Tags
atheism, Christ, faith, miracles, synchronicity, trust, un-apologetics
Violet has a post up called “coincidence, tragedy, and other acts of God.” It is one of my favorite subjects because I am all about the synchronicity, the harmony, the sweet music that plays connecting random events together.
Science and math are especially good at showing us the true story of synchronicity, about the interconnectedness of the world around us. Often we will speak of eco- systems, the way each part plays a role and to remove even one piece changes the entire design. I remember a ridge of trees in Hawaii that were cut down on the rainy side of an island and it changed the clouds, altered the rain patterns, created a drought in that area which killed the native plants, which lead to a mudslide, just an astounding series of events that transformed a little piece of paradise into a pile of muck, all because a tree line was removed without a good understanding of the significance, the purpose it served.
Math is also really good at drawing us pictures of probabilities, games of chance and randomness, of unseen order within the chaos, all the way into physics and even quantum mechanics, in which case your brain will start to hurt long before you discover all the secrets lurking therein.
Einstein is believed to have said, “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
Those are great words of wisdom and truly what one perceives as ordinary is often really quite extraordinary. The jaded and misanthropic love to say, yeah well my heart is beating, so what? I am entitled to breathe, there is nothing miraculous about any of this! Then we like to turn those jaded eyes onto events and circumstances as we fancy ourselves so smart, so above it all, because we think we can see the mere coincidence, the insignificance, the trick behind the Magician.
Violet’s jaded eyes go on to say, “Petty little things that make Christians happy only actually happen because the invisible creator of the world loves them and has time to put the fridge they want on half price sale, or provide a parking place for them, or make them bump into someone who says something nice to them…”
Oh, the sheer horror of all the petty little things that make Christians happy….sorry, my sarcasm got the best of me.
That truly is what walking with the Lord is like. What can I say, He knows how to make everything fun, how to show you the blessings hiding in the routine, the mundane. Heck, if you learn to really lean into Him, He’ll have you singing in prison, rejoicing in times of trouble, singing His praises even in the midst of great suffering. We are so loved, so treasured and valued, that yes, God has time for each and every one of us.
I empathize, it really is an odd concept and I have those same jaded eyes, those eyes that are afraid to trust, those eyes that fear being fooled and deceived, those eyes that dread disappointment. Pffft, I’ll raise you a miracle, show you some stage lighting and expose the wizard behind the curtain. Violet does not know me, but I am a skeptic extraordinaire and not easily deceived.
God however, has never found my skepticism to be very impressive. Many times I have thought, ah sheesh this is just foolish. And He has whispered to me, be foolish. I have thought, well, obviously I am now delusional and God has whispered, be delusional. Come on, this is totally irrational and God has said, be irrational.
God and I have had some great discussions about “the petty little things that make Christians happy” and He has flat out told me, open your eyes and truly see what is right in front of you! If you cannot trust that a favored uncle pulling quarters from his ears is really pulling quarters from his ears, than trust in the miracle behind it, in the love that went into practicing it, in the attention being shown because someone seeks only to delight and enchant you. How we live our lives and what we chose to see is really a choice we all must make, each and every time. The fact that we have this choice really is yet another miracle.
Violet concludes by saying, “And don’t forget to thank him incessantly for this wonderful intervention in your petty little life, and wonder with awe what odd benevolent deity would revel in the petty little coincidences in your petty little life, while millions of other people are living tragically short, painful and brutal lives. What a comforting Christian life!”
What Violet fails to understand here is that we do no one else any favors by refusing to rejoice because others suffer in the world. We do not lift anyone else up by joining them on the bottom. Do you help the sick by becoming sick yourself? Do the jaded eyes of misanthropy serve to encourage those who live tragic, painful lives? Do we help those who suffer by trying to rob them of hope?
An even more profound question to ask yourself, how come those living in great comfort and ease in the Western world tend to have such high suicide rates and a dependance on anti depressants? Is it possible that what we perceive to be millions of suffering people, perhaps do not suffer as much as those of us deceived enough to believe we have all the answers?
These are philosophical questions, rhetorical questions, grown up questions, they are not really questions that have a cut and dry answer, but they often lead us down a better path than the simple road that makes one stamp their foot and dismissively declare, “well, Christians are just downright foolish.”
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Thank you. I admit, sometimes I feel guilty for reveling in the goodness I see in the little things when someone confronts me with the suffering of others. But you’re absolutely right. The goodness of God isn’t measured in the stuff we have. One of the families that shared so meaningfully about the goodness of God was a couple in my church–he suffering with ALS.
“The LORD’s hand is not so short that it cannot save; nor is His ear so dull that he cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God and your sins have hid His face from you so that He does not hear.” Isaiah 59:1-2 I’d add that God is also not so big that He cannot reach into our little lives and show us His kindness.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen to that, Becky.
I kid you not, long ago I was once bemoaning the time and effort I was going to have to put into walking somewhere, when I said “this is so unfair, why do I have to walk in the first place?” I turned around and there was a Vietnam vet I knew who said to me, “Because you can.” It was a rather dreadful moment of conviction for me, but he was a sweet guy with legs all full of metal and he simply wanted me to know that the fact that I could walk easily, was something to value and appreciate, a blessing all by itself. So, sometimes we simply walk because others can’t.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Quite the coincidence, that vet being right there just when you were complaining about having to walk, eh? 😉
I read Violet’s article and looked at a couple links in the comments including an article in Psychology Today about “apophenia” (not in the dictionary, and as the article admits, a term coined by a German neurologist). On one hand the article admits there are some patterns that we can and should recognize, but others are just from our imaginings. But I can’t help wondering, how would they know, since they do not acknowledge either spiritual forces of evil or of good? All their “good science” assumptions are based on the belief that God does not exist and therefore cannot move to order events according to His will. Or that His and our adversary, the devil, doesn’t wage war against us.
Believing that God is true and in control changes everything.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Coincedences do happen. Do they not? Most things in reality, that do happen, are indeed random. Are they not? Most events in the universe are hostile to life as we know it. Why? Because they are random and natural, or because there is some grand architecht intelligence who has designed most things in the universe to be hostile to life as we know it? Would such an architect be so puny, self interrested, egotistic and down right evil, that it required worship to boost it’s ego from us mere humans in return for sparing us from extreme violence in the alledged, but as of yet unproven afterlife? Perhaps… There seems to be no ethics, by wich such a mighty entity would be bound by. Or is there?
There is none what so ever even remotely objective information about these “spiritual forces” to exist anywhere else exept in the human imagination, while there is plenty of as objective as we can acheive at the moment information about them being brought forth by human imagination.
Scientific assumptions are not based on no particular gods to exist, or not to exist. Gods are simply a phenomenon, that do not make any appearances in any sciences, exept psychology, sociology and historical studies as psychological or sociological human behaviour models. Most likely this is because they do not exist anywhere else than in the imaginations of humans and as cult objects. The scientific method researches the natural world and has no means to study any of the multitude of alledged supernatural realms. Yet when these supernatural entities alledgedly influence the natural world then the scientific method could be used to research such influence and how it differs from the natural world, but alas, despite many efforts, such alledged influences when studied have always proven to be part of the natural world and nothing at all we would be warranted to call supernatural influence. The scientific method is the only even remotely objective way to achieve information.
LikeLike
Scientifically Mr Rautakyy, consider the scent of that small powerhouse the lily of the valley. Prove it exists, point to it, explain it, test it, .and prove through scientific analysis that what you smell, is identical to what I smell. Your only valid answer is one must know by faith. Period.
Hint: you will come up woefully short; there will be no proof, and you are left trying to explain that which you deny as to the person of a Creator who is altogether Wonderful, perfect, and lovely.
I can tell you any research you will come up with, will be a matter of your opinion, no better or worse than a person who cannot smell. You will be at a loss for words trying to paint the wind.
So then, this comment is about money and power? Or is it possible you are cheating yourself from the gold mines found in lands far from ignorance….
