly (I have used this previously as an analogy to God’s needing to painfully break us in order to set us straight). My son was a minor, so the doctor needed my permission to break his arm. All my parental instincts (emotions) rebelled at the suggestion of causing additional pain to my son, but, rationally, I knew this was necessary. I went with logic, rather than my emotions. Today, my son is happy that I did so.
I don't hold with people who try to be Vulcans, or with the idea that using emotion for thinking somehow makes ones thinking suspect. I don't believe that research or experience bear out the ideal of a purely rational mind. Empathy is an emotion and failure to heed it's call has led to atrocity after atrocity through out human history.
It is not rational thinking that has led to atrocities in history, but adherence to evil values. I said before that one’s worldview generates the premises from which one reasons. A heartless tyrant may be acting logically, according to the premises generated by his worldview.
Hitler, for example, and Darwin before him, both believed the ultimate principle in the cosmos is progress through the survival of the fittest. Darwin said that it is as illogical to preserve mentally ill and otherwise defective human beings as it is for a cattle breeder to promote the reproduction of his inferior specimens. Hitler agreed, and put into practice what Darwin merely philosophized about. A bit of emotional compassion would have prevented Hitler from committing his atrocities, but there was nothing in his worldview that indicated that compassion is a guiding principle of reality. Darwin and Hitler’s conclusions were consistent with their worldview.
By contrast, no one who consistently holds to, and logically follows, the values of the Christian worldview has ever, while doing so, committed any atrocity.
You equated evil in the world to surgery, and linked it as a cause from the fall and original sin.
It is a niggling point, but I would clarify that I said nothing about “original sin.” The term has ramifications that originated with Augustine, and which I do not necessarily endorse. I did say that we are all infected by sin, like a disease. I did not say whether the disease was congenital or whether it was acquired in our youth. The one thing both observable and biblical is that everyone carries the virus, and it is killing them.
You stated that suffering is an antidote to sinful self interest. I fail to see how a child dying of cancer or starvation is aiding anyone in avoiding sinful self interest.
You know, of course, that I addressed this with Paidion—namely, that it is consistent with Christian belief (and with non-religious belief, too!) to acknowledge that there are things that we do not understand, but which are nonetheless true.
Again, from the premises I listed, it is necessary to conclude that all that God allows is, in some way, toward a better end than would be His not allowing it. This is the necessary result of believing in an all-good and all-powerful God. Your statement that you “fail to see how” something could end up working for good agrees fully with what I have said. I agree that you cannot see it, and, in many cases, I cannot either. However, it cannot be logically demonstrated that what you and I cannot foresee is something nonexistent, and even seen clearly by a God as superior to us in knowledge as we are to our pet dog. This is a matter of faith to the Christian, but it is not an irrational belief. It springs necessarily (logically) from the premises of a Christian’s worldview. Those who think this a cruel consequence of a Christian worldview are not thinking clearly.
Consider: the one thing that all acknowledge is that there is horrendous and seemingly senseless suffering in the world. This terrible phenomenon is either really senseless, or its senselessness is our misperception.
We can go one of two ways about this. We can conclude, with the atheist, that there is no transcendent purpose, no intended advantage, and nothing particularly right or wrong about this phenomenon.
By contrast, the Christian view is that, while we do not understand everything, these seemingly senseless sufferings are not entirely senseless. They are within the range of governance of an all-wise and omnibeneficent God—who loves the sufferer (as I love my son, and loathed to break his arm) and who would never allow such suffering unless there was some outcome intended that more than warranted the temporary, though often intense, suffering.
Of the two, which view is the cruel one?
You have stated that you believe in a god who can do anything, but you describe sin as needing suffering to remedy the disease. This seems like a contradiction to me. On the one hand you advocate an all powerful god but then you tell us how he is forced to operate.
I can understand your confusion. You are making a category error in drawing to exact a similarity between physical sickness and spiritual sickness. Pain is not a necessary factor in the treating of physical ailments, and be dispensed with (through anesthesia, for example) without impairing the cure. This is because healing physical organs involves things like the righting of chemical deficiencies, encouraging organ restoration, eliminating physical impediments, etc. There is nothing in the nature of these curative processes that would be harmed by the absence of pain.
