(no subject)
I have been thinking of this issue for a while now, and here it is.
I would submit to you a proof.
Premises:
1) God is an omnipotent creator (He can do anything and created the world as it is)
2) God is omniscient (as per the term, he knows everything that is and everything that will be)
3) God is good
From these simple statements (which many would take to be true) there arise ... complications. For instance, take 1 and 2. If God created everything with infinite knowledge, then everything you do is determined. If the circumstances under which you were born, the lessons you learn, the values you take from those lessons, etc etc - if these are all known, and furthermore have been set into motion by he who knows, then there can be no self determination. But wait (a religious person with whom I was discussing this earlier went), this is fallacious! You can compare this [working of omniscience] to a small child left in the room with a cookie. You might know how he would act (ostentatiously, eating the cookie) but he still makes that choice. Very good, I say. You’ve reduced the argument into a simple to grasp, and yet worthless, rebuttal. It is not the same. For one thing, you don’t know. The child might make the choice not to eat the cookie. Just because most commonly a young child would leave no morsel in its wake is, in the end, irrelevant. The fact that there is an opportunity to do other [aka what is unexpected, even if only one child out of a million actually does it], is. You cannot have a choice with only a single possible outcome.
Thus, predestination, which opens up a whole can of worms. Essentially, everything now points toward God. Mass murderers: God. Trials given to people who are not strong enough to overcome them: God. Bloodshed, those worthless unbelievers, and everything anyone does: God. There are two decent arguments against this which I have heard. The first, Hellish intervention: if it is bad, it is the work of the devil. Personally, I find this a silly cop out, especially when we review the creation myth and premises 1 and 2. God was responsible for Lucifer. He made him and in his infinite knowledge knew what he made. Not good enough. The second, dichotomy of good and evil: without evil in the world, good cannot exist. It is an interesting approach, but still lacking. Without free will, the opportunity for everyone to seek good when they see it, the dichotomy is meaningless. If there will always be those souls put on a predetermined path toward evil from which they are unable to turn, such a dichotomy is only sadistic.
With this distasteful thought, we stumble across our conclusion - God is good (we will ignore the fact that “God is good” is not so much a conclusion as a premise ground into peoples heads. The main point is the interaction between the three statements). If you create something to be evil, what does that make you? If you have rules and regulations which some people are unable to follow because of a fate designed by your hand, what does that make you? Certainly not good.
And thus, the argument is invalid.
Now a wise person, familiar with my sophistry might pull me aside and say, “Nathan, Nathan, you’re being tricky. You are taking the mainstream view of religion and using it to try and disprove all religion. After all, 55% of the American public believes in “from the book creationism. Wise people know it would be a sad, sad world if all truth could fit inside one book. Don’t you think that is a bit unfair to argue against the popular stance when it isn’t what enlightened folk believe?”
And I would smile. “But now we’ve gotten rid of that 55%. This is where the real dialogue begins.”
So an enlightened person knows the bible was written through the lens of medieval Europe and works around that. We no longer make women walk behind the caravan during their “unclean times,” stone people for eating shellfish, or sell our children into slavery.
An enlightened person knows that god is not an old man looking down from on high; that the stories in the bible are not literal. Okay. Then what is he? I have heard a number of interesting interpretations: the forces of the universe, inner light (self knowledge and inner peace, very Quaker though the person who mentioned it was not), a benevolent force of meaning and purpose from which things operate, and (my personal favorite) love.
Well and good. We have now restricted our concepts to things that also exist (ie have meaning) in my own personal universe while discarding things that don’t (aka old sky-men). We can agree! But why should I believe? That same universe can more easily be explained by Occam’s razor, or at the least it is a manner of semantics. There have been a few arguments from team divinity. They go as such:
Afterlife - you snooze, you loose. For all eternity.
You can look at this two ways. One, literally: your… spirit, mind, whatever shall “live” forever after your body’s death. And two: this is again, something of higher understanding: you live forever by returning to the universe as per the wheel of life (yay decomposition), you live forever in the loving memories held of you by others, etc, etc. There are too many to go into now. Perhaps you can guess which one I have issues with.
Issue the first - Forever? To be honest, I think it cheapens the life we have now. People can give up happiness, leave things as they are without trying to change them because if they sit tight, if they believe, they will have never-ending happiness. Escapism much?
