My last post was picked up in a couple of places, including the Redheaded Skeptic’s blog it mentions. Redhead’s blog gets more religious apologists than I do here, probably because she occasionally posts about her emotional turmoil at leaving the faith. I think they see her as vulnerable to re-recruitment, whereas I’m just a crusty old lost cause. Anyway, in the comments section, one of these christian apologists excreted a little blob of typical god nonsense. It didn’t even seem to have much to do with the post, but it’s something you hear a lot from them, and I want to analyze it a little bit. Here’s what he said:
A spiritual journey has many ups and downs. God purposely takes us through valley’s in order to build character. I really believe that God is going to use this experience you are currently having to bring Him greater Glory.
Note the central claim. God must make you miserable so that you can build character, or learn a lesson, or attain some form of enlightenment. This, apparently, is the only way to achieve that. My question is, why is an omnipotent god constrained to do it the long way? Christians claim god created everything and can do anything. Why, then, do they suddenly discover constraints on god’s power when asked the perfectly logical question, why didn’t god create me with the lesson already in place, or wiggle his nose and just give me that understanding?
The Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my house and left their little book a couple of months ago finally came back last weekend, for a 20-minute visit, and they immediately made this same claim. I couldn’t even make it clear to them why I don’t find the claim particularly convincing. It makes no sense to posit an omnipotent god and then start talking about things he is constrained to do a certain way, or at all. In fact, it makes no sense to claim that an omnipotent god who created everything and can do anything can possibly be displeased by anything. If you are perfect and all-powerful, then everything you create must be exactly as you want it. Any other outcome means you’re not perfect or all-powerful. But there they were, talking about how the life lessons gained through adversity are different than just having god magically place the lessons in your head. Why? Because learning it the hard way gives you a more complete understanding. But why can’t god just give you that more complete understanding? Whatever it is god wants you to be, why is it not in his power to just make you that way?
There is no logical answer to this. Any time someone starts talking about what their omnipotent god “must” do, they’ve just abandoned the claim of omnipotence. Sooner or later, if you press them on the inconsistency, it will come down to “god works in mysterious ways.” Which is another way to say, “Our story doesn’t even make sense to us.”
But nonetheless, this pointless exercise in making you unhappy for no reason will “bring god greater glory.” Which makes a lot more sense, actually. It still doesn’t explain why an omnipotent god has constraints, but it’s a lot easier to understand a despot who makes people miserable to puff himself up. There are countless human examples of this behavior, so we’re on more familiar ground with it. Of course, that doesn’t paint god in a very flattering light – venal, petty, self-aggrandizing, cowardly, thuggish, and sadistic – but, since we created him in our own image, how else would he be?
This particular god must be an ego maniac.
Let’s see if I get this right: Their god will deliberately make creatures that are imperfect, challenge them to improve themselves, burn alive for eternity all those who can’t or won’t meet the mark (or who didn’t hear the challenge), and reward the few who did improve to his standard. What a guy!
Dwasifar,
Perhaps getting linked to Laura’s blog will help you inherit some new apologists. I can think of one in particular who will knock your socks off! I was going to post a comment on your other thread about the godtags (very funny stuff) but a newer thread is likely better, and I can remain on topic to boot!
I will warn you ahead of time that I self-identify as a Christian. I will also tell you that I am a horrible apologist. To be even more accurate, I am a horrible apologist because I really hate Zombie Apologetics. ie. “My preacher told me this so it must be so”
I like to think. I like to think about why something is so before just accepting “God did it” or “God works in mysterious ways”. The reason so many christians do this is because there are no easy answers. We like to have our faith packaged up “just so” as a way to avoid thinking about it.
I was taught that God allows us to learn by tribulation as a deference to our free will and not because he couldn’t “wiggle his nose” and make it so. He gave us free will as a gift but the result of that gift is that he cannot just “affect” us to do His bidding. God must call us to Him but still give us choice in how we respond.
So I think that is a BETTER explanation for what you asked about in this post, not a good explanation, just better.
If the prediction from my first sentence is correct, I am sure you will get a far more deluded yet more certain explanation in the near future.
It will most likely involve you not being capable of love.
