This is the seventh post in what should now be called the "God Series," the posts about god in particular that I've written over the years. The most recent one, take 6, called "Who Made Whom in Whose Image?", was written only less than a month ago on January 28th. Click the label "GOD" at the bottom of this post to read all of them; it's pretty interesting to record my personal journey from loose theism into agnosticism into atheism.
The post today was inspired by another blogger named "Buddha," who recently commented on my post about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and asked myself and those commenting to comment on his blog about our views on god and spirituality. The idea intrigued me, and so I decided to not only write a little something to post on his blog, but also post it here as "God, Take 7." Of course, I don't believe he exists, and so I'll offer most of the main reasons for my disbelief. Yes, all of these have been done before in various forms, but they're worth repeating. I fully expect this post to break all of the comment number records.
- Firstly, there is the question of evil. Suppose there is an all-loving, all-benevolent god hiding up there somewhere - and then try to explain the existence of evil, disease, natural disasters. Pangloss would argue that this is the best possible world god could have created, but that limits god's ability - remember, he's supposed to be omnipotent, also. So if god could have made a perfect world, where everyone is happy and there is no suffering (which is entirely possible if there is, in fact, an omnipotent god), and if he would have wanted to create said world and provide humanity with eternal joy (which, if he's all-loving and all-benevolent, he would have wanted to), then he would have. God, if he existed as Christians understand him, would have made a perfect world. But we don't have a perfect world, and therefore either god does not exist as Christians understand him (this is to say he either isn't all-loving, all benevolent, or omnipotent), or that said god didn't create the world (which is to say he's not our creator). Or, of course, god does not exist at all in any form. Whatever way you slice it, the Christian version of god is out.
- Second, there is the question of free will. If this god is all-loving and all-forgiving, why would he allow the humans whom he loves so very much to choose into evil? And, of course, why would he make such an action punishable by eternal suffering in hell? If he loves us so much, and is willing to forgive even our worst grievances, why would he even create hell as an alternative in the first place? Take my case for example. If god loves me so much, he would come down from heaven and stop me from being an atheist and writing this post right now. He'd try to save me from disbelieving in him and save me from dooming myself to eternal suffering. But he hasn't, which means one of two things: either god doesn't love us, and isn't all forgiving - maybe he's even a vengeful and evil god; or he doesn't exist at all.
- Third, there is the question of free will versus predetermined fate. If god is truly omnipotent, he would have knowledge of the future. If he has knowledge of the future, then he knows what actions and decisions humans are going to make in the future. And, if he knows our future decisions, we cannot have free will to make our own decisions because they've already been made for us. Therefore, there are a few options: either god does not know the future, in which case he is not omnipotent; god does exist and does know the future, in which case he would have lied to us about free will and therefore is something of a trickster, and we have no faculty to make our own decisions; or god does not exist at all. The third option there is the most likely.
- Fourth is the question of necessity. Theists love to taut their "something from nothing" or "ex nihilo" idea, which is that god created the matter of the universe from nothingness. Theists like Aquinas exclaim that the universe must have had an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, an unshook shaker, who got things going in the beginning. They argue that everything that exist has a creator, and many atheists make the mistake of accepting that as a premise. However, nobody on Earth believes that everything in existence has a creator - especially not theists. The uncaused cause argument collapses because it essentially says, "Because everything has a creator, therefore there is something that does not have a creator - and that could only be god." The conclusion violates the first premise! Therefore, we have a couple options: either there is an impossible uncaused cause, which - if I may mention - is impossible; the universe came from nothing, and came into being all by itself (and don't let theists tell you this is impossible, although it does sort of lend itself to pantheism); or god doesn't exist and the universe came into being by some means that science doesn't understand quite yet. I believe the third option, because it is most likely that the universe was spawned by some reaction of the fundamental elementary particles science already understands and can quantify than by some giant benevolent fairy in the sky.
- Fifth, and last, is the question of contact. I sort of touched on this one in point 2, but it's worthy of elaboration. If god exists, and if he wants what's best for humanity, why wouldn't he make himself known? Why would he leave humanity in the dark in some cosmic puzzle or mystery game aimed at gleaning the truth of his existence? If god existed, he'd tell somebody in some form other than a 2,000-year-old manuscript or suspicious visions to devout Christians. If you're there, god, give us a sign! It's ridiculous for god to expect humanity to discover him without any proof, evidence, or reasonable guidance - and, if he's omniscient, he knows that. So, there are a few options on the table here: either god is not omnipotent and therefore cannot send down a sign in modern times, which would mean he doesn't exist as most humans understand him; he's a deistic god, who doesn't care about the lot of humanity, and doesn't care if people don't discover him and doom themselves to hell - and therefore doesn't exist as Christians understand him; or he wants life to be a cosmic puzzle, in which case we have an omnipotent trickster again; or he doesn't exist at all.
