This is obviously a very involved subject, so let me put a disclaimer at the front: I'm going to quote a lot from Dean Esmay to try to establish his position as best as I can in his own words. I apologize in advance if I inadvertantly miscast any of his beliefs. Plus, I'm writing this on the fly, without much time to edit... I hope it makes sense and doesn't ramble excessively.
So then, Dean Esmay writes that my earlier post on "born-again" non-Christians explains why he renounced Christianity.
Theism means "there is a God." Atheism means "there is no God." Agnosticism means "there is no way to know God." Maltheism means "there is a God, but he is fundamentally evil."What does he mean, exactly? In his comments section, someone asks, and Dean responds:Michael Williams explains why I long ago rejected evangelical, Bible-literalist Christianity as a maltheistic movement. He does so clearly and succinctly. ...
Because, whatever may be said of the positive aspects of their epistemology, their view ultimately comes down to a view that paints God is fundamentally, breathtakingly evil. Quite honestly, if I truly believed what these folks believed, I would hate God with an unrelenting passion.
Well, to be blunt Susanna: My assessment would be that if God intends to punish for all eternity everyone who fails to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of all mankind, then God is fundamentally evil.From further comments from Dean, it appears that much of his difficulty relates to the issue of forgiveness (and his understanding of eternity).That would be it in a nutshell, yes.
Mind you, I accept that it might well be true that Jesus was the one and only Son of God and that God has determined that all who do not affirm this belief are doomed to eternal torture. I merely assert that if that's how God really works, then God is evil and unworthy of my worship.
Yeah, I just said it: if that's how it works, then God is unworthy of me.
I fully accept whatever punishment God wishes to visit upon my head for saying so. Because this is how I feel, and I can take no other stand. Eternal torture? Okay. I await the crackling fires of Hell licking against my skin forever. Rather that than watch so many people I love in such torment while I enjoy eternal bliss. Thanks but no thanks.
Let's just be blunt: Let's give Hitler 100 years in torment for every one of his victims. After 2,000,000,000 years, mightn't he finally be freed from his torment? If I were to take the fundamenetalist Christian perspective seriously, he'd have only just begun his years of unending agony. Forgiveness would be forever denied him, even five million, or 20 billion, years hence.I think that Mr. Esmay's beliefs are fairily common, even among people with less understanding than Dean himself (who does appear to have a good grasp of Biblical theology, at least insofar as he discusses it in this post).Indeed, if we take the Christian concept of forgiveness seriously, shouldn't we let ol' Adolph off the hook after, say, five or six hundred thousand years of roasting over the barbecue pit? After he'd been made to understand the suffering of his victims, I mean?
To be blunt, the fundamentalist presents me with a ridiculous set of choices: "suffer for billions of years because you took the cookie without asking Jesus' forgiveness," but Pol Pot lives in eternal bliss because five seconds before his end he accepted Jesus Christ as his personal saviour.
This is not a concept of justice I can deal with.
There is something fundamentally perverse and evil about what evangelicals believe, Mark.
The esteemed Donald Sensing points to an essay he wrote last year titled "Can we really believe in Hell?" and gives a good explanation of what the true nature of Hell is (maybe). I recommend the whole thing, but here's the money quote.
Hell is not a place, but a state of beingI don't agree with all of Rev. Sensing's terminology (since the Bible is clear that God does judge us, for instance), but I agree with his basic premise -- and this premise provides a suitable and satisfactory answer to Mr. Esmay's claim that God is evil and malevolent.I have come to understand hell not as a place, but as a state of ongoing rejection of God. C. S. Lewis described hell as the "skid row" of creation, where souls have become so intoxicated by sin that they no longer even try to break the chains that bind them there. Their dilemma is that they are captive there because they choose to be. They would rather have their freedom (as they define it) than salvation. Their delusion, wrote Lewis, is that if they glorified God, they would lose their personal identity, but their choice has really ruined their human greatness. Hell, Lewis said, is "the greatest monument to human freedom." ...
Hell is not a judgment, it is a result
Hell is thus not a sentence of God imposed on sinner, because God desires all to be saved. Hell is God's recognition that he has been rejected. Even though God's grace continues to be offered without ceasing, its acceptance becomes evermore unlikely as the addiction to godlessness becomes evermore concrete.
Others have presented me with the same position as Mr. Esmay does, and I'll respond as I did to them -- with a question of my own. Is it evil to use force to compel others to behave according to your desires, or is it evil to allow others to choose their own way? I expect that Mr. Esmay would answer as others have done, and admit that any God who would force anyone to be good against their will would, in fact, be evil. If God admitted unrepentant sinners into Heaven, this is exactly what he would be doing -- taking those who chose to disobey him and forcing them into compliance.
Mr. Esmay sees an eternity of horror as an unjust punishment for a mere lifetime of evil actions, but I think he misunderstands the nature of sin. We are not condemned to Hell because we violate some whimsical list of rules, we are condemned because we purposefully decide to reject God's way. God then -- graciously, in a sense -- allows us to make the choice to cast him aside, despite the agony is causes him to be seperated from us. God loves us incredibly and deeply, and he mourns for the lost; nevertheless, he gives us the choice to reject him and face the consequences. Furthermore, it's important not to underestimate God's holiness and his hatred for evil.