To offer a different take on apologists on blogs in general; I believe that the motivation for their posts is quite different from, for example, saving Laura from a bad decision. I think we can read the following excerpt:
“A spiritual journey has many ups and downs. God purposely takes us through valley’s in order to build character. I really believe that God is going to use this experience you are currently having to bring Him greater Glory.”
as having this deeper meaning:
“I know that Christians questioning their faith are going to read this post. If this story seems to mirror their own experience or concerns, I want to assure them that there is a completely (ir)rational explanation for what they are going through.”
Christian blogging and commenting always seems to smack as damage control. They are circling the wagons if you will. If they were truly cared about what was being said they would LISTEN, ask questions, and offer condolences. Instead they put the post in the What-Flippant-Vaguely-Bible-Based-Answer-Would-My-Pastor-Say-O-Matic to generate their comment.
They want their own flock, wandering around for answers, to say “Oh, yes…how could I have been so doubtful- I have been a bad little sinner” and get their ass back in church.
If your posts don’t smack as appealing to doubt, don’t expect lots of commentary.
@George
Hi George,
Thanks for visiting, and thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Rather than launch again into the problems with the “free will” dodge, I’m going to direct you to three previous posts where I’ve already addressed it:
The undead
Evil free will
Imperfect perfect omnipotence
I encourage you to read those before we continue, and then come back to this thread to resume the discussion.
I do want to say, though, that your closing comments about “damage control” and “If your posts don’t smack as appealing to doubt, don’t expect lots of commentary” pretty much agree with what I expected. People are drawn to try to persuade Redhead to regain her faith because she’s a gentle person who so obviously once had faith. I don’t come across that way; I’m sarcastic and strident and just generally look rigid and not persuadable. (It may surprise some of my regular readers that I’m actually aware of this; but I’ve been an atheist longer than Redhead’s been on the planet, so that’s probably where some of the curmudgeonly self-assurance comes from.)
This is probably why the Jehovah’s Witnesses blew off their return appointment for yesterday, without even calling to reschedule. I bet 20 minutes was all it took for them to decide I was more trouble than I was worth.
Anyway, I welcome your contributions and your viewpoint, and I’d much rather have someone like you here than an Apologist-Bot – or, for that matter, an Atheist-Bot. Thanks for joining us.
A friend of mine, a man I like and respect, had a major conversion a few decades ago. He was raised catholic, but saw his god in a different light courtesy of a string of troubling events coupled with an evangelical boss. The boss had been proselytizing for years, but gave my friend special attention when he saw he was getting very down and out. The conversion also involved faith healing. Let’s just say that when this friend told me of his conversion, it was an interesting story for an atheist to hear.
So, now that he was converted (I believe he also used the word “charismatic”), HE started proselytizing. As he described it, most of the time he chased folks away, just as he pushed away from his boss’ rantings years before. But during his conversations with his god (yes, he stated directly that he speaks with his god), his god told him to take it easy, that he was chasing converts away. “They were almost ready to see my light – now I’ll need to spend another 3-5 years preparing them to see me.”
So, that is how his god works… tear them down to convert them. As human beings, when things get bad enough, we start looking for ANYTHING that we think can help us. Some go for booze, others drugs, while others may feel there is no way out and grab both or a gun. Seems bizarre that a loving god would want his children to suffer so. Seems even more bizarre that people who claim to have the best interest of others in mind will intentionally LET those others tumble into their own personal hells before trying to help.
Dwasifar,
I really enjoyed the links you offered and appreciate the background of the ongoing discussion on your site.
As I said at the outset, I only offer free will as a BETTER answer than “God works in mysterious ways”; is it a good answer?….Is it a sufficient answer? Not really.
I think that your discussion of perfection in the other threads misses a really annoying philosophical question. If God COULD create a perfect being, would that being not HAVE to have free will? Would a lack of critical and objective thought not be an imperfection? Is the ability to do good or do evil, the reflection of our ability to assign motives to our actions, not some facet of being “perfectly created”?
I know the next question, “could we not have free will but always choose the right decision, because we are perfect after all?” Well, yes…sort of. That question though, assumes a right/wrong dichotomy that doesn’t to the best of my knowledge exist. There are no perfect decisions. There are MORE correct decisions, LESS correct decisions, but no decision carries only positive consequences. I wonder, if God exists, can He create a “perfect” decision by this standard?
Granted by the biblical account, He has made some real doosies. But using the “I can imagine a Perfect God” assault on logic, I can’t imagine a perfect decision, but if it was perfect…it would HAVE to exist.