LikeLike
ColorStorm, poetic as ever. However, it is quite possible to examine the scent of a flower through the scientific method and it has actually been done. The scent is molecular movement of material in the air we animals breathe and sense through our sensory perception again something that happens in the material and observable world and because it is a beneficial evolutionary trait – As explained through science, the best way we have of reaching even remotely reliable data about anything objective. Correct? Or do you have a better method, or anything even close? A person who has no capacity to smell may very well understand and accept that a scent exists and what it is like as a subjective experience to people who can experience it. And furthermore, that person is perfectly warranted to believe there is such a material thing as a scent, if it is scientifically verified and then explained to them. No faith of any kind required, just logic.
We may present opinions on such things as are our subjective experiences, but the limit of opinions is that those are subjective, and give us a limited scope on anything objective. Science however, is not about opinions or limited to the subjective as faith.
The money and power comment is there to put things into context. What is your objection with it, or is there any?
LikeLike
According to the mathematicians who have studied the Big Bang, the odds of a Big Bang with all the variables set to just the right values to support life are astonishingly small. Coincidence? Is it not strange how many such coincidences there are?
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Citizen Tom. That is very interresting info you have there. Do you have some concrete source for these calculations you refer to? However, you seem to fail to understand what the concept of a coincidence actually means. The variables for something extraordinary to happen does not mean that if the event happened regardless of astonishingly small likelyhood, it is by any means a coincidence. It only means that it happened regardless of the very unlikely possibility.
Coincidence is the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident, but seem to have some connection. Now, if you think that the emergence of the universe and then later the emergence of what we call life and even much later the emergence of what we would call consciousness as a series of unlikely events are coincidences, you might have something there. Exept, that the without the universe as we know it, life would be quite impossible, and without life as we know it, intelligence as we know it would also be quite impossible. And we do know that the time span for these to take place has been enormous. So, if one unlikely event makes the second possible, they no longer are such coincidences. They only seem such, because as a result of the entire process we – the products of the process – give a special value to the universe, life and consciousness.
Personally I find it difficult to believe for anybody to be able to calculate the likelyhood of the material universe to emerge any more than life or consciousness to emerge. Because for such a mathematical task would require some reference point. But we only have this one universe and we only know of this one occasion of life emerging on this one planet at the moment. If we ever find other planets with life similar or different to ours, it only makes the likelyhood of life emerging not seem as such a big coincidence, though them emerging then would actually be a coincidence. And there are hundreds of trillions of planets in the universe as far as we know, so the likelyhood does not look at all so unlikely given the time span we know from the big bang cosmology. Consciousness is an event for wich we have several reference points in the animal kingdom, but their variability seems to rather indicate it is not such a rare, or unlikely thing at all after the first premises of material universe and abiogenesis have been set. What I do find very, very unlikely is the consciousness outside the material universe, or material brains, because we do not have any even remotely reliable data about anything such. Do we? Just these ghost stories, fairytales and other cultural constructs, such as religions.
LikeLike
@rautakyy
You are familiar with google? Trying googling with this combination: “big bang” odds create life. What I get a laugh out of is the people who say there is a high probability life occurred naturally. Nevertheless, if it was so probable, why can’t we do it in a lab starting from simple chemical.
Here are some other improbables for you.
Without the inspiration of God, men would not have written the Bible. No other book is like it. The Bible doesn’t flatter us; the Bible holds up a mirror and shows us as we are. The Bible also gives us hope; it explains how God redeemed us from sin. There are about 40 authors, and these tell a coherent story in a book whose writings span 1500 hundred years. Moreover, in spite of the violence and travails of human history, believers have preserved the Bible virtually unchanged for thousands of years. Again I ask, what other book is like that?
Without the God of Israel, the history of the Jews makes no sense. After all that has been done to destroy them, after all they have suffered, the Jews still exist as a nation. No other people has a story so strange and remarkable, not even close.
Without Christ Jesus — without the man who was also the Son of God — the formation of Christianity makes no sense. After
His crucifixion, hundreds saw Him — alive. Rather than deny Christ, many accepted death. That includes all but one of His apostles. Only John died of old age. Why? What for? These people had nothing material to gain. In court the testimony of a dying man holds great weight? What is the testimony of a Christian martyr? Is it not the testimony of someone who knows his death, lies just before him?
Christianity makes a difference. As a way of life, loving God and ones neighbors cannot be beat. That’s why 2000 years after the birth of Christ men and women still speak of being born again. Each Christian knows that when they were born again, that birth was real and substantial, not a delusion.
LikeLike
@Citizen Tom, google works differently for different users, and that is why this is what I get whith that search:
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
Maybe you should get aquinted whith what is said there. Before you assume the odds for life.
We have had laboratories for some couple of hundred years now and no we have not been able to achieve artificial life. That has not been the prime use for laboratories at any point. We do not even have a clear picture of the exact condititions under wich the first organisms formed in – wich is why we have not been able to replicate it. But most importantly we have not had the time span to find the exact conditions in wich it was possible. Yet, it is more likely explanation, that it was indeed a chemical reaction, that caused it, than that it was magically achieved by any particular divinty from any particular human mythology. Is it not? That is, if we talk in adult terms.
There are an abundance of mythologies that do not flatter the humanity. Try the Gilgamesh epic, the Mahabharata, the Koran, Edda, or the epic of my people the Kalevala. These stories give their reader hope, sometimes imaginary hope like getting into Valhalla in the alledged, but unproven afterlife, for being brave. That is no evidence at all, that any mythologies – including the Torah and the Bible – are inspired by anything unnatural, like divinities.
Yes, the history of the Jews is exeptional, but that proves absolutely nothing about any divine influence. Nor does them surviving persecution. The Lakota people have suffered terrible persecutions, but is their concept of supernatural by any means confirmed by this? The Gipsies were persecuted much like the Jews in Europe, and they have survived. What should this tell us? They have at very least equally exeptional history like the Jews. Every nation has an exeptional history. Some nations have been persecuted, destroyed, or most often simply assimilated to others. The Torah contains a set of very specific laws to prevent assimilation. It is full of segragationist rules. But it is not by far the only such system. In modern world we call such social systems cults, but for the Jews it is part of their ethnicity. Yet, it is human behaviour and no indication of anything unnatural, such as a god meddling at any point.
Martyrdom proves absolutely nothing else than that the conviction of the martyr. The nazi stormtroopers throwing away their lives fightin in the ruins of Berlin in 1945 proves absolutely nothing of the validity of their conviction. Only that they were convinced.
The history if Christianity is a series of bloody massacres, no different from general human history.
It is a good idea to treat people well, but that is by no means an idea invented by Christianity, nor is it lived out only by Christians. In fact not in any sense more than any other people. The idea that you should treat others like you prefer to be treated is inherent to us mammals and especially all the social species. There are always anomalies of individuals who do not get it and all the great thinkers of old have pronounced it from LaoTze to Jesus and from Confucius to Zoroaster. But it is only stating the obvious. There is nothing divine in such human endeavours.
The fact that something is impropable does not make it unnatural. But unnatural such as any particular god existing outside human imagination, text and statues, is very, very impropable. Is it not? There simply exists no actual evidence for any of them. Does there?
LikeLike
Google works differently for different users? Well, sort of, but Dave Deamer’s post, “Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance.” Since Deamer bypasses the Big Bang by some billions of years and bypasses the problem of the primordial soup, I was hoping you might look a little further than the first hit.
Anyway, the rest of my reply is here => http://citizentom.com/2015/08/01/everything-is-a-miracle-reblogged-part-1/
LikeLike
@Citizen Tom. What a curious post you wrote. However, it actually does not really concern our conversation here in any way. Now, does it? I can not see the connection. You commented one of my earlier posting in my own blog in your own post, but nothing at all I said here. So, how is it supposed to be an answer to anything I said here?
We can speculate all we want about what caused the so called big bang, or abiogenesis, but it does not change the fact, that we do not know what caused either of them. In all likelyhood both of them were natural occurances, because both of them happened within the context of the existing material and observable universe. As far as all phenomenons in the natural and observable reality around us are natural, by the only even remotely objective method we have to research reality, that is science. Hence, we have no reason what so ever, to assume there are any unnatural agents, such as gods.