21 comments:
Well this is a lot of information and I intend to comment on all or most of it, but not in one sitting.
I would start with your third point as it is one that I've spent a great deal of time thinking through.
I may also post some of these as topics on our own blog. Or I may not.
For some of your topics, I may either skip it or post over here what I post over at the hollywood buddhist site as there is overlap.
On your third point, you speak to omnipotence, but here we need to pay attention to definitions and what you are criticizing directly is not the concept of omnipotence. Western theology has historically emphasized what are known as the three omni's: omnipotence which is about God's power, omnipresence, which regards his presence in the world, and omniscience, which is about god's knowledge.
Omniscience is the concept that has been historically been described as God's knowledge of everything. Now you spoke of omnipotence which has been described by perhaps most theologians as God's ability to do anything that is LOGICALLY possible. The concept is also refined with a limit to anything that is within God's nature (because God cannot perform wicked actions, but most theologians would say that this is a subset of the first limitation. I'm not convinced that it is though.)
You have to understand that these sorts of concepts represent our efforts to understand God according to the evidence we have through nature, logic, revelation, tradition and experience. They are not beyond revision according to those standards. God of course is not subject to our revision, but our understanding of him which can improve certainly is.
That said, I AGREE WITH YOU regarding the impossibility of God's knowledge of the specificity of how our future free actions will turn out. This has been a puzzling issue for the church for almost its entire history and there are several different attempts to solve it. Some have suggested that God is timeless and he knows all historical events timelessly, thus God actually doesn't even have foreknowledge as foreknowledge is knowledge of the future within a specific moment of time. Others say that God knows how you would freely choose in any circumstance and while he doesn't determine your actions, he determines the situations you will face so in this way, he can know how you will freely choose. One group of Christians do not even have this problem as they simply redefine free will to mean that if your choice is what you wanted to choose, then it is free, even if it is the only psychologically possible choice . (the alternative definition is that an action is deemed free if it is possible to perform it and it is possible to refrain from performing it. This is the one I embrace). These are theological determinists who assert this. They are of the Augustinian tradition in the catholic denomination and they are generally called Calvinists when found amongst protestants.
Within recent times, there has been a movement within the church to reevaluate our understanding of omniscience, what it means and what the necessary conditions are for it. There is a sizable number of Christian scholars amongst theologians and philosophers who agree that knowledge of future free actions are not consistent with divine foreknowledge of those actions. These people are primarily known as open theists, however there are also process theists who are of the same opinion on foreknowledge, but they for the most part are not orthodox Christians and they have an allegiance to process metaphysics. Open theism involves much more than its distinctive on foreknowledge and freedom, but those distinctives are what it is primarily famous (or infamous) for.
There are several different approaches to omniscience, foreknowledge and freedom amongst open theists but I will focus on two. The first is to refine the definition of omniscience. The move that is made is one similar to the one that Aquinas made with omnipotence and it was asserted by Christian philosopher, William Hasker. Here omniscience is understood to be knowledge of everything for which it is logically possible to know. Since it is logically impossible for infallible divine foreknowledge to contain the events of future free actions, they are thus not required for divine foreknowledge and omniscience.
While I think that refinement is a good one, I do not think that this effectively solves the problem because I do not believe that the root problem is God's foreknowledge. I believe it is the nature of the future itself. I follow the lead of theologian Greg Boyd who suggests that the future itself is not definite and specific with regard to our future free actions. The future itself is open and thus the truth about the future is there is no truth about what you will freely do or not do. There is however a truth about the range of things which you may or may not freely do and that is part of God's foreknowledge. God's omniscience is viewed as encompassing everything including everything about a future that is partly determined and partly undetermined with multitudes of possibilities. (naturally, within Christian theism, prophecy, when it is not contingent prophecy is understood as that part of the future that has been determined.)
If god exists, and if he wants what's best for humanity, why wouldn't he make himself known? Why would he leave humanity in the dark in some cosmic puzzle or mystery game aimed at gleaning the truth of his existence? If god existed, he'd tell somebody in some form other than a 2,000-year-old manuscript or suspicious visions to devout Christians
BINGO!
Totally odd stuff and clearly not very 'fatherly' at all. He's like the absent father that we hear about in the ghetto. Or the one who walks out on his family for a younger chick.
Not that I would read any of Rob R.'s stuff, but he would have a tough time explaining the lack of love shown by shunning absence.