Issue the second - Heaven / Hell? According to most religions, I am going to burn in Hell. It is a cheery thought, and makes for great dinner conversation. What offence have I committed that I might be so punished? I don’t believe. Now I am a decently educated chap. I have a good knowledge of the number of different religions that exist / have existed. How many hells shall I be burning in? Now a cheeky person might say: “one, only my religion has it right!” And I would laugh at such hypocrisy. You dismiss all other religions when they offer the exact same evidence. Here is where people get indignant and say, “But it is a matter of faith!” As if that were supposed to sufficiently close the conversation. People are making assumptions about how the world works… for everybody. To say that it is a “matter of faith,” is just another way to run from thinking about what you believe. Does nobody else see the gross arrogance in taking a position with no evidence (or rather with equivalent evidence existing for every other position) and then saying it must be true for everyone (or else)?
But let us ignore the afterlife for now. I have been talking about evidence for religion. What does this mean? “Evidence,” in this case, consists of religious texts / teachings, and then almost always a community. Finally, evidence consists of that personal feeling you get when exposed to the two: conviction, faith, whatever. Fair enough.
I have yet to find a community where I can feel that way. At every turn I am either condemned (berated, proselytized) because I don’t believe, or those who would have me convert… they don’t pass muster. I concede easily the point that maybe I just haven’t gotten to the core of this issue with the right people; that people who are truly comfortable with their belief, examined and tested to the fullest, are less likely to want to impose on others. This may very well be.
But then you might concede that those people are… sadly, rare. I am a student of history. I know what has been done in the name of religion. I am aware (for the most part) of current events. I know what is done in the name of religion. This does little to inspire.
Even in my personal life the message remains the same. There was someone I cared deeply about. This person was religious. I cared enough that I offered to attend her services. She said no. Later, I was dumped for being a godless heathen. It is such great irony that the closest I might have gotten toward understanding, possibly (who knows) even conversion sometime down the line, ended in such a manner.
Ultimately, religion does not bind together. It divides.
Maybe the Church is the house of god, and maybe we are all his children. But if this is true, they are both a horrid mess. Frankly, I’ll place my bets with other teachers. Religion has taught me quite enough already.
A few disclaimers: by "god" I tend to refer to the Christian one. This is because it is the one most pervasive in our culture, and also because it is one with which I share many values. If I offend at times it is mostly because I argue with everything I've got, also [thing]. If you disagree / wish to share something on... any issue, please do. It is rare I get to discuss such or learn new viewpoints.
Well, maybe there's a god above
but all i've ever learned from love
was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you
It's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah
hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah
hallelujah...
I would submit to you a proof.
Premises:
1) God is an omnipotent creator (He can do anything and created the world as it is)
2) God is omniscient (as per the term, he knows everything that is and everything that will be)
3) God is good
From these simple statements (which many would take to be true) there arise ... complications. For instance, take 1 and 2. If God created everything with infinite knowledge, then everything you do is determined. If the circumstances under which you were born, the lessons you learn, the values you take from those lessons, etc etc - if these are all known, and furthermore have been set into motion by he who knows, then there can be no self determination. But wait (a religious person with whom I was discussing this earlier went), this is fallacious! You can compare this [working of omniscience] to a small child left in the room with a cookie. You might know how he would act (ostentatiously, eating the cookie) but he still makes that choice. Very good, I say. You’ve reduced the argument into a simple to grasp, and yet worthless, rebuttal. It is not the same. For one thing, you don’t know. The child might make the choice not to eat the cookie. Just because most commonly a young child would leave no morsel in its wake is, in the end, irrelevant. The fact that there is an opportunity to do other [aka what is unexpected, even if only one child out of a million actually does it], is. You cannot have a choice with only a single possible outcome.
Thus, predestination, which opens up a whole can of worms. Essentially, everything now points toward God. Mass murderers: God. Trials given to people who are not strong enough to overcome them: God. Bloodshed, those worthless unbelievers, and everything anyone does: God. There are two decent arguments against this which I have heard. The first, Hellish intervention: if it is bad, it is the work of the devil. Personally, I find this a silly cop out, especially when we review the creation myth and premises 1 and 2. God was responsible for Lucifer. He made him and in his infinite knowledge knew what he made. Not good enough. The second, dichotomy of good and evil: without evil in the world, good cannot exist. It is an interesting approach, but still lacking. Without free will, the opportunity for everyone to seek good when they see it, the dichotomy is meaningless. If there will always be those souls put on a predetermined path toward evil from which they are unable to turn, such a dichotomy is only sadistic.
With this distasteful thought, we stumble across our conclusion - God is good (we will ignore the fact that “God is good” is not so much a conclusion as a premise ground into peoples heads. The main point is the interaction between the three statements). If you create something to be evil, what does that make you? If you have rules and regulations which some people are unable to follow because of a fate designed by your hand, what does that make you? Certainly not good.