Science can research human cultures and the myths these form. They are a natural part of human nature. They do affect us and through us the reality (like the Jews moving to Palestine, rather than to Madagasgar, to escape the wrath of the European Christians they have suffered for generations), but it is proposterous to assume any single myth, be it the Gilgamesh epic, Egyptian book of the Dead, the Mahabharata, exploits of Buddha, the Torah, the Iliad, the Bible, the Edda, the Kalevala or what ever was representative of reality in it’s claims, other than about the superstitious beliefs of the people who wrote them.
It is far more sane to accept that we do not know what caused the universe to exist and examine it, than to make the wild claim it was caused by a god concept as put forth in any one of these ancient myths by ignorant people, and then accept we do not know what caused this particular god to exist. Correct?
LikeLike
@rautakyy-
Your labwork has serious limitations. None will argue against what is Seen, but you missed the essence of the point regarding the flower.
The scent is intangible; the odor is the spirit of the flower, and it is THAT which cannot be put under a microscope. Nature points to spirit; and science is not threatened by that which cannot be touched.
But consider the possibility that you happening on blogs like this, is more than ‘accidental.’ By the way, your attribution to the Architect as being evil …………………that’s odd, that thought never crosses my mind. I suppose that is the difference between day and night.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ColorStorm, of course science has it’s limitations, but it still is the best, if not the only, way of achieving even remotely objective data. Is it not? Without objective data what are we warranted to believe?
How does nature point to “spirit”? Nature is nature and very natural at that. It is also observable and material. As far as science – objective data – is concerned the concept of “spirit” is only something people used to call the electrochemical processes in the brains of us animals, when they did not know any better. And their ignorance caused them to project the consciousness of the material brain to all the moving parts of nature, in hopes to bargain with the power of nature.
Me being here is not mere accident. I made a conscious choise to come here and comment. My action had a purpose, but in hindsight – once again – it seems a fruitless effort.
As to the evil architecht. If there is one, it has been very good to me in comparrison, but since I can sympathize with people to whom such an architecht has only designed misery, my conclusion is that it has to be an evil architecht, or indifferent – much like nature. This architecht is after all, just speculation as far it remains within the realms of subjective imagination of the physical brain and fairytales. Perhaps this is just you seeing the glass half full, while I see it half empty. 😉
LikeLike
“If there is one, it has been very good to me in comparrison, but since I can sympathize with people to whom such an architecht has only designed misery, my conclusion is that it has to be an evil architecht, or indifferent –”
Which really does speak to my point about the need for human suffering and the inability or unwillingness of people who are comfortable to truly open their eyes and know the existence of God. There is that old saying, “there are no atheists in a fox hole.”
There is however, something quite immoral about looking down on those in the fox hole and declaring from ones safe, high perch, “there is no God.” The atheist’s inability to recognize the immorality of this act, always reminds me that there really is no such thing as objective morality outside the context of God. We are simply not qualified. You whose glass is full have the privilege to call the glass half full, but you lack the morality to understand that that is an act of cruelty towards those whose glass really is only half full. And you do this thing under the guise of “sympathy.” Baloney, you do it to relieve your own sense of shame. If you genuinely empathized with those who suffer, you would do everything in your power to help them to know that their glass can be full of Living Water.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@insanitybytes22, I can sympathize with imaginary fictional characters and their fictional problems just as well as with real people with real problems, just like most people who read books and watch movies. I bet you can too. Can’t you? There is no need for real human suffering to teach us something and the idea of suffering existing for our benefit is vile. It sounds terribly much like the parent venting their frustration on their child and making up excuses like it is for their own benefit. You would not do that, would you? The idea gets exeptionally vile and egotistic when the idea becomes, that the suffering of others is there to teach us who do not suffer equally.
I have heard this saying, that “there are no atheists in a fox hole” before, but I do not get it. What does it actually mean? If it means atheists do not cower in the fox hole when action needs to be taken, I would say it exaggerates the bravery of atheists, though it may paint a rather accurate picture of the reasons why scared people rely on imaginary deities to come to their help in crisis situations. And they do so regardless of the fact, that no gods ever answer any prayers – that is any more frequently than the natural rate of coincidences. Nothing at all is a miracle, unless “miracle” refers only to a very rare event. Attributing obvious coincidences to divine influence is cultural baggage from times when we could not calculate the propabilities for just about anything. If the saying “there are no atheists in a fox hole” is supposed to mean that in a crisis situation everybody relies on some sort of divinity, or just that in combat situation everyone relies on the supernatural myths of their own cultural heritage, it is just dead wrong. It is a nother one of your popular historical misconceptions made up by theists to feel better about themselves and their own fears. I have known many atheist veterans, some of them from my own family. I have been in a number of life threatening situations, but it has never occurred to me to rely on imaginary fantasy characters from any particular cultural heritage. And I have “miraculously” survived them all. Not without scars though.
I am not the one looking down on people in “fox holes”, it is you. I have been down in the “fox hole”. Have you? It is you, whose morale is questionable, if you see people in desperate situations and their stress and suffering just as mere tools for your god to teach you a lesson. There is no god, that seems to be able to help those who suffer in any way. Or is there? Even if a ritual such as praying releaves their feeling of anxiety, it is they themselves who achieved it, not some imaginary entity beyond time-space. I said it allready, that I see the glass for the whole world half empty, while ColorStorm sees it half full. I am quite qualified to evaluate morality. If a human being is not qualified to make that call, then you are not qualified to tell me your god is moral. Are you? No gods represent anything sufficient to be called objective morality. The scientific method is the only way we have to achieve any even remotely objective information, not faith. Faith is an anathema to objectivity. Faith and as a result all the gods are mere projections of subjectivity. Sympathy is the first step to helping others. It is a very effective evolutionary survival mechanism shared by all the social species. A sense of shame is an evolutionary survival trait shared by at least all the primates and most social mammals. A person may help others even without sympathy, only to relieve their own sense of shame, or just for fear of punishment, but then their choise to help is not really moral. Is it? How do you know how much I do to help those in need? What on earth is “Living water”? I have contributed to people in need having fresh water that they really and demonstrably needed, have you?
LikeLike
“I said it allready, that I see the glass for the whole world half empty, while ColorStorm sees it half full.”
The glass is always full. Sometimes it is full of only air, but it is always full.
LikeLike
You know, I like to wrangle and tussle as much as anybody. But I read some of these posts and the sadness strikes me. I remember having a lot of sadness wrapped in a facade of cynicism and bitterness.
Sometimes I think I should remember that more when I talk to folks. IB, thanks for making me think about that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Me too, Wally. Sometimes I forget how much pain hides beneath that cynicism and bitterness and I just snap at people.
On the other hand, the few people brave enough to snap at me, sure helped to open my eyes once, so perhaps it isn’t all bad 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, none of it is bad, Anything is to teach us something if we only listen. And sometimes a word comes from places we might not expect, and we see it in places we might not expect. If that sounds vague. it is LOL. Just sort of thinking out loud so to speak. But, thanks for writing what you did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The other thing that strikes me is how Violet misses the fact that God, being God, doesn’t tell us in advance how He’s going to use this or that event in our lives. But we have His promise that it will be for our good, to conform us to the image of His Son, so after the fact, we can see some possible ways that He’s doing that. So, yes, everything God brings into our life gives us the chance to see God at work one way or another. It’s not wishful thinking or rationalization; it’s us believing God will do what He said He would do, and in fact able to see His fingerprints all over the place! 😉
Becky
LikeLiked by 4 people
The point of giving thanks to God is not for his benefit, or for ours. It’s actually for the benefit of the giver. The effect is really more like “Hey, God, send some angels to this way!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said IB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Insanity, you know how I love reading your take on things, and the comments from your blogging buddies are always a bonus. I think you’re right that there’s something to be said for treating life and all its random coincidences with delight. I’m just not sure there’s a reason to pretend an invisible friend doing it all especially for you. Although it does sound rather fun.