As for eternity, God exists outside of time, and once we die so will we. "Eternity" isn't millions and millions of years long, stretching out forever; eternity is an existence outside of time itself, such that time will have no meaning. From a cosmological perspective, it's pointless to compare a "lifetime of evil" to an "eternity of punishment", since eternity isn't measured in years (nor can it be measured with any unit, since it's not "time" per se). Once we die and enter eternity, there is no "length of time" for which we can be punished, since there is no time at all. This isn't an easy concept to grasp, and I doubt any human can understand it, considering how bound we all are to the universe we inhabit.
With regard to the eternal condition of humanity, I'd like to know what alternative Mr. Esmay would prefer, were he in God's position. I don't see many other options, to tell the truth. Either God gives us a choice, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then nothing we do matters, so there's no use worrying. If he does give us a choice, then he can either decide to respect our decision or to ignore it and impose his will on us anyway. Which is more despotic?
Perhaps Mr. Esmay's contention then is that not everyone has the opportunity to make an informed decision since not everyone is presented with the gospel, and that such a situation is unfair. But is it? If you accept that the decisions we make have consequences, then it's reasonable to believe that the lost people around the world are doomed because of the decisions of other people who have not shared the reality of God with them. If my actions can lead to someone's salvation, then my actions can equally lead to someone's destruction; that's a rather difficult burden to bear, which is why so many "fundamentalists" (of which I'm not one) are heavily evangelical (which I am). It's not because we want everyone to agree with us, it's because we genuinely love the lost and can't stand the thought of people around the world never having the chance to hear about Jesus. God doesn't need to use people to do his work, but he has apparently chosen to do so, and that places a huge responsibility on us.
Finally, as Mr. Esmay recognizes, God can define "good" and "evil" however he wants, and if he's real we're not in any position to question him. Mr. Esmay says that if that's the case, then for himself he chooses to reject God's view of right and wrong, and to substitute his own which casts God as "evil". That's his prerogative, but I don't think he understands the enormity of the ultimate consequences he's going to face for his decision. Romans 1 gives a good summary of the choices mankind makes, and the things that man tends to label "good". Is that the reality that Mr. Esmay espouses?
Finally, as to the underlying theme of the original post, why bother about heretical beliefs? Well, there's no point in worrying, if it doesn't matter what anyone believes. If it's all just a farce, then all such beliefs are wrong, and there's no reason to argue the details. Similarly, if God will force everyone into salvation regardless of their own desires, who cares about the truth God has revealed? It's useless, since it won't have any effect.
However, if it really does matter what people believe, then some certain points may be of critical importance. God has laid out what they are, and there aren't many.
1. I must agree with God that I am evil, and that I have done many things contrary to what he says is good. I must acknowledge that he is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, not me.
2. I must agree that I cannot conform to God's perfection on my own. No matter how hard I try, I will fall short; I need help. What's more, the evil that I've committed in the past (and will commit in the future) must be paid for, becase God is just.
3. I must accept that, despite my evil, God loves me, and sent Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for my evil acts. By accepting this substitution, I choose to align myself with God and to put his will above my own.
Step 3 requires humility, and is perhaps the hardest for many people to accept.
Update:
I'd like to reciprocate the sentiments at the bottom of Mr. Esmay's post: I love and respect him as well; he's a great blogger, and he helped me set up this site, for which I'm grateful. His position on this matter is gravely incorrect, and it's only because I care about him and others that I bother to write on the matter at all. If you think I get my jollies by telling people they're going to Hell, you're mistaken.
Actually, Michael, it is "forced into salvation" by the threat of Hell and eternal damnation.
As for this:
As for eternity, God exists outside of time, and once we die so will we. "Eternity" isn't millions and millions of years long, stretching out forever; eternity is an existence outside of time itself, such that time will have no meaning. From a cosmological perspective, it's pointless to compare a "lifetime of evil" to an "eternity of punishment", since eternity isn't measured in years (nor can it be measured with any unit, since it's not "time" per se). Once we die and enter eternity, there is no "length of time" for which we can be punished, since there is no time at all. This isn't an easy concept to grasp, and I doubt any human can understand it, considering how bound we all are to the universe we inhabit.
Prove it! Using science.
"If God admitted unrepentant sinners into Heaven, this is exactly what he would be doing -- taking those who chose to disobey him and forcing them into compliance."
Letting people into Heaven forces them into compliance? Maybe Heaven isn't such a good deal after all...
"Mr. Esmay sees an eternity of horror as an unjust punishment for a mere lifetime of evil actions, but I think he misunderstands the nature of sin. We are not condemned to Hell because we violate some whimsical list of rules, we are condemned because we purposefully decide to reject God's way"
So how exactly is "God's way" different from "some whisical list of rules"?
"With regard to the eternal condition of humanity, I'd like to know what alternative Mr. Esmay would prefer, were he in God's position. I don't see many other options, to tell the truth."
