Here's a quick summary of the conversation.
1) I was politely asked a question regarding the single most important benefit I receive from my faith.
2) I answered, "Eternal Life," and offered a short explanation of what that entailed.
3) I was given a link to the conclusion of a survey to aid an atheist in concluding what he wanted to believe, that fear of death was the motive for theism.
4) I disagreed with the conclusion, speaking for myself alone, and noted that the motivation for my faith was and remains the Holy Spirit.
5) There was some back-and-forth dialogue bringing up various topics that often appear in debates with atheists on theism (and especially Christianity).
6) This dialogue was going nowhere productively, due to both sides having well-established presuppositions, while the overarching theme of the involved atheists was simply that theism is irrational.
7) I offered an essay pointing to twelve testimonies that would enable anyone to view theism as a perfectly rational conclusion.
8) There was one response worth noting to this essay.
9) I replied to that response, and a number of comments followed at that link.
10) Finally, to bring us to the current post, I was accused of avoiding a question regarding Epicurus and/or Euthyphro.
First of all, with all the issues brought up and not followed up on between all those involved, I find it strange that it would be brought up as a big deal now. I haven't addressed several questions thrown at me for the sake of brevity, and I know I have not been brief. Phillychief et al. have likewise left issues unaddressed, but for undoubtedly the same reason. Second, I did provide a very brief "in my own words" response to Epicurus along with a link worth reading. But, as I have read or at least scanned each link provided by my opponents, it is clear that my opponents have not done the same. I won't hold that against them, but they shouldn't accuse me of failing to respond to an issue when the content of a given link answers adequately, especially when the answer in my own words would be quite lengthy. In other words, if you want to know how I would respond, read the linked article. Though that kind of response could be perceived as lazy or desperate, it doesn't necessarily reveal inadequacy. For example, phillychief offered a link as proof for macroevolution that contained 29 reasons. I'm sure glad - for his sake - that he didn't take the time to write all of that on the blog. The link sufficed for me to grasp his response. Third, the subject seemed to change when replies started coming in regarding my brief response to Epicurus. Now the attacks are against the supposed character of God. I find that interesting, but not surprising. In fact, that type of response reveals more clearly the presuppositions behind the atheist position. Apparently, none of the atheists read Vincent Cheung's essay, offered in a previous post of mine, even if only the first 14 pages. Perhaps that essay could set forth some guidelines should any further discussion "evolve."
Therefore, let me suggest that, if anybody wants to continue, that we address one question at a time and as completely as possible. And as phillychief suggested, "As far as venue, I think a question should be answered where it was asked, unless the answer will be one too big for a comment section and require and entire blog post, in which case a link would suffice."
Perhaps it would be good to start in a place where we left off... Epicurus. Since his supposed logical dilemma for the theist brings up the idea of evil, let's address that. Needless to say, a Christian theist understands good and evil. The basis for such understanding is not only Biblical, but also plain reality. In other words, I see good and evil in the world. I experience good and evil. I can survey a population and find that people think good and evil are objective, not subjective, realities. Alas, I cannot find an empirically scientific way to test good and evil. Perhaps you can help. You guys are calling my God evil. But what is your standard for evil? Explain the atheist understanding of evil. If you need help answering this question, read this article.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The Beginning of the End?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Evil is simply unnecessary suffering. A god who uses unnecessary suffering to "bring glory to Jesus as the One who conquers it, and to bring condemnation to all the non-elect" as you put it, by that definition, is evil himself. A god who allows cruelty, rape, murder, torture, mutilation, disease, or any other form of suffering is either not omnipotent, not omni-benevolent, or nor omniscient. Probably none of the three.
Let's be a little more specific. When I speak of suffering, I'm speaking of human suffering. If you need a definition, or standard, for human suffering, then you probably are not human yourself. All humans understand what suffering is.
If you try to weasel out of this definition, (your link notwithstanding) by claiming your god is somehow above this definition, or necessary to the definition, well, then you've simply redefined evil. At that point, you need to prove that some god exists, before you can pull him into your definition. Otherwise, you're assuming he exists in order to prove he exists.
Now we're getting somewhere! You, presumably an atheist, anti-theist, or agnostic, define evil as "unnecessary human suffering." And then you suggest that to require a definition of suffering would make me inhuman. And finally, you suggest that I would "weasel out" ultimately by pointing to God.
First, regarding your last point, I have no problem presupposing that God exists to answer the question of evil. If you want to say that I'm filling the gaps with God, that's fine. That's my presupposition, and it reasonably fits with reality. On the other hand, you fill the gap with a presupposition that presumes some universal human standard of suffering apart from God. Let's consider that rationale...