“What Violet fails to understand here is that we do no one else any favors by refusing to rejoice because others suffer in the world. We do not lift anyone else up by joining them on the bottom.”
It’s not about joining anyone at the bottom. It’s about acknowledging that in the wider scheme of things it would be appalling to think an all-powerful being was finding you a parking place while allowing children to starve to death on the other side of the world. How could you worship such a creature and take delight in your new fridge? It’s bad enough for me believing it’s all by tragic chance in a world that’s difficult to influence, but to think it’s planned and controlled is atrocious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It’s bad enough for me believing it’s all by tragic chance in a world that’s difficult to influence, but to think it’s planned and controlled is atrocious.”
That’s a difficult concept for everyone because our human brains are limited. We are such linear thinkers, we need our information cut and dry, yes or no. We also need to maintain a sense of control ourselves, so the idea that Someone else may be in charge of things just doesn’t sit well with us. In a paradox there however, we also don’t like to take responsibility for the suffering in the world ourselves.
So like you have said, we prefer to believe “it’s all by tragic chance in a world that’s difficult to influence.” The thing is, if there were no God, than there also is no “tragic chance” but rather a world of misery deliberately created by other humans. Those children who starve to death, we either want to blame God or blame “tragic chance in a world that’s hard to influence.” The last thing we wish to do is blame ourselves, to acknowledge that there is enough food for everyone and yet through the actions of humans we deliberately allow children to starve. In our own minds we must dismiss this vile behavior and attempt to excuse it by claiming we live in a world “difficult to influence.” If we are alone however, then we are solely responsible for everything and the world is not difficult to influence at all, it is simply that we have chosen to influence it in a way that makes children go hungry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, I/B, that’s not a bad point.
LikeLike
Yeah, I figured that’s the one comment of mine you would allow out of moderation – what a control freak!
LikeLike
LOL, I’m a control freak? You spend all your time roaming about the internet in a rather sad and desperate quest to rid people of their faith while daring God to try to stop you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arch, 1 – your god, 0!
LikeLike
LOL! You poor baby, you think you can win a contest of wills with God Himself! Oh brother….
You can’t even win with me Arch, trying to take on God just might be biting off more than you can chew.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The last thing we wish to do is blame ourselves, to acknowledge that there is enough food for everyone and yet through the actions of humans we deliberately allow children to starve.”
If you think you personally know of a simple way to circumvent the complexities of global politics, finances religions and geography, you really should get your finger out and do something about it. For me personally, the world is rather difficult to influence.
LikeLike
“For me personally, the world is rather difficult to influence.”
So we sit back blaming a God we claim to not even believe in, bailing out of the entire situation because we feel powerless, and dismissing the whole thing as just tragic chance, the luck of the draw.
The problem is you cannot have it both ways. Either we people are totally responsible for the ills in the world and totally responsible for allowing them to continue or we are not. It is just as irrational to believe people are only victims of happenstance we are unable to do anything about, as it is to believe in a loving God who has ordered our steps. The thing is, those children are a lot more likely to get fed by those who believe they were created in His image, who accept the fact that humans are full of sin, and who believe we all will answer to a Higher Authority.
The alternative is to remain frozen in powerlessness, to refuse to see the truth of human sin, and to deny the existence of God, while endlessly mocking and ridiculing the alleged irrational and delusional who actually do see these things.
LikeLike
“The thing is, those children are a lot more likely to get fed by those who believe they were created in His image, who accept the fact that humans are full of sin, and who believe we all will answer to a Higher Authority.”
Why?
LikeLike
“Why?”
Because you choose to spend all your time roaming the internet harassing believers rather then going out and feeding those children and Violet spends her time feeling powerless about the random chance and unfortunate happenstance in the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only incentive your people have in feeding them – IF in fact that’s true – is the opportunity it gives you to proselytize and teach some more little children to fear burning in hell forever if they don’t accept your invisible god.
LikeLike
And yet your vastly superior morality would prefer to let all those children die in order to protect them from being exposed to the message of the cross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Homo sapiens sapiens arose in a world in which many things went hungry, or were eaten for lunch. To say that we have yet to perfect nature is simply to testify that the problem is difficult.
Miguel de Unamuno, author of Tragic Sense of Life, put it best. It went something like “We create this God of love and eternal life by believing in him, and he in turn makes us stronger as people.” As my earlier comment implies, we call love into this realm by invoking the avatars that most distinctly represent its manifestations. In this way, every individual influences the process through their celebration of love.
But I agree that it serves no purpose to whine that we haven’t been absolved of the need (or opportunity?) to grow into spiritual maturity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We also need to maintain a sense of control ourselves, so the idea that Someone else may be in charge of things just doesn’t sit well with us. In a paradox there however, we also don’t like to take responsibility for the suffering in the world ourselves. ”
I think it’s accurate to say that we like to maintain a sense of control. However, I think it would be far easier to accept the idea that Someone else is in charge if Management was just a little more competent.
LikeLike
@violetwisp
Have you ever considered the possibility that Atheism is not a daring notion that proves how fearlessly we can deal with reality. In fact, it just proves we can fear God for the wrong reasons.
Think about this.
What is His purpose? This life is brief. What does it prepare us for? Eternity? Eternity is just an aspect of our Creator, one of many aspects of God we cannot comprehend.
When we just focus ourselves, our here and now, we run from God. What our minds are too small to grasp, we can deny exists. We can deny our fears exist.
But what does our Creator have in His Mind for us? Would you not like to know? Can your curiosity overcome your fears? Is it possible that the Bible, that the glory of Creation, inexplicably miraculous coincidences, and what people will do for love only hints at what the future holds?
I believe such “hints” do point to God, a Creator who cares for us, but I once believed otherwise. Did the evidence sway me or the desires of my petty little life? I think the evidence had something to do with it. I also fail to see what I lose by believing such a thing. If I am wrong, if this life is all there is, so what?
To rot in the ground. For no one to care. Now that is petty.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for your thoughtful input Tom.
“I think the evidence had something to do with it.” What evidence do you have?
“I also fail to see what I lose by believing such a thing. If I am wrong, if this life is all there is, so what?”
We could say the same of followers of Islam, Hinduism or any kind of other ancient belief system. From my point of view, if I returned to Christianity or took up following another system reliant on invisible entities, I would be abandoning my own sense of logic and rational thought in decision making, and adopting the man-made rules (specifically by men) from people who were living in times of relative ignorance about the world. What would I have to lose? Rational thought, reality and compassion for the planet based on common sense and facts. I want to live somewhere that strives for equality for all, and I think humanity moves naturally in that direction. Christianity granted has this as a central theme, but historic and modern day attitudes to slaves, women, gay people and animals (to name but a few broad groups) demonstrate that Bible gives license for any number of harmful behaviours and attitudes.
“To rot in the ground. For no one to care. Now that is petty.”
Petty? It’s a basic acceptance of life. Those who know and love you will care, and the life of the planet at large will go on. It’s great to have been part of that if only for a brief time.
LikeLike
@violetwisp
Do I really have to show your the evidence? Don’t you already have access to our little corner of the universe? Doesn’t your heart already distinguish right from wrong? Isn’t there a gaping hole in you that only God can fill? You cannot afford a Bible?
Is Islam, Hinduism, or any other belief system anything like Christianity? No. What those other belief systems are about is what we have to do. They are man-centered. What Christianity is about is what God has done for us, how much He loves us. Christians admit God created us for His glory.
Christianity does not ask us to abandon logic or rational thought. That’s what we do when we fail to realize we are not at the center of things. We exist because God wants us to exist, not because of anything we ever did. We exist because we are His children, and He wants the glory of loving His children and being loved in return.
Is it logical or rational for God to want children, beings made in His own image to love Him? Having been a parent, I think so. I think that is true even after experiencing the terrible twos.