How about a realm for those who "make the choice to cast him aside" that doesn't involve lakes of fire or unquenchable flames? Maybe a realm where God refuses to speak to us and we're left guessing what He's up to or even whether He exists?
"Romans 1 gives a good summary of the choices mankind makes, and the things that man tends to label "good". Is that the reality that Mr. Esmay
spouses?"
It looks to me like Romans 1 is telling us all about how God, in a fit of pique, caused his people to start committing all sorts of immorality. But maybe I'm just not understanding it.
"However, if it really does matter what people believe, then some certain points may be of critical importance. God has laid out what they are, and there aren't many.
1. I must agree with God that I am evil, and that I have done many things contrary to what he says is good. I must acknowledge that he is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, not me.
2. I must agree that I cannot conform to God's perfection on my own. No matter how hard I try, I will fall short; I need help. What's more, the evil that I've committed in the past (and will commit in the future) must be paid for, becase God is just."
Fine. Let us pay for our evil acts, but I still don't see how the proper payment can be infinite. Even Hitler had a finite number of victims, and tormented them for a finite length of time.
"3. I must accept that, despite my evil, God loves me, and sent Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for my evil acts. By accepting this substitution, I choose to align myself with God and to put his will above my own. "
But I just agreed that I am incapable of putting His will above my own. Now I have to put His will above my own in order to get forgiveness for not putting His will above my own?
"As for eternity, God exists outside of time, and once we die so will we. "Eternity" isn't millions and millions of years long, stretching out forever; eternity is an existence outside of time itself, such that time will have no meaning. From a cosmological perspective, it's pointless to compare a "lifetime of evil" to an "eternity of punishment", since eternity isn't measured in years (nor can it be measured with any unit, since it's not "time" per se). Once we die and enter eternity, there is no "length of time" for which we can be punished, since there is no time at all. This isn't an easy concept to grasp, and I doubt any human can understand it, considering how bound we all are to the universe we inhabit."
Where did God, or anyone claiming to speak for Him, tell anyone this?
What is so striking regarding this topic is to contend that a God who left the glory of heaven to take the form of man, and not only that, allow himself to be murdered at the hands of men so the sacrifice needed to redeem all mankind could be accomplished, would be seen as fundamentally evil.
The "forced into salvation by the threat of hell" argument is amusing, as if this were a bad thing? Pray tell why? So that means you have to adhere to the Christian system of belief and follow its rules like loving your enemies, refraining from lying, cheating stealing, and so on. My word, what a devilish system. I could never believe in a God who commands me not only to love another, but to love my enemies???? Bah. :-D
So eloquently said, that there is not much left to add.
S3: There's no force involved, we have free will to make our choice and take the consequences. Proving the existence of some extra-temporal reality is obviously impossible.
As for the rest, I don't have the time to rehash all the arguments we've had already. Those who seek, will find, and those who won't, won't. In both cases, they'll be satisfied.
God doesn't decide what is good or evil. "I am" means that He is what He is, and this was and is and will be eternally the same and consistent. Either you are trying to align your life with Him, or you aren't. At some point God will judge that there isn't any hope for you and let you go to Hell if you so choose. That's Free Will and its consequences. But God doesn't choose what is good or evil. We simply consider what he does to be "good", as what is not with God is "not good" or more concisely, "evil".
Well, Tom, I think that God has at least as much free will as we do, and he can act in any way he chooses. But yes, "good" generally refers to things that line up with how God acts, and "evil" is the reverse.
Michael:
There's no force involved, we have free will to make our choice and take the consequences.
Okay, coerced then. What's the difference?
You're right, there is no reason we need to rehash previous conversations. But, no one can tell me how to replicate the supposed experience of being born again. I just don't see why I, as a skeptical observer, can't see something a little more concrete that can be replicated by anyone. The best evidence, without that which I am asking for, amounts to nothing but hearsay. It would not be admitted in any court of law, and don't start telling me how it is above man's law, we are talking about simple common sense here.
I don't think there's much point attempting to explain the concept of hell rationally. Simply put, there is no rational explanation for why a good, or even a just, God would mete out infinite punishment for finite evil.
Michael,
On issues such as these, I will side with you always.
Nicely written.
hln
S3: we've had this discussion. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16.
Xrlq: You're assuming that we're only "finitely" evil (to use your terminology). We are completely evil, and the longer we exist the more evil we create. If we exist forever, we'll be "infinitely" evil. Even still, eternity is not the same as year upon year of continuous existence as we know it. Say we received a "finite" punishment, what then? God then forces us to act good when he lets us into heaven? Or he lets us keep acting evil, and then punishes us again later? What?
"Xrlq: You're assuming that we're only "finitely" evil (to use your terminology). We are completely evil, and the longer we exist the more evil we create."
Bullshit. Anyone who claims that human beings are "completely evil" is talking out of his ass. I don't care how many supernatural powers he has.
"Even still, eternity is not the same as year upon year of continuous existence as we know it. Say we received a "finite" punishment, what then? God then forces us to act good when he lets us into heaven? Or he lets us keep acting evil, and then punishes us again later? What?"