And thus, the argument is invalid.
Now a wise person, familiar with my sophistry might pull me aside and say, “Nathan, Nathan, you’re being tricky. You are taking the mainstream view of religion and using it to try and disprove all religion. After all, 55% of the American public believes in “from the book creationism. Wise people know it would be a sad, sad world if all truth could fit inside one book. Don’t you think that is a bit unfair to argue against the popular stance when it isn’t what enlightened folk believe?”
And I would smile. “But now we’ve gotten rid of that 55%. This is where the real dialogue begins.”
So an enlightened person knows the bible was written through the lens of medieval Europe and works around that. We no longer make women walk behind the caravan during their “unclean times,” stone people for eating shellfish, or sell our children into slavery.
An enlightened person knows that god is not an old man looking down from on high; that the stories in the bible are not literal. Okay. Then what is he? I have heard a number of interesting interpretations: the forces of the universe, inner light (self knowledge and inner peace, very Quaker though the person who mentioned it was not), a benevolent force of meaning and purpose from which things operate, and (my personal favorite) love.
Well and good. We have now restricted our concepts to things that also exist (ie have meaning) in my own personal universe while discarding things that don’t (aka old sky-men). We can agree! But why should I believe? That same universe can more easily be explained by Occam’s razor, or at the least it is a manner of semantics. There have been a few arguments from team divinity. They go as such:
Afterlife - you snooze, you loose. For all eternity.
You can look at this two ways. One, literally: your… spirit, mind, whatever shall “live” forever after your body’s death. And two: this is again, something of higher understanding: you live forever by returning to the universe as per the wheel of life (yay decomposition), you live forever in the loving memories held of you by others, etc, etc. There are too many to go into now. Perhaps you can guess which one I have issues with.
Issue the first - Forever? To be honest, I think it cheapens the life we have now. People can give up happiness, leave things as they are without trying to change them because if they sit tight, if they believe, they will have never-ending happiness. Escapism much?
Issue the second - Heaven / Hell? According to most religions, I am going to burn in Hell. It is a cheery thought, and makes for great dinner conversation. What offence have I committed that I might be so punished? I don’t believe. Now I am a decently educated chap. I have a good knowledge of the number of different religions that exist / have existed. How many hells shall I be burning in? Now a cheeky person might say: “one, only my religion has it right!” And I would laugh at such hypocrisy. You dismiss all other religions when they offer the exact same evidence. Here is where people get indignant and say, “But it is a matter of faith!” As if that were supposed to sufficiently close the conversation. People are making assumptions about how the world works… for everybody. To say that it is a “matter of faith,” is just another way to run from thinking about what you believe. Does nobody else see the gross arrogance in taking a position with no evidence (or rather with equivalent evidence existing for every other position) and then saying it must be true for everyone (or else)?
But let us ignore the afterlife for now. I have been talking about evidence for religion. What does this mean? “Evidence,” in this case, consists of religious texts / teachings, and then almost always a community. Finally, evidence consists of that personal feeling you get when exposed to the two: conviction, faith, whatever. Fair enough.
I have yet to find a community where I can feel that way. At every turn I am either condemned (berated, proselytized) because I don’t believe, or those who would have me convert… they don’t pass muster. I concede easily the point that maybe I just haven’t gotten to the core of this issue with the right people; that people who are truly comfortable with their belief, examined and tested to the fullest, are less likely to want to impose on others. This may very well be.
But then you might concede that those people are… sadly, rare. I am a student of history. I know what has been done in the name of religion. I am aware (for the most part) of current events. I know what is done in the name of religion. This does little to inspire.
Even in my personal life the message remains the same. There was someone I cared deeply about. This person was religious. I cared enough that I offered to attend her services. She said no. Later, I was dumped for being a godless heathen. It is such great irony that the closest I might have gotten toward understanding, possibly (who knows) even conversion sometime down the line, ended in such a manner.
Ultimately, religion does not bind together. It divides.
Maybe the Church is the house of god, and maybe we are all his children. But if this is true, they are both a horrid mess. Frankly, I’ll place my bets with other teachers. Religion has taught me quite enough already.
A few disclaimers: by "god" I tend to refer to the Christian one. This is because it is the one most pervasive in our culture, and also because it is one with which I share many values. If I offend at times it is mostly because I argue with everything I've got, also [thing]. If you disagree / wish to share something on... any issue, please do. It is rare I get to discuss such or learn new viewpoints.
Well, maybe there's a god above
but all i've ever learned from love
was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you
It's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah
hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah
hallelujah...