Does the Bible promote slavery, sexism, animal hatred, hatred of homosexuals, and so forth? No, and it is ignorant to suggest such a thing. What such twisted thinking demonstrates is illogic and prejudice. Read your history. Look about you. Christians ended slavery. Christians protect the rights of women. Christian eat animals, but they outlaw their abuse. Christians call homosexuality what it is, a sin, but Christians do not approve of the persecution of homosexuals. Instead, Christians consider all men sinners. We even admit the consumption of meat is something that resulted from the fall of Adam and Eve from grace. We admit that not even Christians can live up to the teachings of Christ. We are all children, works in progress.
That’s a response most appropriately categorized as bravado. Meaningless. Foolish. It sounds brave, but it is in truth just fatalism.
Check out The Fox & the Grapes => http://www.read.gov/aesop/005.html
Instead of belittling Christians, why don’t you give some thought as why faith in Christ seems beyond your reach?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does the Bible promote slavery?
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life” Leviticus 25
“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.” 1 Timothy 6
Does the Bible promote sexism?
“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man”
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
Does the Bible promote animal hatred?
“Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
“There they are to present their offerings to the LORD: a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering,”
Does the Bible promote hatred of homosexuals?
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
LikeLike
@violetwisp
What you are doing is engaging in a juvenile form of argument. Instead of making a reasoned argument, you are simply attacking. You don’t like Christianity. You don’t want to believe in Jesus, and why? Well, if you don’t like Christianity, it must be bad. That’s like a child refusing to eat broccoli because broccoli is poisonous. Because it tastes so bad, broccoli must be poisonous. Of course, the child refuses to taste broccoli.
Think about why you think slavery is bad. Why do you think sexism is bad? What is wrong with abusing animals? What is wrong with hating homosexuals? Where did you learn such things? In a country with a vile Christian heritage? WOW! How could that be? You are so special and wise you just know what is right, correct?
When God inspired the Mosaic Code, why did He allow the Jews to own slaves? Why were women treated as the lessors of men? What is the sacrifice of animals all about? Why such severe punishments for sin, not just homosexuality?
If you know a little history, then you know that all ancient peoples own slaves. That was the best they could do for a welfare system.
In a primitive society, the weakness of women and their dependence on men, especially when they have children, is blatantly obvious. Yet compared to other peoples, the Jews treated their women with far greater respect. Some of the books of the Old Testament are named after women.
Set your ego aside for moment. Think for moment about the story of Adam and Eve. Eve was deceived. Adam was not. He knew exactly what God had said. Yet he ate the forbidden fruit anyway. Why? We can speculate, but the Apostle Paul says Adam disobeyed God even though he knew the truth.
Paul wrote the Timothy 1 and 2 to a man named Timothy. In the context of those times, it would have made no sense whatsoever to have allowed women to assume authority over men. Just the same, Paul gave women important assignments.
Primitive societies did not have the luxury a making animals pets, and treating animals as our equals would just be plain stupid. Nevertheless, the Bible makes it clear that animals should be treated with respect (Deuteronomy 25:4). And the animal sacrifices were for the most part eaten. The point of animal sacrifice was not animal abuse; it was to point to the sacrifice Jesus would make.
Homosexuality is a sin because we are not suppose to use each other that way. Adultery is wrong for the same reason.
If you want to understand the Old Testament, read Romans and Hebrews. And don’t tell me you have, but if you had you actually studied those books you would not have spouted such nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Tom, I do like to think I know a little about history. Is there any particular reason an eternal deity with a fixed morality code would issue laws to ‘fit in’ with an unequal and brutal society? What would be odd about issuing laws saying ‘actually women should have equal rights with men in all things’ or ‘animals are wonderfully made sentient creatures and should never be slaughtered to satisfy my displeasure with your behaviour’ or ‘take care of the poor but never think it’s okay to own another human being’? Are you saying your perfectly benevolent god was happy to adjust his moral code to suit the primitive society he’d chosen as the only people he cared about?
And incidentally, what is ‘wrong’ about homosexuality? Two consenting adults love each other and want to be together – how on earth could that be sinful? Sex outside marriage prior to our times had all manner of undesirable consequences – unwanted children, disease, poverty – apart from any emotional harm caused by cheating on a partner. Calling it a ‘sin’ can be argued logically. The idea that homosexuality is problematic makes no sense for anyone other than those who imagine it is against the wishes of their invisible god.
I’m sorry you think my reply was childish, I simply replied to question you posed.
I certainly haven’t read Romans or Hebrews in their entirety since I shook off my Christian brainwashing upbringing, so you’re right it may be interesting to revisit these books.
LikeLike
I replied here => http://citizentom.com/2015/08/01/everything-is-a-miracle-reblogged-part-1/
LikeLike
This is not really an answer to any of the issues Violetwisp was wondering in her blog post. Is it?
But you really do honestly admit to being delusional and irrational? I think it is healthy, that you can and will recognize such, there are many theists who seem unable, or simply do not (and desperately, but invain try to make their fairytale beliefs stand to reason), but it is unhealthy, that you do not recognize irrationality and delusions as problems. It is a bit like an addict admitting they have an addiction, but at the same time claiming it is not a problem and that it makes them happy. But a religion is a problematic addiction, if it causes a person, community, or even an entire society to have a twisted view of reality and as a consequence poorer morals than the most objective information at their disposal would direct them to.
You wrote: “What Violet fails to understand here is that we do no one else any favors by refusing to rejoice because others suffer in the world.” No she does not. Are you deliberately trying to build a stawman here, or did you not understand what she wrote? Of course recognizing and worrying about other people not having rights, or other wellbeing is the only way we can help them achieve those. They sure are not helped at all by anyone gloting over how good their god has made everything for themselves in comparrison to those who suffer. Nor do those who really suffer and have suffered throghout millenia from famines, diseases and all sorts of catastrophies, both natural and man made have ever been helped by any gods at all, but perhaps it is because these god entities have been busy healing someone elses athleets foot and finding parking places for others. Right? With increased power follows naturally increased responsibility and with infinite power the responsibility is inevitably also infinite. Why did your god create polio? To make us who do not suffer from it feel happy for not having it? As if we could not be happy without ever knowing about polio, and as if the people who suffer from it were not really suffering…
Have you ever heard of the concept of the first world problems? The reason why people in developing countries are not eating as much anti-depressant medication is not because they are happier, but because they can not afford even to think about such. Believe me, a person who sees their children die because of sheer lack of pure water is depressed, but do you think they have the anti-depressant to enjoy with what little they have dirty water?
Yes it is true, that in the western world people are often depressed by seemingly insignicant things, but who said our society is perfect? For example the market economy and especially capitalism are build around manipulating people into consumers and as such to have these imaginary needs for products, that they do not really need, and constant competition between individuals in wich those who do not achieve all the goods money can buy feel themselves lacking. Much like religions are built around manipulating people into believers who have these imaginary needs for comfort and guidance from beyond, while in the end it is all just about money and power.
The world would have been a better place even, if you never understand how good it is to be healthy and able to walk, if your veteran friend (whom you mention in the comments) had not been maimed in war. You should be able to understand even without anyone lacking that ability, how good it is to be able to walk. Should you not? His suffering is not there for your benefit. He is not a mere tool for your god to make you feel better about yourself. He is a person.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“But a religion is a problematic addiction, if it causes a person, community, or even an entire society to have a twisted view of reality and as a consequence poorer morals than the most objective information at their disposal would direct them to…”
Well now, so much for the scientific theory and the power of observation you are allegedly so fond of! History clearly shows us that religion plays a vital and significant role in creating healthy communities and societies. So called “objective reality” in a world without God does not make us better people, it allows millions to be stuffed into ovens or slaughtered in killing fields because we suddenly become a very self serving people, totally consumed with the quest for power, nothing more than predators and prey who feast on the weak in our ascent to the top.
“You should be able to understand even without anyone lacking that ability, how good it is to be able to walk. Should you not?”
I don’t think so. I don’t think anybody can truly value what they have if they don’t have some awareness of what not having it might be like. Instead we have a tendency to take things for granted, to feel entitled, to be so used to the good things we have, we don’t even recognize them anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who creates a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled? What kind of a god does this?
LikeLike
“Who creates a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled? What kind of a god does this?”