Sure. Why not? The same question comes up with people that get into Heaven. Either they then have free will and sometimes do evil in Heaven, or they don't have free will and are forced to act completely good in Heaven. Or else Jesus keeps covering for them while they're in Heaven, which I guess makes as much sense as anything.
Human beings aren't completely evil? Huh. Humankind is totally depraved, selfish, and evil. That we sometimes restrain it is more due to fear than any particular virtue.
As for Heaven: people who accept Christ have decided that they want to be godly. When they get to Heaven, they are finally able to achieve this goal. People who reject Christ reject godliness, and so for them to be admitted into Heaven would required a change to be imposed upon them against their will.
I don't believe that hell is the same experience for all unrepentant sinners. I do not accept that a just God would punish a Hitler in the same way as an unrepentant bicycle thief.
Neither do I regard all religions as equal, for I believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior of the world. However, I believe that how his saving grace works is more encompassing than is generally acknowledged. I believe that one must first have a valid opportunity to have a life-changing encounter with Christ to be said to to have rejected Christ. For instance, I've known of abused kids who, though they have heard of Jesus, have never experienced his love, and have no true knowledge of his essence. To reject Christ is to say I have encountered that love, but that is not what I want.
Humankind is totally depraved, selfish, and evil. That we sometimes restrain it is more due to fear than any particular virtue.
That certainly sounds like "forced into salvation" by the threat of Hell and eternal damnation.
S3: The point is, fear and coerced virtue don't save anyone.
Joel: That we don't all have the opportunity to hear about Christ is due to our sinfulness in not sharing the good news with others. Hence, the great evangelical responsiblity of Christians. Not to force or coerce, but to spread the Good News.
I *think* I am beginning to understand *God's message* -- and I find it very interesting that a subject I've been struggling with for so long is coming to a head because of a debate on the blogosphere!
Of course, there are certainly side issues, but I see the basic message as this: God is Love. Within the human context what is the most self-sacrificial action possible? Certainly, it is not giving of my own life. Because any parent will tell you that the ultimate sacrifice is the giving of the life of one's child -- perhaps "giving" is not the right term: Choosing to continue to survive, despite the loss of one's child, seems more like it. I would easily die a thousand deaths to perserve the life of any of my children. It is much harder for me to imagine living after such a loss.
I guess that is why Isaac was asked to sacrifice his child. I guess that is why God chose to set an example by sacrificing his "only son" Jesus.
Not only to choose to continue to live, but to choose to live in a way (eventually) that will still reflect the joy of life.
I think by this (whether you think it literal or metaphorical) God is telling us that the highest act obtainable my humans is unselfishness.
I am now 40 years old. I'm beginning to see how that squares with reality. I'm beginning to understand that the refutation of our "animal baseness" is the acknowledgment that, underneath it all, we are all basically selfish beings. And the most sublime reaches we can aspire to are the ultimate in selfishness. Which is what Jesus represents by his own acceptance of crucifixion. And, even more so, what God represents by the sacrifice of his Son.
Maybe what "God" represents to humans is the farthest point we can imagine removed from our base animal instincts.
No one expects a tiger to adhere to Thou Shalt Not Kill. and Thou Shalt Not Covet, when you think about it, is a pretty high standard. Given in exchange for the "Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" (which to me has always represented evolution into a higher being of animals -- i.e., knowledge of right and wrong). Therefore, when we evolved (whether through a biological or religious mechanism) into a higher species, that evolution meant higher responsibility.
As I read elsewhere, that evolution certainly seems to have included a "mutation" that affords the imagination of a higher being, which seems to have survived millenia. Maybe there is something in that? I'm not so sure we as humans have reached a state of evolution where we can "chuck it," although, perhaps, too, that is in the cards in the future.
But for now, it seems that God might just be telling us to denounce selfishness, love thy neighbor as you would yourself, and to think beyond the confines of our immediate lives on Earth (be that as represented by an "after life" or "heaven", or as represented by "leaving the Earth a better place for my progeny.")
I'm not sure I can find a lot to argue with in that philosophy -- of course, that means I discount the "hijacking" of same philosophy by those who think they know the one true path to salvation, or that strapping a bomb on or kamikazi plane activity is somehow equal. But I've never had a problem discounting extremists --nor have I ever engaged in the intellectual dishonesty to claim that the extremists' position is the best (or only) one offered, and thus should be what I base my refutation upon.
CORRECTION:
Of course, in the last sentence of the paragraph (repeated below), I meant..."the most sublime reaches we can aspire to are the ultimate in *UNselfishness*."
"I am now 40 years old. I'm beginning to see how that squares with reality. I'm beginning to understand that the refutation of our "animal baseness" is the acknowledgment that, underneath it all, we are all basically selfish beings. And the most sublime reaches we can aspire to are the ultimate in selfishness."
Mike- Thanks for the post, certainly though provoking.
CJ- you are right in that unselfishness is the highest obtainable act (though none of us has the capacity to be unselfish enough to satisfy God's holiness). Hence, the reward of heaven is not one gained by saying the right words or attending the right church, but rather by giving your own life to Jesus. In the same manner, hell is reserved for those that, in their selfish pride, refuse to accept the free gift of God's love as demonstrated in His son's death.