Good Lord, theology hurts the brain…
@George
Yes, theology does hurt the brain.
The problem with claims that rest on these absolutes – god is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite, and so forth – is that contradictory absolutes can’t coexist. You saw in the other posts I sent you to how omnipotence can be easily proven impossible – not just the omnipotence of some specific god, but omnipotence itself. Your reasoning loop about free will being necessary for a perfect being is actually much the same argument. If I were to restate it, I would put it like this:
- A perfect, all-powerful god’s creations should be perfect, or at least they should be exactly as intended.
- A perfect creation must have free will.
- Free will necessarily includes the ability to vex god.
- If god can be vexed by his creation, he’s not perfect and all-powerful.
It’s basically the same contradiction expressed in the “Imperfect perfect omnipotence” post. If god exists, and free will exists, then the existence of free will marks a limit on god’s power, showing him to be not omnipotent. Either he cannot fix things that vex him, or he could not create a universe in which free will exists yet doesn’t vex him, or free will is an imperfection in itself that he couldn’t avoid. Any way you approach it, free will and omnipotent god are mutually exclusive.
There are other problems with free will. For example, if god knows all (there’s another absolute: omniscience), then he knows not only what has happened, and what is happening, but also what will happen, for all eternity (another absolute). If everything that will happen can be known, that’s total predestination, and free will is an illusion. This one’s a much more common bugaboo in christian theosophy and has been plaguing christian scholars for centuries. It’s resulted in many ingenious dodges to try to resolve the obvious conflict, but they all boil down to verbal sleight-of-hand.
As long as we’re on the topic of the problems of infinite sets, here’s one more. Can god recall all of eternity in precise detail? Wouldn’t it take an eternity to do that?
There was a time in the history of christian thought when the question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin was a deadly serious and hotly debated issue. Today we find that question as foolish and pointless as the arguments between Star Trek fans over whether Kirk or Picard was the better captain. This is how I see the philosophical anguish of christians over these and other various incompatible claims about god’s nature: ultimately pointless, but the tenacity is fascinating.
Again, I’m glad to have you here. You’ll notice I do not mock you like I do the God-Bots over on Redhead’s blog. Serious comments get serious replies; knee-jerk cult-heads get scorn and ridicule.
@ Dwasifar. Point of information: there never was a serious debate, much less a Church Council debate (as in some versions of the meme) about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It’s black propaganda, like the notion that the church taught the flat earth.
@Grinebiter
There seems to be some disagreement on the extent of the debate. I refer you to these:
The Straight Dope: Did medieval scholars argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
Wikipedia: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
But nonetheless, thanks for pointing it out. I’ll use a different example in future to avoid the uncertainty.
@Grinebiter
Also, regarding the flat earth, I refer you to Matthew 4:8 (this from the New King James version):
“Again, the devil took Him [Jesus] up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”
It is not possible to see all the kingdoms of the world, now or two thousand years ago, from any “high mountain” unless the earth is flat. I know there were many subsequent attempts to reconcile this with reality – they meant all the kingdoms known to Jesus’ contemporaries, or that Satan took him to the mountain and then from there flew him around the world, or whatnot – but these are dissembling rationalizations to try to explain away the embarrassing fact that the “perfect word of god” describes a flat earth. This doesn’t show that the church actively taught it, but the scriptural basis is there.
Don’t be expecting cult-head comments from me. I have a few very devout Christian friends who think I’m some kind of atheist double agent sent to undermine their faith in God.
I will gladly banter back and forth with you about all the logical inadequacies of religious belief but the problem is I will be the first to agree with you.
I could toss out biblical nuggets like Psalms 90:4-
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
to brush off your recall of eternity criticism, but it misses the larger point.
Religion is only about faith. When we try to insert logic into it the whole house of cards comes down. I, as you, wish more believers would stop trying to “prove” their particular superstitions by inserting it into a logical or scientific filter.
The problem with that is you then have to bend logic or science to get the conclusion you are looking for. Either your faith or your logic has to dilute itself to sustain the disconnect. In science they call this phenomenon Intelligent Design.
In one of your other threads a commenter waxed poetic about the days when man would be free of religion. I don’t ever see that day coming. We are deep down a superstitious being. Our need to always find causality in everything we observe will always make religion a tempting opiate. No matter how far we stretch human understanding there will always be phenomena that cry out for simple answers.