Regarding your definition of evil, is disease unnecessary suffering? Or just natural selection doing its thing? Is starvation unnecessary suffering? Why? Is the scientifically validated claim that fetus' (even embryos) in utero can feel pain when they are stuck with a needle and have their limbs scissored off and skulls crushed by an abortionist? See http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu
How about a teenager who suffers the pain of their parents' divorce? Or that same teenager's broken heart when their girlfriend or boyfriend dumps them? How about the pain of embarrassment? Or when a homosexual person gets HIV and dies of AIDS? Are these examples of unnecessary sufferings? Why or why not? What's your standard?
Simply to say "all humans understand what suffering is" doesn't answer the question. Does a human at age 3 months understand what suffering is? Of course not! How about Terri Schiavo? Did she understand suffering? See http://www.terrisfight.org/
How about when the Kansas City Chiefs lose a game? Or when Larry Johnson goes down with an injury? Is that suffering? Is it unnecessary? What makes some suffering necessary and other suffering unnecessary?
A theist can answer all of these questions by presupposing the existence of God. An atheist has no rational answer, given their presupposition that God does not exist. And there's my point - that we both have presuppositions, and that those of the theist are rational, given that certain things, like evil, need to be explained.
And why limit evil to human suffering? Don't you agree with PETA in their constant assault on KFC that de-beaking and breaking the wings of live chickens is evil? Or maybe you think KFC is finger-lickin' good!
Now we're getting somewhere!
No we're not.
First, regarding your last point, I have no problem presupposing that God exists to answer the question of evil. If you want to say that I'm filling the gaps with God, that's fine. That's my presupposition, and it reasonably fits with reality.
Clearly, this is where we have to diverge. The entire point of the Problem of Evil is to explore the likelihood of the existence of gods. It's raised as a counter to the assertion "God Exists". So if you presuppose he exists when trying to explain away the problem, you are guilty of circular reasoning. The logical fallacy is glaring. You're bootstrapping god into the beginning of the discussion, when at the conclusion you're supposed to say "...therefor, god exists". In effect, you're saying "God exists, therefore god exists". There's really no point in going further.
All of your hypotheticals about the types of suffering are pointless. If you're going to assume god exists, the discussion is over.
Thanks for making my point.
Everything sentence Spanish Inquisitor says makes me have a quick comment or question:
"Evil is simply unnecessary suffering."
What is necessary suffering?
"A god who uses unnecessary suffering to "bring glory to Jesus as the One who conquers it, and to bring condemnation to all the non-elect" as you put it, by that definition, is evil himself."
By what standard do you deem that evil? And again, how do you determine the necessity of suffering?
"A god who allows cruelty, rape, murder, torture, mutilation, disease, or any other form of suffering is either not omnipotent, not omni-benevolent, or nor omniscient."
I'm not sure those definitions are affected by what forms of suffering exist.
"Let's be a little more specific. When I speak of suffering, I'm speaking of human suffering."
Why differentiate - are humans special?
"If you need a definition, or standard, for human suffering, then you probably are not human yourself."
Fine - I'll make my own definition - I'm just not sure it will be the same as yours but at least I can be defined as human since I have a definition of suffering.
"All humans understand what suffering is."
Some more or less than others - in fact, maybe I don't understand since I've yet to be a victim of cruelty, rape, murder, mutilation, or disease (at least not a serious disease).
"If you try to weasel out of this definition, (your link notwithstanding) by claiming your god is somehow above this definition, or necessary to the definition, well, then you've simply redefined evil."
Why I can't I do that? Where did you get your definition?
"At that point, you need to prove that some god exists, before you can pull him into your definition."
We've talked about proving God exists and our understanding of evil and suffering fits with that.
"Otherwise, you're assuming he exists in order to prove he exists."
But not an irrational assumption - there are reasons. And it's OK to start with an assumption/hypothesis and then determine if it makes sense or is rational to believe.
Nobody on this end denies that we clearly diverge regarding our presuppositions. You still haven't read the Cheung essay, have you?
And what I'm saying in this topical argument is this: "Evil exists, therefore God exists." Evil is nothing more than the absence of good, just as cold is simply the absence of heat and darkness, the absence of light. Evil is the privation of good, not a thing in and of itself.
Yet, Epicurus, the guy who doesn't matter, since only his words matter, but who got us on to this subject of evil, lays it out there as proof that God doesn't exist. In fact, evil proves the opposite, that God does exist. For apart from good, there is no evil. See this article: http://tinyurl.com/5rnq6f
Thus the hypothetical questions you deem insignificant are crucial for an atheist to answer rationally. If they can't, that reveals the irrationality of their position.
"If you're going to assume god exists, the discussion is over."
Do you expect us not to assume that? Wasn't that the framework of the question asked of theists: If God (who is good) exists then why is there evil and unnecessary suffering? So, when we answer that, I think it's obvious we starting with the assumption God exists.
Don't you start with the assumption that God does not exist? This is fine to do, but it of course leads to the question of then how do we determine what is evil? Should we simply say there really is no evil or unnecessary suffering, just "survival of the fittest"? But is it really just that simple? Or is there something that explains it better....
Post a Comment