Ken- I am confused by your argument... how does someone talk out of anything other than their mouth? And what does bovine excrement have to do with the depraved state of sinful man?
Are you kidding? There are plenty of other options, Michael, including allowing people to enter heaven after death if during eternity they change their minds, giving people multiple lives to try to get it right, punishing people in a more just and appropriate manner.
I'm sorry, but your God is evil in my eyes, Michael, and he is unworthy of my worship. Or yours. That doesn't mean I despise you, I just find what you believe to be hideously awful: God as infinitely cruel and sadistic. It's just how I see it.
Love ya anyway, brother. ;-)
Okay, I'll weigh in with first noting that I am impressed with Michael's posts and am in much agreement.
I'll add this caveat to the discussion regarding whether humans are evil or not--
First a simple truth known well to all parents: Have you ever had to teach a child to do a bad thing?
Second, mankind is evil in their core and various religions are all an acknowledgement of this nature. They all seek to refine man into better creatures.
Third, while there are not many (if any) coercive elements to illicit good acts by man, the governments the world over are filled with laws to coerce people to not perform bad actions.
The mere existence of governments, religions, and our own behaviors are proof in and of themselves of the evil nature of man.
Dean: I just fail to see how any of those methods are more fair than what we've already got.
1. Allow people to change their minds later: the whole before/after thing won't exist in Heaven, if there's no time at all. Cause and effect, changing minds later, &c., all lose their meaning (if my understanding of eternity turns out to be correct). But let's say that time continues on in exactly the same manner. Then what? People keep changing their minds back and forth, going between Heaven and Hell forever? That's not God's intention for eternity; this life is given to us so that we can make a decision.
2. Multiple lives to try to "get it right": this misses the point, that no one can ever "get it right". We all get it wrong, and it's only through Jesus that we can be redeemed. Unlike the Buddhists who believe that man can eventually perfect himself, Christians believe that such a thing is impossible. Indeed, from some of the old people I've met, that cynical view seems to be born out by experience.
3. Punishing people in a more just and appropriate manner: well, that's the topic under discussion, and all the comments here are intended to address it. The thing is, you don't see things from God's perspective; you underestimate his holiness, and you think you're somehow important and valuable apart from God -- which you're not, none of us are.
In the end, it comes down to pride, as I think you've acknowledged. Accepting Christ and coming to God requires humility.
This is one of those topics that can be endlessly discussed without getting anywhere, but I'll stick my oar in anyway.
Dean: If your going to be discussing someone else's God there are only two ways to handle it.
1) accept their axioms as to what the God is (in this case God is Good/God is Love would be the two I pick out)
or
2) don't
in the second case you might as well not even bother having the discussion, you aren't going to get anywhere.
I prefer the first case, because most christians can eventually work out the concept that any human interpretation of documents writen by humans, even if the documents are divinely inspired, is inevitably going to be flawed by the intrinsic evil of the humans involved. And if God really held X, God would be evil, God is not evil, ergo there is something we don't know about His position on X. Not that the last should be hard to accept.
It also allows you to address percieved evils without commiting blasphemy. Which I think is good, because all other issues asside, blasphemy is rather rude. And who knows you might actually change something... wouldn't be the first time the church has changed how it acted in response to heresy.
As far as what happens in the afterlife, my general opinion is that those who know ain't talking, and I'll deal with it when I get there. Given that bodies don't really come with us into the afterlife any words that describe the sensation of hell are at best figures of speach.
People are completely evil? Like hell they are. Most people I know are decent folk, though of course no one is perfect. Very few individuals - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and maybe Hillary Clinton - come anywhere close to embodying pure evil. Even in those cases, the evil is every bit as finite as they, or any other mortals, are.
But let's assume, for argument's sake, that people really are completely evil, as Michael asks us to believe. What does that imply about the God who supposedly made us in his image?
Xrlq: allow me to back off from my phrasing, and to explain what I mean in more detail. Humans have free will, and as such we sometimes choose to do good things, and sometimes to do bad things. But, underlying that, our desires are selfish and prideful -- thus corrupting to some extend even the good things we try to do. In the end, we are powerless to live truly God-pleasing lives, and in that sense we are "completely" evil. But I agree, that word carries different connotations and I shouldn't have used it. Generally, the term used is "total depravity", which means that we are totaly incapable of making Godly decisions, and that our every act is tainted by selfishness and pride.
I am a latecomer this post.
S3, first post, challenged Mike on his concept of eternity and then rather inecplicably wrote, "Prove it! Using science."
Why? Science is merely one way of knowing, and powerful though it is, is not really the ultimate way of knowing.
But the challenge is not serious anyway. Since the time of I. Kant, scientists have understood that they deal as scientists within time and space. Definitionally, anything conceived of as outside either or both is beyond the reach of science.
A "scientific" proof of Mike's contention is not possible, but that fact shows not that his contention is wrong, but that science does not have all the answers.
To assert otherwise is not itself scientific; it can't be proven using science, either.
See my Master thesis that addresses this subject.