A better question would be, what kind of an ungrateful and self absorbed human feels so entitled to his own life that he takes it all for granted?
Again, the kind of thinking you present attempts to blame God, a God you claim not to believe in, for all the sins and defects of humankind. If you are going to go down that path, then go down it fully and acknowledge that humans are indeed quite sinful and flawed and fully responsible for all the ills in the world around us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There you have a typical misconception of history, but it is not propably your own fault, because it is sooo common. The people stuffed into ovens, were done so by and large by devout religious people in good faith in a country in wich their dictator – who had personal experiences about a god telling him to go and conquer – promised to protect the two main sects fo Christian religion. Religion, if anything, has throughout history served as THE excuse (though there have been other excuses) to mistreat and murder people without any objective reasons to do so. You do know this…
Better morals can only be achieved through better understanding of reality. Objectivity requires taking into account the others. Thus, objectivity provides for higher morals.
Well, is the handicap you have of taking stuff for granted a personal trait of yours, or is it yet another handicap caused by religious cultural heritage? Because, I as a third generation atheist do not subscribe to it at all. I am perfectly able to value stuff and abilities, that I have, without anybody else being lacking of them. What is it, that so causes you to take stuff for granted?
LikeLike
“delusional and irrational” – well, how is that working for you?
I choose not to be alone in a depressing world. Rather than lashing out in anger against those that try to care, I choose to reach out for the power to make a difference. I try to build bridges rather than barriers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A better question would be, what kind of an ungrateful and self absorbed human feels so entitled to his own life that he takes it all for granted?
So, you don’t have an answer for the question? You just want to deflect by attributing unflattering traits to me? Nice. But it doesn’t answer the question.
“Again, the kind of thinking you present attempts to blame God, a God you claim not to believe in, for all the sins and defects of humankind. ”
Um, I’m not trying to blame God. I’m asking about the nature of a god who who would create a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled. This is the god you claim exists. This is an inquiry into the nature of that god. This is not blaming God.
But this is not blaming God. This is an inquiry into the nature of God.
“If you are going to go down that path, then go down it fully and acknowledge that humans are indeed quite sinful and flawed and fully responsible for all the ills in the world around us.”
Ah, so now you’re going to try to shift responsibility. Who created this world? Humans?
And humans are fully responsible for all of the ills in world around us? All of them?
LikeLike
Sorry, I put the above response in the wrong place, but I guess you’ll find it.
LikeLike
“You just want to deflect by attributing unflattering traits to me? Nice.”
Interesting that you would try to personalize that. I hate to break it to you, but if you are a member of the human race, you are going to have unflattering traits.
“But this is not blaming God. This is an inquiry into the nature of God.”
Why are you inquiring as to the nature of God when you claim to not believe that God exists?
“Ah, so now you’re going to try to shift responsibility. Who created this world? Humans? And humans are fully responsible for all of the ills in world around us?”
If, as you imagine, there is no God, then yes indeed humans created the world around us and we are now totally responsible for the conditions we find ourselves in.
What you seek to try to do is blame God for the ills of the world while holding humans blameless, while taking offense at the suggestion that we may have some “unflattering traits.”
LikeLike
“Interesting that you would try to personalize that. I hate to break it to you, but if you are a member of the human race, you are going to have unflattering traits.”
I didn’t try to personalize it. In your response to my question, you said “what kind of an ungrateful and self absorbed human feels so entitled to his own life that he takes it all for granted?”
Now, I think that it was reasonable to assume that you were talking about me here, yes? You said “an…human,” as in one human, as in…me? Had I responded as you did here with a comment about an “ungrateful and self absorbed human,” what you think? Who would you assume that I was talking about here? I think that the “personalizing” began on your side of the fence.
However, regardless, even if you were simply presenting unflattering traits of the human species (and not me, in particular), this was still a deflection. You still didn’t address the initial question. Who creates a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled? What kind of a god does this?
“Why are you inquiring as to the nature of God when you claim to not believe that God exists?”
Why not? You believe that this god exists. So, what is the nature of the god that you believe in? Seems like a reasonable question to ask. If you can’t answer the question, just say so.
“If, as you imagine, there is no God, then yes indeed humans created the world around us and we are now totally responsible for the conditions we find ourselves in.”
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. You said, “then go down it fully and acknowledge that humans are indeed quite sinful and flawed and fully responsible for all the ills in the world around us.” Now, I assumed that you wanted me to go “down the path” that includes a world in which God exists, and a world in which humans sin against God. Did I misunderstand?
In not, then what I “imagine” isn’t particularly relevant. I’m trying to understand what YOUR positions is here with respect to “all ills.” I’m trying to understand your statements here.
Regardless, in the absence of an intervening god, I’m not sure how humans could be “responsible” for “all ills.” Perhaps you could explain.
“What you seek to try to do is blame God for the ills of the world while holding humans blameless, while taking offense at the suggestion that we may have some “unflattering traits.”
You really don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m just trying to understand the nature of the god that you are presenting here. We can worry about the blame later. And the main problem with your introduction of “unflattering traits” was that you were using this to deflect from the question.
LikeLike
“Now, I think that it was reasonable to assume that you were talking about me here, yes?”
Only if one is solipsistic enough to take the term “human” to mean only them.
” I’m just trying to understand the nature of the god that you are presenting here. We can worry about the blame later. . .”
The first step is to try to understand the nature of your own self. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.
LikeLike
Pardon the intrusion to host and to David-
but the last paragraph:
‘You don’t understand….’
‘I’m trying to understand.’
Like a revolving door to nowhere, it appears D that no answer will satisfy your unwillingness to allow God to be God. He is sovereign, and man is responsible. All your concerns are smokescreens and excuses to prolong issues which have already been settled.
God is blameless, and I’m not so sure you are ‘trying to understand…………….’
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It appears D that no answer will satisfy your unwillingness to allow God to be God.”
Hey, God can be God, No problem! But what is the nature of God?
LikeLike
Only if one is solipsistic enough to take the term “human” to mean only them.
I don’t know much about solipsism, but I do know the meaning of words such as “an” and “his.” As in…a single human male. Like me.
Regardless, I see you’ve chosen to avoid the original question. So be it.
LikeLike
“I don’t know much about solipsism…”
Well than, that would be the first place to start on your alleged journey to understand.
LikeLike
“Well than, that would be the first place to start on your alleged journey to understand.”
Why?
LikeLike
“Why?”
Because you have had to ask why? Because you claim to be wanting to understand? If you truly wish to understand, then you should simply get busy with the task of understanding. Solipsism is a good place to start.
LikeLike
“Solipsism is a good place to start.”
Yes, you said this. Why is this a good place to start?
Why not just answer the following question instead?
Who creates a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled? What kind of a god does this?
LikeLike
Solipsism, “the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.”
“Who creates a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled?”
You got 3 “I’s” in that sentence. The world was actually not created only in in relation to you and your needs. By the same token, God’s existence is completely independent of whether or not you approve of Him. If you genuinely want to understand, than you have to learn how to take your own self and your own desires out of the equation, and to remove those subjective biases from your thinking. You are judging God before you have even acknowledged His existence.
If you really wish to try to get a feel for the nature of God, then you must stop trying to define him solely through your own emotional response to His existence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Solipsism, “the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.”
Thanks for the clarification. However, I’m not sure that knowing the definition of solipsism or even applying the principle described here is helping me to understand the nature of any gods or helping me to understand if any one particular description of any gods is accurate. So, this doesn’t appear to be a good starting place.
“You got 3 “I’s” in that sentence.”
Ok, change the word “I” to the word “one.” Change “I” to “humans.” The question still remains.
If a god creates at world in which the only way that humans can value walking is if a given human is crippled or if a given human observes another human who is crippled, what does this tell us about the nature of that god?
“The world was actually not created only in in relation to you and your needs.”
I didn’t say that it was. Actually, since you see the suffering in the world as something created by God as a means of helping you value and appreciate various odds and ends, it would seem that you’re more likely to see the world as being created in relation to your needs than I am.