1. The question of Evil.
The biblical response to this is that when God created man he imbued into him some of his own power. This is what we call free will. Human beings are able to choose things which are in opposition or ambivelance to the will of God. Thus, human free will is the source of evil. God choosing to allow his creation free will, while it allows evil to enter the world, is one of the greatest acts of love ever concieved. It does not go against Gods omnipotence because an omnipotent being has the power to limit his own power. This is a logical neccesity.
2. Free will vs. eternal suffering.
For the most part I have already addressed this above. God made humans and angels with free will as an expression of love. As to the idea of eternal suffering I have discovered that this doctrine has very little biblical basis. What the bible teaches is that those who choose to do evil and do not repent will be utterly destroyed. sort of a spiritual death sentence.
3. God's omniscience and human free will.
There is a big difference between knowing the future and causing it. We should not confuse God's omniscience with His omnipotence.
4: The question of causality.
A small correction. This argument has its origin in Plato and Aristotle not Aquinas. You have failed to show the falacy of the argument. The argument is that everything that is a cause must have had an effect, Therefore, if you regress far enough back there is the logical necessity for something different from other things which in essence is uncaused. Otherwise you end up with an infinite series of causes which itself has no starting point. There is no third option. Either God is the uncaused first cause or the universe itself is.
5. The question of contact.
How many times must God reveal himself to men? Why is the testimony of the Prophets and Apostles not enough? Why isn't the testimony of God himself becoming incarnate enough? This is the same argument that creationists use against evolution. Why dont we have every single transitional fossil from the dawn of time? As ridiculous as the creationist argument is so too is the argument for contact. The same faculty you use to doubt the testimony of those to whom God has appeared or spoken to, you would use to doubt even if God were to appear or speak to you personally.
If god exists, and if he wants what's best for humanity, why wouldn't he make himself known? Why would he leave humanity in the dark in some cosmic puzzle or mystery game aimed at gleaning the truth of his existence? If god existed, he'd tell somebody in some form other than a 2,000-year-old manuscript or suspicious visions to devout Christians. If you're there, god, give us a sign!
Matthew 12:38b-39
"Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Most people, if given a sign today, would dismiss it as a delusion. Think about it...if God spoke to you audibly, and you told one of your atheist buddies, are they going to believe you? Would you believe one of them?
Apart from Christianity, your arguments against Christianity are senseless. Just ask Don when he never got back with me on normative ethics. Evil only makes sense in light of good. If you can't establish good, you can't say anything is "evil".
As for most of your other arguments, I'd join you in shaking my head at those straw men...Candide was a mockable caricature, just like your straw-man "best of all possible worlds" scenario. Your false dilemmas were also something I would join you in shaking my head at.
Unfortunately, for someone so big on free will, I'm not sure how that would arise from a materially-based, mechanistic, closed, natural order. Care to elaborate?
Unfortunately, for someone so big on free will, I'm not sure how that would arise from a materially-based, mechanistic, closed, natural order. Care to elaborate?
Some free will proponents suggest that free will is somehow linked to quantum indeterminacy as the mechanism.
I however reject this and I've explained why quantum indeterminacy isn't enough in the comment section of a blog I wrote against the coherence of libertarian free will and materialism.
The blog and comments are here
Rob,
I don't have time to read your link at this moment...but I'm thinking we'd likely agree.
Indeterminancy at the quantum level doesn't mean personal freedom. It simply means chaos. Whatever we choose to do is determined by mechanistic chaos and not personal agency.
I wonder, are Masoni's criticisms equally invalid when applied against Islam, or Hinduism? Mormonism? Scientology?
"Just ask Don when he never got back with me on normative ethics."
Is it just me, or does this sentence not make any sense?
"Apart from Christianity, your arguments against Christianity are senseless."
And why is that, again? I must have missed that, you know, during our last conversation, where you didn't give ME the runaround regarding YOUR views.
Don said:
I wonder, are Masoni's criticisms equally invalid when applied against Islam, or Hinduism? Mormonism? Scientology?
M's criticisms are invalidated by his own assumptions.
Is it just me, or does this sentence not make any sense?
I get that a lot...I was poking you in the ribs again. You know, when you never got back with me on how atheism can account for normative ethics (ie. you "ought" to do this or "ought not" to do that). Given M's atheism, his moral appeals against God are ridiculous.
And why is that, again?
The Triune God is the necessary precondition for logic, induction, order, and morality to name a few. M needs all of those in order to state the case he made in this post.
I don't remember giving you the run around re: my beliefs...care to refresh my memory?
I wonder, are Masoni's criticisms equally invalid when applied against Islam, or Hinduism? Mormonism? Scientology?