Hey folks,
Joining late, I know, but I think I have something new to add to this discussion. These exact issues have been debated for centuries, and the answers they came up with back then largely have not been improved upon (that's why we still study and learn from them). I would suggest, then, to every person genuinely interested in these issues and this debate, to read a few works of St. Augustine (esp. On The Free Choice Of The Will), St. Anselm (esp. On The Freedom Of The Will), and Thomas Aquinas. Most texts are available online after a brief Google search. I highly recommend them. Even if you don't agree with their conclusions (and I don't agree with everything there myself), at least you will have a common foundation from which to continue in a more informed discussion.
Donald wrote:
Why? Science is merely one way of knowing, and powerful though it is, is not really the ultimate way of knowing.
Why? Because what I meant was that I want Michael to use something other than scripture to prove his claim.
Donald also wrote:
A "scientific" proof of Mike's contention is not possible, but that fact shows not that his contention is wrong, but that science does not have all the answers.
Exactly. It's not possible. But because it is not possible in no way proves that we can assume his contention to be true.
Scripture also in no way proves his contention to be true. It is, in fact, a part of his, and your, claim. You can't cite your own outlandish claim as proof of your outlandish claim.
My request is that I see some concrete proof. By that I mean something new. If you claim to have a personal relationship with God, then I am happy for you. However, I have been waiting many years with nary a peep. I've discussed with Michael how I'm to know that I have been born again. What is it that makes it happen? What is it that makes one know it has happened? The only answer I get is (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Those that are of God, hear God." Well I must not be "of God" because all I get is silence.
Now, don't misunderstand me. I am not rejecting God. I am actively seeking God. So why is it that certainty is denied me? And that is what I mean by "concrete proof"--something that will convince me with certainty.
BTW, I am familiar with the following verse:
John 4:48
48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
S3
Your search for non scriptural proof is the precise subject of Cartesian philosophy on this subject, see Discourses on Method:
http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/chapter-04.html
and for a fuller treatment, Meditations:
http://philos.wright.edu/DesCartes/MedE.html
If you want to reject this somewhat standard argument addressing how the human mind addresses the infinite, then do so in specific, But that overall question has already been addressed in detail by Descartes.
S3,
I have never posted a comment on anyone's blog before this. So please forgive my lack of eloquence. I was moved to participate in this conversation because of your last comment which to me seems to have been left unanswered. I am admitted late to this conversation and this thread could be long dead, but here is my two sense.
“Now, don't misunderstand me. I am not rejecting God. I am actively seeking God. So why is it that certainty is denied me? And that is what I mean by "concrete proof"--something that will convince me with certainty.”
If you are actively seeking God as you say, then go straight to the source. Talk to the Man himself. Michael and Donald, though very intelligent and eloquent, do not have all the answers. Try praying. I know it sounds funny to pray to someone you don’t yet believe exists, but try it anyway. Ask him if he is there. Don’t ask him for fireworks, because that won’t happen. God is not here for our amusement, lighting up the sky whenever we snap our fingers. Say “God, I don’t understand you and I am not really sure you are even there. But if you are there, please come into my life and give me the faith that I need.” The exact wording isn’t important, but it needs to be you sincerely seeking Him. In time, you will get your answer.
hth,
Russell
Tom:
Thanks for the links.
Russell wrote:
Talk to the Man himself.
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but what do you think I mean by:
I am not rejecting God. I am actively seeking God. ?
I have done exactly what you (and Donald and Michael) say, thousands of times.
No luck so far. But thanks for the sentiment.
Descartes wrote:
And it must be noted that I say of our reason, and not of our imagination or of our senses: thus, for example, although we very clearly see the sun, we ought not therefore to determine that it is only of the size which our sense of sight presents; and we may very distinctly imagine the head of a lion joined to the body of a goat, without being therefore shut up to the conclusion that a chimaera exists; for it is not a dictate of reason that what we thus see or imagine is in reality existent; but it plainly tells us that all our ideas or notions contain in them some truth; for otherwise it could not be that God, who is wholly perfect and veracious, should have placed them in us. And because our reasonings are never so clear or so complete during sleep as when we are awake, although sometimes the acts of our imagination are then as lively and distinct, if not more so than in our waking moments, reason further dictates that, since all our thoughts cannot be true because of our partial imperfection, those possessing truth must infallibly be found in the experience of our waking moments rather than in that of our dreams.
Is he trying to argue against belief in the veracity of our dreams or for the idea that God put the idea of God in our heads? He certainly has not proved anything with these run-on sentences.
S3- that paragraph addresses the Aristotelian concept of the reality of essentials. What enables us to discern a man from an ape? What enables us to say that this is a chair and that is a table? The Aristotelian and later Scholastic concept, which Descartes is following here, is that we rationally know the essential man differs from the essential ape. Same for chairs and tables. This is taken up in scientific theory by our recognition of differences in phenomenology, such as the taxonomy of the genuses and species or in astronomic cosmology. We think of a concept and believe it to be true if it is consistent with experience.
Compare this to dreams and you can see how dreams, or Descartes's mythological beasts, have convolved essentials which are inconsistent with our experiences.