Suffering was created as a gift for you, right? so, the world is created in relation to you and your needs.
“By the same token, God’s existence is completely independent of whether or not you approve of Him. “
Again, this is not about my “approval” of God. Obviously, anything that exists will exist independent of my “approval.” This applies to both God and small pox.
I think that you are trying to turn this into something that it is not. The question is not “do I approve?” The question whether you or anyone else knows the slightest thing about the nature of any existing god or gods.
“If you genuinely want to understand, than you have to learn how to take your own self and your own desires out of the equation, and to remove those subjective biases from your thinking.”
Ah, I see. I should follow your example. You always remove “subjective biases” from your thinking then?
“You are judging God before you have even acknowledged His existence.”
Sigh. I’m not “judging God.” I asking you what we can conclude about a god who creates a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled. No value judgments here. Just want to know what we can conclude about such a god. Simple question, can’t get an answer.
“If you really wish to try to get a feel for the nature of God, then you must stop trying to define him solely through your own emotional response to His existence.”
I’m not the one “defining” God! You are the one know claims to know about God, and you are the one who tells me that suffering is a “gift from God.” You are defining God, and in this case, your definition is all about your emotional need to have an explanation for suffering. Further, you’re begging the question by the assuming the existence of a particular god who probably doesn’t exist in the first place.
What I’m trying to do here is assess the validity of your numerous claims about suffering, but your response seems always be…”you’re judging God, you’re blaming God, you’re judging God, you’re blaming God, you’re defining God”… and on and on. No. I’m not.
All of this, just to avoid addressing a question. So, if a god creates at world in which the only way that humans can value walking is if a given human is crippled or if a given human observes another human who is crippled, what does this tell us about the nature of that god?
LikeLiked by 1 person
OH, WOW! IB, I just wrote a post about what it means to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus. But here, you explain precisely why denying self is necessary if we want to “come after”Jesus.
“If you genuinely want to understand, than you have to learn how to take your own self and your own desires out of the equation, and to remove those subjective biases from your thinking.” Well said!
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
” I’m not “judging God.” I asking you what we can conclude about a god who creates a world in which the only way that I can value walking is if I’m crippled or I observe someone who is crippled. No value judgments here. Just want to know what we can conclude about such a god. Simple question, can’t get an answer. ”
David, it’s a silly question. It’s like saying, What can we know about the sun when clouds shroud it for days?
There’s more to the sun than that clouds occasionally shroud it. You are taking one statement IB made and assuming that all of God’s nature is revealed in that one moment or that one concept. Tell me, what’s the nature of man if a dad curses at his daughter and makes her cry? Or what’s the nature of man if at ten he cons his friend out of his lunch money?
You’re asking a big question and there’s actually a place you could find the answer if you really want to understand, but it isn’t in this question that is obviously limited in it’s scope. As if you could package the Creator of the universe into one “gotcha” question.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…and to remove those subjective biases from your thinking.”
Ok, you go first. Please remove subjective biases from your thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“David, it’s a silly question. It’s like saying, What can we know about the sun when clouds shroud it for days?”
Huh? I don’t follow. Actually, using a variety of instruments, we can learn a lot about sun on cloudy days.
“There’s more to the sun than that clouds occasionally shroud it. “
Yes, that true. What’s your point?
“You are taking one statement IB made and assuming that all of God’s nature is revealed in that one moment or that one concept.”
Did I assume that ALL of God’s nature is revealed in one moment or one concept? All of God’s nature? All of it? I think that you are making assumptions about what I assumed. You misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting that my question would reveal ALL that might be revealed about a given god.
I’m asking what we can learn about the nature of a god who creates a world in which the only way that humans can value walking is if a given human is crippled or if a given human observes another human who is crippled. What kind of a god would do this? What can we learn about a god from this particular observation?
Yes, it’s a simple question. I notice that no one wants to answer. Why is this so difficult? All I get in response is evasion and deflection.
“Tell me, what’s the nature of man if a dad curses at his daughter and makes her cry? Or what’s the nature of man if at ten he cons his friend out of his lunch money? “
Um, I guess we’d say that the nature of such a man does not include “all loving?” I guess we’d say that such a man isn’t very nice?
“You’re asking a big question and there’s actually a place you could find the answer if you really want to understand, but it isn’t in this question that is obviously limited in its scope.”
Yes, the question is limited in its scope. I’ve never said otherwise. So, given that the question is limited in its scope…what’s the answer?
“As if you could package the Creator of the universe into one “gotcha” question.”
Again, I’m not trying to do this. I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to do here. I’m just looking to assess the accuracy of a specific aspect of IB’s version or your version of the Creator of the universe.
It’s fine to propose that there is a Creator of the universe. No problem. But if you’re going to claim that the nature of the creator includes creating a world in which suffering it mandatory because it’s the only way we can “value anything, then I think that we need to think about this a little more. I’ve seen suffering. It ain’t a “gift.”
However, your response here is instructive. It’s basically the “get out of jail free” response of every apologist for every religion when anyone questions that particular religion.
Something doesn’t make sense? Could this mean that the proponents of a given religion are wrong? No, of course not! The answer is…it’s a mystery! You can’t package the Creator! Oh, it looks like it doesn’t make sense, but that’s just because we are incapable of understanding!
Well, that may be true. Maybe we can’t understand the nature of gods. Problem is, any apologist of any faith can play the “get out of jail free card,” and it renders anyone’s hypotheses about the nature of any god untestable.
So, which faith is the true faith? Who knows anything about gods? Who has The Truth? Anyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, what you are questioning is my own subjective experience in my own language that comes from having a relationship with Christ. It is an experience that many believers also understand.
I was not being an apologist for the faith in speaking of the benefits of suffering, but instead rather un-apologetically singing His praises.
“So, which faith is the true faith? Who knows anything about gods? Who has The Truth? Anyone?”
Well, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, Nietzche, and Krishna are all dead. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead. His coming was prophesized all through the old testament and he fulfilled each prophecy perfectly. There are numerous miracles He performed that were well documented. We have books in scripture which are actually the eye witness testimony, the word of good men, about what they saw and experienced.
Then we have the relationship experiences and transformational testimonies of millions of believers the world over.
We have the way believers from all walks of life, from all cultures, somehow manage to all report similar experiences and a similar understanding of the gospel, something that seems to transcend culture, language, and backgrounds.
We have the evidence of Christ’s great love for us, the way He empathized with us, walked among us, suffered and laid His life down for us.
Faith is actually a not a vague thing like a belief. Faith has a substance, it is tangible. It is an acknowledgment of an Absolute Truth that exists whether we believe in it or not.
The only way I know for someone to come to know that Christ really is the way, the truth, and the life is to invite Him into your heart, start talking to Him, and ask Him these questions yourself.
LikeLike
And still no answer to the actual question by David. Why?
Nietzche??? If this Jesus character has “physically risen from the dead”, then where is he now? In Nirvana with Buddha? In Heaven with Muhammad? The Pharaos used to physically rise from the dead every year. Does the feat, as direct eye wittness testimony (much more validly direct, than the Gospels, sorry) from thousands of years ago tells us, make any of their beliefs any more valid? How?
The documentation about the entire character Jesus, let alone any magical or otherwise unnatural acts he supposedly did, is at best dubious, by any even remotely scientific historical methods.
Are you suggesting, that a person becomes aware of the “truth” in Christ only through autosuggestion? Autosuggestion is THE most poorest method of achieving any even remotely objective perception of “truth” that exists?
LikeLike
@ Insanitybytes22. There was nobody there to give any “eye wittness” for Jesus rising from the dead. Was there? If this single event was so important, that it was supposed to set Jesus apart from Buddha et all, he obviously botched it totally. The alledged eyewittnesses to his death, seem invented and in any case are described to have done so from afar, exept for the Roman soldier, whose name and motives are not known and who most propably spoke to his comrades in a language not understood by the alledged eyewittnesses. Even if some superstitious men thought the empty tomb proves him resurrecting, rather than surviving the execution, from wich several people are known to have survived, is not quality evidence for any such extraordinarily unnatural as a resurrection, to have ever happened. Is it? Besides the so called “eyewittnesses” on the tomb being empty could not agree wether there were guards, some young dude, an angel, or several of such unnatural entities at the tomb, so these stories obviously need to be taken with the grain of salt.