I think that he makes references to arguments that are logically valid against a theistic God (but not necessarily sound, meaning that though the premises may necessarily lead to their conclusion, these premises are not clearly true). But fewer if any of these arguments are relevent to some of the Hindu conceptions of the divine.
While his arguments he has made may have been asserted by others in valid forms, I don't know that he has always presented them with equal validity.
for example, I don't think his argument against knowledge of future free acts was presented in a valid form, but I still agree with him on that point as logically valid arguments have been put forward.
"...I was poking you in the ribs again. You know, when you never got back with me on how atheism can account for normative ethics..."
Okay, fair enough, but does this "joke" have an expiration date, or do you intend to dry-hump that particular point for the rest of my life?
And let me say, you don't have a perfect record of finishing every conversation you're involved in. This thread is Exhibit A. There, I attempted to engage you in a dialogue, and all I got was a dickish non-response.
I might also add, my double-dog dare went entirely unanswered. That, I believe, officially qualifies you for "pussy" status.
"The Triune God is the necessary precondition for logic, induction, order, and morality to name a few."
Oh, okay. And why is that?
"I don't remember giving you the run around re: my beliefs...care to refresh my memory?"
Not unless I can invoice you for my time. I bill in six-minute increments.
Don,
Touche. Touche. I'll let the joke go.
If you are going to bill me for your time, I expect a significant discount...we don't even know if you passed the bar exam yet ;)
Oh, okay. And why is that?
He solves the problem of the one and the many, is the only God to create man in His image thereby making communication possible, He upholds to universe by the Word of His power...little things like that :)
Here's my response to the problem of evil.
I don't think any of my other responses to this post will be quite as long.
The link that Rob had leads to [OH NO!} Mom's homophobic blog!
Of course, that would be the best PLACE to discuss EVIL.
just trying to get my mind around the hypocrisy of it all...
FYI masoni, I don't mean or intend to take the disussion from here but I didn't post my answer over here as well as over there for several reasons. It's a huge post which makes many points for discussion which could take attention away from the rest of your post, which I still intend to address. More importantly, the problem of evil warrants it's own discussion.
Furthermore, as it is such a big topic, if more people did want to get into the details of my response, I decided it was more convenient and reasonable to carry on the discussion in one place and not two.
There he goes again, that Mudly --bringing up homosexuality!
I have LOTS of stuff on my blog that is not about sexuality, Mudrake. As does Rob.
As for the problem of evil --it is a fact of life --the polarity of good and evil. And we know mankind had a choice and chose evil: disobedience to the express commands of God. And the definition of evil is the same as in the Book of Genesis --disobedience to our Creator --believing the deceiver.
I have LOTS of stuff on my blog that is not about sexuality, Mudrake.
Right, ever since there was that email...
I think the problem of contact does raise a good issue. But the thing is, you've decided what God's appropriate action should be to fix it. So does that mean you fully understand the problem which divine action addresses?
In the Judeo-Christian narrative, our relationship with God is broken. But it just isn't our relationship with God that is the only broken part of us. It's also our relationship to others.
God's method is not just to come down himself to each of us individually. God intends us to be apart of his redemptive plan. So God's presence is not lacking at all. God's presense at this juncture is through his people, through his church (and the church is not defined by some ecclesiastical organization).
That's not to say that God doesn't act miraculously. I hear of reports of miraculous events even from people I know. But while eye witness accounts are available, often these sorts of things cannot be repeated for scientific scrutiny. Why not? Because God comes to us on his terms and he comes to us in a way that we cannot control. Science is precisely about control and about phenomena that can be manipulated. Part of our problem is that we don't have faith, that is trust in God and for something to be scientifically validated means reducing the degree of faith or trust needed.
Furthermore, the issue is a matter of identifying onself with the people of God. I am among those of whom God came down into the flesh and performed wonders. But did I personally see that? No, but I am a member of the church and God did this for the church. It is about corporate identity, it is about mending the human fracture that is not just theological but also sociological and why shouldn't we have a social epistemology? Science itself amounts to a social epistemology as well considering no human can directly observe all the scientific principals at work himself. We just can't live long enough so even in science, we have to trut each other.
Now I don't know if this fully answers the question, but I am very confident that it goes very far. But not having an absolutely definitive answer just doesn't bother me. I'm open to understanding the issue to a greater extent but I'm also content that I won't understand everything. It is after all a matter of trust. But it is far, very far, from an irrational trust or blind faith.
Post a Comment
To comment, register to become a member or sign in with the bar in the upper-left corner. It's completely free, and we'll never contact you with the information you provide.
See our comments policy in the left sidebar for rules and restrictions.