Now, what is critical to this thread is whether Descartes, to your satisfaction, places God within the realm of reasoned experience, or in the realm of dreams and mythology.
Now, what is critical to this thread is whether Descartes, to your satisfaction, places God within the realm of reasoned experience, or in the realm of dreams and mythology.
Ah. Now that is the crux of the matter as I have not been able to place God within the realm of my reasoned experience. He, therefore, remains in the realm of mythology.
S3- lest you think that my last implied that this particular quote settles the "existence of God question", it doesn't.
I'd sketch Descartes's proof this way:
1. If a creator entity didn't exist, then we would have to assume our idea of good and evil had no essential validity.
2. But without external, essential reference, good cannot be defined as derived from something essentially good, so man would have no reference to what might be good or evil. Even given individual differences of opinion wrt good and evil, men can tell the difference, so there must be an "essential good".
3. But an essential good must be omnipresent and omnipotent otherwise it would not be everywhere valid and potent. Potency is important as it ensures the issue of good and evil is relevant to the human condition (otherwise we wouldn't be writing about these matters)
4. For lack of a better name, call this essential Good, God.
5. What is not Good is Not-God, and for lack of a better name, call it evil.
6. A potent God is capable of good works, such as Creation, and such creatures of his are inherently good.
7. Not-God is incapable of creation, and hence can only be spawned by a corruption of what is created by God. (you might be able to see how Eden and free will work into this scheme, even if you only accept Eden as an allegory)
So it's the ontological proof of God? I didn't think that was very well respected anymore.
Finally, an important issue: Man differs from the animals by his apparent ability to discern good from evil on both an historical and present case basis (even dogs know that fire can burn them, but they certainly don't do much about preventing fires for instance, same for moral questions). Consequently it is precisely this yearning to understand the difference between good and evil which Descartes would put as the "proof" that God exists and is not a myth. In that sense the cogito ergo sum is a philosophical pun:
I think
therefore
I Am
(I Am = Yahweh of Exodus etc.)
For dogs, God may as well be a myth, unless you believe in the sanctity of St. Guinefort.
http://www.southwestern.edu/academic/bwp/pdf/2001bwp-Hobgood-Oster.pdf
Michael-
The only reason why I can see ontological approaches not being respectable (your choice of word, not mine) anymore is due to its common sense. We being creatures of a good creator think about him the way a child thinks about its mother. Nothing dialectical or romantic about such common sense, that virtually anybody can see in human life on a daily, small scale basis.
See, this breaks down right off:
1. If a creator entity didn't exist, then we would have to assume our idea of good and evil had no essential validity.
I don't even come close to granting the premise. We absolutely do not need God to be capable of discerning what is good from what is bad.
also,
Tom wrote:
We being creatures of a good creator think about him the way a child thinks about its mother.
Now, that is part of the problem. I can remember being told this sort of thing when I was a small child (a long time ago), and thinking that all the adults were nuts. I do not think of God as a parent and even if I were to become convinced of his existence, I still would not think of him as a parent. So, If I have rejected God then I did it when I was about seven years old (if that is possible).
As far as the ontological argument for God, Kant gets to the heart of it and convincingly undermines it, in my opinion.
S3:
1. What are our concepts of good and evil based on then? The so-called social contract? One of the more interesting results of modern artificial intelligence is the strong indication that cooperative systems are not Evolutionarily Stable Systems, and inevitably break down due to free-ridership.
2. The parent/child relationship is only an example of God's relationship to us, just as the marriage relationship is an example of Christ's relationship to the church. By understanding human relationships, we can get a better understanding of how we relate to God. As for him being our Father (as he calls himself; and he calls us his children), it seems like an apt description. How would you prefer it to be?
What are our concepts of good and evil based on then? The so-called social contract?
Since I'm not sure that any so called social contract even exists, the answer to that would be no. But I don't think that one needs God to come to the conclusion that "do unto others...etc." is good. If I walk up to you and punch you in the nose, you will let me know in no uncertain terms that that was not good.
You also wrote:
it seems like an apt description. How would you prefer it to be?
I don't know how I would prefer it to be. It is pointless to discuss how I would want a relationship to be when I have not yet reconciled in my own mind the existence of the entity with which I'm to have said relationship.
S3- You misrepresented my first premise, which did not require a god concept, just an component of his attributes. There is a significant difference.
Your conclusions about external references to any concept of good and evil, as Michael saliently notes, destroys any hope of your adequately defining good and evil in anything but subjective terms which are meaningless to others. Which functionally is the abyss where you cannot find anything real beyond what you can physically touch. So instead of punching you, I'll murder you, leaving you with no ability to prove me not good. Paul wasn't goofing around with Judaistic pieties in Hebrews 11 when he noted "by faith we can believe that the world that we see is founded upon things unseen."
Tom:
1. No I didn't.
2. I'm not trying to prove that you (or anyone else) is not good. Nor am I trying to prove God does not exist. What I am saying is that I have not seen anything that convinces me, but I am open to any evidence you might have. We do differ on whether or not your faith is sufficient evidence to convince me. If it is exasperating for you, please know that it is more so for me.