I know this is a bit beside the topic point, but you brought it up.
LikeLike
“Well, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, Nietzche, and Krishna are all dead. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead.”
I suspect that Jesus is dead, too.
“His coming was prophesized all through the old testament and he fulfilled each prophecy perfectly.”
Yeah, I’m not so sure about this. I’ve read some of these prophecies. Did Jesus really fulfill them?
“There are numerous miracles He performed that were well documented. We have books in scripture which are actually the eye witness testimony, the word of good men, about what they saw and experienced.”
There are a lot of religious texts from a lot of religious faiths that “document” miracles, etc. I suspect that you would reject the “documentation” of other faiths.
“Then we have the relationship experiences and transformational testimonies of millions of believers the world over.”
So, does Islam, etc.
“We have the way believers from all walks of life, from all cultures, somehow manage to all report similar experiences and a similar understanding of the gospel, something that seems to transcend culture, language, and backgrounds.”
So, does Islam, etc.
“We have the evidence of Christ’s great love for us, the way He empathized with us, walked among us, suffered and laid His life down for us.”
Jesus seems like a good dude. I’m not sure this makes him a god.
“The only way I know for someone to come to know that Christ really is the way, the truth, and the life is to invite Him into your heart, start talking to Him, and ask Him these questions.”
In other words, start with a conclusion that’s not to be questioned.
Well, I admit that I opened up the opportunity for digression here, but once again, we have no answer to the original question. Why not?
LikeLike
I really enjoyed this post IB, you spoke some deep truths here that, as you mention, don’t really have cut and dried answers. I love that quote by Einstein too. Truly, how much better is it to live life as if miracles exist? I wouldn’t want it any other way.
LikeLike
Thank you for your lovely comment and for your support. Life itself is a miracle 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed life is a miracle. As a fellow skeptic, this took me many years to discover and I am so glad I did.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Everything is a Miracle — reblogged — Part 1 | Citizen Tom
Pingback: Everything is a Miracle -- reblogged -- Part 1 | Christians Anonymous
Can a jade eyed skeptic prove life is not a miracle? If they cannot, they are fools in my opinion to make statements they cannot prove. King Solomon wrote a number of wise proverbs to not argue with a fool or you will in effect cause him or her to think the are on the same plain as you in regards to wisdom. He also wrote another proverb which states if you cant prove something, to tighten your lips because if you pen them up you will prove yourself to be a fool.
In other words, pray for the skeptics to wise up. Trying to argue with them is a waste of your time.because they will not understand this proverb either.
The fool is the one who relies on his intellect, but it is a man of wise conduct who escaped harm. (Proverb 28:26)
https://rudymartinka.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/king-solomon-on-intellectual-fools/#respond
Regards and goodwill blogging.
.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Can a jade eyed skeptic prove life is not a miracle?” – Can you prove that it is?
In fact, can you prove that King Solomon wrote anything? The Bible says he did, but the Bible says that a snake and a donkey talked, and that a flood covered all of the earth, 15 cubits higher than the highest mountains, and all intelligent people know that that’s not true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since you dont believe those things happened, How about you prove they did not.
You are making the statement, not me.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
“You are making the statement, not me.” – Not so, the Bible makes the claim – those who believe it to be inerrant are the ones who need to provide the proof.
LikeLike
The REAL miracle is that I/B published my comment!
LikeLike
Arch
Why must anyone have to prove anythingj about the Bible?
LikeLike
@Scatterwisdom. Well, if people are going to do things to other people according to their belief, that this particular ancient myth in the Bible (though it really is a series of different and disagreeing myths) and the claims it makes about morality and unnatural things such as gods are true and not just superstition, it would be healthy for them to at least try to provide evidence for the truth value of the claims of the particular myth. But it seems the people who have faith in any of these accept just about any nonsense as evidence for their own particular biases. Why?
Perhaps it has something to do about the Bible being true is part of their identity. But same applies to people who believe the Torah, the Koran, the Mahabharata, the Edda, the Book of the Mormon, and the scriblings of Hitler, or of Ron L. Hubbard to be true. Right? Does any of these being part of anyones identity make them any more true? I’d say no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How can you be certain the Bible Stories are myths? Since you really cannot prove the stories are myths and I cannot prove that God is our Creator, perhaps we should both agree our beliefs relate to faith.
You have faith there is no God, and I have faith there is. Since we are both going to have wait until we die to find out for sure, we really have nothing to gain by trying to debate something either one of us can prove.
I hope for your sake though, because you might be offending God with your statements, that if there is a God you must face, He is Jesus from the New Testament of the Bible. He appears to be more merciful than the God in the Old Testament who appears to me to be depicted as an angry God.
Then again, perhaps if you study the Old Testament you would see how and why the Bible writers believed he was an angry God. I kind of believe He sent Jesus to try to help out with the misunderstandings between the Old Testament and the New Testament, or good news.
Of course I can’t prove that either, but that is a personal matter of my faith.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
@Scatterwisdom, I have no “faith”, that there are no gods. To me it is not a question of “faith”. It is a question of likelyhood. Would you describe your perception of the existance of a particular god from a particular mythos as very likely? I percieve the Biblical god simply as very unlikely, just as I percieve all the other gods, fairies and griffons. Do you percieve all the other gods very unlikely or do you have “faith” that they do not exist?
I appriciate your sentiment, that you hope for my sake, that if there after all is a particular god beyond time-space it is a somewhat benevolent god, as you percieve Jesus. I can only reply by saying that I too hope for your sake, that if there ever is a particular god entity beyond the time-space, that this god entity is your very own concept of Jesus and not for example Yahweh as percieved by the Jews, Allah, Krishna, Baal, Wotan, or any of the others as percieved in human made mythology. But I can not possibly hope that to be true in a universal way, because that would mean, that all the people in the world who believe in for example Allah simply for reasons of cultural heritage, would be bound to some sort of eternal torment, according to the Bible. Right? That makes Jesus just as bad among all the other gods as all the others and even worse than a good deal of suggested polytheistic gods.
Yet, when one compares the different myths, like the Mahabharata, the Bible, the Iliad, the Edda and for example the Kalevala there is nothing there that would set any of them apart in any percievable truth value. The Edda is set in real places, maily in Iceland there still live people who can trace their ancestry all the way to it. Yet the supernatural, or otherwise unnatural events in it do not become any more plausible through the facts in the story. Same applies to Iliad and the Bible. Yes? People mainly choose to believe in myths according to their cultural heritages, not because of inherent truth value in any of them. Was it any different to you? Very few people become disappointed by their own cultural heritages and seek consolation from other cultures and religions. Does them changing their minds from Christianity to Islam or from Shintoism to Christianity prove any particular myth as true? Of course not.
Us hoping there exists a particular type of god, does nothing for that god to actually exist. However, people hoping for and being affraid of gods to exist is exactly the wellspring where all gods seem to spring forth. People would want there to be gods, that punish the wicked when they themselves can not. People would want there to be explanations to natural phenomenons we do not understand, so they would not be so scared about these. People would want there to be gods that reward the good by letting them live for ever. People would want gods to answer pleas and prayers. But we have absolutely no evidence that anything such is actually true. Are people warranted to have faith in such, just because they would prefer it so? What about when people would want these gods to punish those who believe in different gods or no gods at all? Certainly when people start to act on behalf of their gods to punish the infidels, heretics and atheists, or merely people of certain sexual orientation, they are acting immorally, despite if their god told them to do so in the mythical book alledgedly inspired by any certain god. Correct?
Regards and goodwill blogging to you too. 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: Everything is a Miracle — reblogged — Part 2 | Citizen Tom
Pingback: Everything is a Miracle — reblogged — Part 3 | Citizen Tom
Pingback: Everything is a Miracle — reblogged — Part 4 | Citizen Tom