If you wonder at all about why someone would choose to be religious, look no further than the need to sit back and relax in the knowledge that you have a catch-all explanatory filter that works relatively well, letting you get to the business of living instead of questioning every detail.
” the embarrassing fact that the “perfect word of god” describes a flat earth.” I suppose so, but as you say, they never made anything of it, and the idea that medievals in general believed in a flat earth is an outrageous smear. They even knew its diameter pretty accurately, the Greeks having done the legwork. One good Wiki deserves another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
A pet peeve of mine, and one of the quickest ways of annoying any medievalist (after that film starring a certain Australian lunatic).
They did, however, believe and teach that the earth was the center of the universe, and it is well documented that people were tortured to death for daring to say otherwise. (Giordano Bruno, for example.)
Noli contendere
But nonetheless, this pointless exercise in making you unhappy for no reason will “bring god greater glory.”
Add “insecure” right after “incompetent” in the list of the attributes of the god of Abraham. This is a god who needs constant stroking to feel good about himself. It’s a very odd conception of perfection.
They did, however, believe and teach that the earth was the center of the universe, and it is well documented that people were tortured to death for daring to say otherwise. (Giordano Bruno, for example.)
It’s quite a stretch to claim that Bruno was burned at the stake for defending a heliocentric model. That’s the old romantic narrative of Bruno as martyr for scientific freedom, but it doesn’t match up very well with the facts. His trial was for heresy. Not only was it not heretical to hold heliocentric views, but those views aren’t even mentioned in the charges against him. He was a pantheist who denied a broad swath of orthodox dogma. That he also believed the earth traveled around the sun is incidental.
@Urban Djin
From Manchester, “A World Lit Only By Fire,” 1992, pp.90-91, which I happened to have right at my elbow when I read your comment:
So. Was he convicted of the heresy of pantheism? Yes. But it was his public endorsement of heliocentrism that brought him into the hands of the Inquisition, and the church’s subsequent behavior on the question was a long stretch of willful ignorance punctuated with occasional thuggish brutality. As a Chicago resident, you of all people should know that the official charges need not be the actual reason someone is punished by The Man. In this case it is at least plausible that he was convicted for what they could make stick most easily, even though that was not what brought him to the attention of the Inquisition.
It may be reasonable to wonder whether Bruno’s death was due to his Copernican beliefs, even if he wasn’t convicted of them specifically, but it is certainly not accurate to claim that heliocentrism was not considered heresy. Galileo was convicted of heresy for validating Copernicus. I don’t suppose you intend to argue that Galileo was not brought before the Inquisition in 1633 and forced to recant this very issue under threat of torture, his recantation ultimately found wanting because he murmured “and yet it does move” as he left?
Another point of information: I’ve never read Manchester, but I do remember him from my Usenet days as being a laughing-stock among medievalists, continually upbraided for ignorant howlers.
The thing about heliocentrism being presented only as a mere hypothesis, or else, has resonances in our own day, no? OTOH, I suspect that it is our creationists who see themselves in the Bruno role, rather as the would-be Inquisition.
Well, he’s citing Durant in this instance, so I think he’s probably on pretty firm ground. I’ll read Durant someday, when I inherit the books from my dad.
I don’t know from Durant, and Copper Knickers is not my period, but if Manchester is using a fundamentally wrong-headed approach, he may be causing you serious conceptual damage.
Wiki says this: “Manchester scathingly posits, as the title suggests, that the Middle Ages were ten centuries of technological stagnation, short-sightedness, bloodshed, feudalism, and an oppressive Church wedged between the golden ages of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.”
- Well this is total bullshit for a start. For a corrective, go get Jean Gimpel’s “The Medieval Machine”, describing a society in love with gadgetry. Their tech was way ahead of the Romans, who are always being overestimated because they wrote the spin (and confer Terry Jones’ “Barbarians” on the Roman murder of Greek science). Manchester seems to be recycling an ancient meme that people seem to really want to be infected by, because we love to despise our neighbours. It doesn’t sound much better than the delusion, propagating from the games world, that the name of the period is “Mid-Evil”. You wouldn’t read creation science, you shouldn’t be using Manchester. Go save some toilet paper.
Thanks, I will. But Durant first, I think.