S3- in re your #1. If you can't read my first proposition, which does not mention "god", and not see that you interjected the concept of God into it in a manner that I did not, then you are fooling yourself in a very fundamental manner which has nothing to do with your ability to discern metaphysical entities. To be blunt, there is a difference between a conceptual assumption and its logical attributes. My #1 was the former, your interjection of God at that point preceded my identification of that logical entity by several steps. Moreover, my identification of a "God" was a purely semantic step. You could call him Fred if you wished to concede that Fred conformed with the conclusions of that proof.
Gratuitously twisting another's argument to conform to your prejudices is not conducive to coherent conclusions. I offer an argument to consider, and you maim it. This illogical action has nothing to do with faith, or even perception beyond what is normally expected of high school geometry students.
Let's try to stay civil, please.
Tom, you wrote:
1. If a creator entity didn't exist, then we would have to assume our idea of good and evil had no essential validity.
Since we are discussing God, I inferred "creator entity" to be him. If that is indeed not what you meant, then pardon me. It is my mistake.
I have read this thread with some interest. I hate God. I hate him for his wonderful little surprises, i.e. HIV, cleft palalte, MS, MD, cerebral palsy, HPV, STD's, West Nile, malaria, CHF, COPD, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, prions(Mad Cow), ad infinitum. These things cannot be explained away by some sadly lacking philosophy of a warm and loving god. Even believing as I do, I still try to the right thing daily with regards to other creatures on this earth. I offer help to those in stranded cars. I offer medical help to those who are sick. I catch animals and let them go in the woods rather than kill them. I feel a terrible remorse for each time in my life that I did less than I should have or I hurt another living creature for no reason, even unintentionally. I still try to do the right thing everyday. I don't do this for some "pie in the sky" reward in the afterlife. I do these things simply because they are the right thing to do. I do them with no expectation of reward. In my experience I have come to realize that, indeed, no good deed goes unpunished. However, I cannot help doing these things in good conscience. I just imagine my wife, mother, daughter, or a friend in need and feel compelled to act. I am a good and decent person trying to live as good a life as I can in the face of an angry, petulent, and vengeful god. I see no evidence of love. I was taught to beleive as a child that God will push no man further than he can handle. Well, in my case that is a lie. I used to say that if he cared enough to simply show himself to me and explain just what the hell was his problem, I could at least begin to understand. Now, if he dared to show his face to me I would spit in it. I hate him with everything I am, everything I ever was, and everything I ever will be. I only wish I had the power to show him a fraction of the pain he has unleashed on his creation. I have no interest in spreading these truths, because knowing the the reality of of God will not help or hurt anyone. It simply is.
TDoc: You sound very angry, and you may have good reason to be; I don't know the details of your life. But I do know that there's nothing "evil" about the diseases you listed, and so forth. As humans, we're often particularly tied to this temporal life, and if that's our only concern then it's easy and reasonable to be angry and frustrated with the whole system.
However, from God's perspective, this short span of time we spend on earth is really nothing -- that's why countless Christians have been willing to face torture and execution over the millenia probably far worse than anything you've seen. This life is just a pale shadow of eternity, and there's no point in getting so angry with the evil in the world that you throw away all the good to be had in the future.
God never promises us an easy or fun life, because his purpose isn't focused on this world, but on the world to come.
1. The moral law that we all acknowledge is based on something more than "do what you will and don't get caught". All appeals to the Golden Rule's obviousness, concern for "society", and concern for one's offspring do not explain why these things ought to matter if one's personal circumstance indicates that violating them is more advantageous. In short, if you can get away with it, what's stopping you? Can't stand the wife or kids anymore? Whack 'em and get new ones. Need money? Waylay somebody. Just don't get caught.
If our consciences that tell us not to act this way are not real, then this discussion is pointless. If our consciences that tell us not to act this way are real, then they must have a purpose and origin of a non-random, non-physical character (else there is no free will). In short, there is Spirit, Order, and Good.
2. Read _The Great Divorce_ by C.S. Lewis. His literary device is that God's judgment and/or punishment consists of giving exactly what we demand. If we want to be separated from Him, He will let us. (Lewis carries it further, and implies that the torments of Hell are not God's doing, but its inhabitants progressively warring with one another as the mitigating effects of God's grace are absent, and the dulling effects of sin compound.)
Lewis also includes the notion that our opportunity to choose God continues after death, so that we can leave Hell and undertake Purgatory if our spirit is not inescapably dulled yet. This leads to the next thought: the idea that we receive infinite punishment for finite sin is silly. Whatever we are in essence, we continue to be after death -- so as long as we desire separation from God we are in sin.
3. Methinks many of you have been repelled by the ignorant exclusivism of some fundamentalist Protestant sects. While I know Catholicism is equally unpopular in secular circles, an open-minded reading of the catechism would show something very different.
Basically, God expects us to follow Him according to our knowledge of Him; those who know or understand less of the truth can nonetheless be saved through Christ if they desire and attempt to follow God. It is much more difficult and certainly not assured, but the Catholic Church does not say that God creates people simply for the purpose of sending them to Hell with no chance for salvation. The more you understand, the more is expected of you.