However, spiritual cures involve character and behavioral change. In the case of persons whose character and behavior are wrongly directed by their preference (that is, by their free will choice), it becomes necessary, if change is to occur, for them to be made less pleased with their present choices. There is little, other than some form of consequential suffering, that will change one’s preferences. For example, if someone prefers to prey upon innocent victims, a prison sentence, or some other unpleasant remedy, is most likely to change his mind about the desirability of such habits.
Even one who changes without suffering such outward consequences must do so through another kind (a milder kind) of discomfort—namely, regret over wrongs done, and the belief that a change of habit will diminish the pain of regret. I am not saying that pain must be intense in order to be effective. The question of intensity necessary varies according to the individual “patient.”
In restoring physical well-being to a sick person, pain is not the essence, but an attendant consequence, of the treatment. In spiritual reformation, pain of one degree or another, is the active ingredient in the therapy.
To say that an omnipotent God could make this otherwise, is like saying that such a God could make any nonsensical reality that we can imagine. Humans with free will are motivated by self-interest, or self-pleasing. Suffering is simply the only means of influencing self-interest. In fact, it is in the very definition of “suffering,” that it violates self-pleasing. That which is self-pleasing is not suffering. Suffering is the opposite of self-pleasing.
If the disease were of a different nature, a different remedy would be possible. Those who say that God is omnipotent do not believe that He is capable of making two-plus-two equal five. Some things are simply inherent in logic, and a rational God cannot violate them—because rationality is part of His own nature, and He cannot be what He is not.
If this explanation is not seen as reasonable to you, it is the best I can do with my limited powers.
Your analogy is that of a surgeon, however modern surgeons use many treatments to minimize or eliminate the pain of their work. God seems not to. Since you advocate an all powerful god, then why is he not administering the correction in a manner which does not require children to die of starvation, or cancer, or tsunamis? Why did the Philippines need to be hit by multiple Hurricanes recently?
For the answer to this, I would commend my comments just above.
As I read your discussion I predict the answer will be that you don't know but since god is all good, there is a reason that completely justifies all of the horror visited upon all the people who have been powerless over all the years to stop the things which happen to them.
That is my general answer to issues that are inscrutable to us. However, not all matters are inexplicable. They may only be inexplicable to us at the moment, but may come clear before nightfall.
I have endured excruciating sufferings, for which I could find a reason, nor imagine any positive outcome. In retrospect, I can see benefits—either to myself or others, or both—from every one of them. You are right that, with reference to finally inexplicable cases, I fall back on the truth I know about God. And why not? I have every reason to believe that the same benevolence that has observably turned so many “evils” into “goods” in my observable experience, is equally at work in those cases where I cannot observe the outcomes. It is reasonable extrapolation from what is known to what is unknown. Rational people are familiar with such a process in many domains.
But, that leads me to believe that to you, these things are good, not evil. That they are part of the surgery and that the pain, emotional and physical, are a necessary and good part of the treatment. If that is true, how do you feel about those people who work to lessen the suffering of the world? Aren't they working at a counter purpose to God who inflicts the suffering? Should we stop helping each other? (I trust you will say no, but I want to know why).
Evil is not good, and should be resisted and defeated, when it is in our power to do so. In fact, for all we know, the suffering of another may have, as its primary purpose, the drawing out of compassion and intervention on my part. Compassion is the opposite of sin, and might be seen as part of its cure.
Surgery can be regarded as a good thing when sickness is regarded as a bad thing. It is better that a person not be sick in the first place. Likewise, it is a good thing if the person, once sick, can recover without intrusive medical interventions. Surgery is the choice of last resort. It is a good thing—though some things are better.
Suffering is intended to be temporary—sometimes fleeting. If the pain of burning causes me to withdraw my hand from the stove, that momentary pain has done its good work. If prolonged suffering is necessary in order to work some deeper advantage, then it serves its purpose. The thing is, we do not know how long God may see it necessary for a given affliction to continue. It will end someday—maybe at death, maybe tomorrow. In many cases, its end will be brought about by the intervention of compassionate responders. We are commanded to be those responders. We intervene with a genuine desire to end the suffering, if possible. If we succeed, we know that God has used us to bring temporal suffering to its proper end. Where we are helpless to defeat the suffering, we leave the matter in the hands of God, trusting that, while He may extend the treatment beyond the point of our intervention, yet He will not extend it forever—nor any longer than He sees as necessary. The question is whether we will trust His judgment, or ours, in the matter.