tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1386322504968085896..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: The problem of Andrew SullivanRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61409238165043509372009-09-28T21:33:54.830+10:002009-09-28T21:33:54.830+10:00I just don't know how to interpret your claim,...I just don't know how to interpret your claim, which again makes me think it is incoherent.<br /><br />Quantum mechanics is far more incoherent than any theology. Photons are both particles and waves, depending on how you look at them. Electrons can be two places simultaneously. Quantum entanglement would allw me to alter one of a pari of aprticles and instantly change the characteristics of its partner even if it was on the other side of the galaxy via "spooky action at a distance".<br /><br />Paradox and things contrary to common sense are at the very foundation of the universe. Incoherence is the building block of reality. I wouldn't lose to much sleep over them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-27538538583430306862009-09-26T05:22:00.629+10:002009-09-26T05:22:00.629+10:00Oh, Russell, I weep for you. . .Oh, Russell, I weep for you. . .Jerry Coynehttp://www.whyevolutionistrue.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18875214930494594682009-09-26T04:39:00.542+10:002009-09-26T04:39:00.542+10:00All time, past present and future, exist for God a...<i>All time, past present and future, exist for God as the same moment.</i><br /><br />So why does he act angry at times, or seem surprised? Doesn't he know what is going to happen ahead of "time"? I just don't know how to interpret your claim, which again makes me think it is incoherent.Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-13467662136264272312009-09-26T04:28:02.402+10:002009-09-26T04:28:02.402+10:00And I'm not sure what you mean by "outsid...And I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of time", given that the bible clearly shows your god participating in time, and he certainly is shown to create the universe over time.<br /><br />All time, past present and future, exist for God as the same moment.<br /><br />YMMVAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4736720723753757082009-09-26T03:39:21.492+10:002009-09-26T03:39:21.492+10:00There is the potential for evil.
So heaven is not...<i> There is the potential for evil.</i><br /><br />So heaven is not perfect, then?<br /><br /><i>Heaven is not a reward and Hell is not a punishment</i><br /><br />I'm reasonably certain that is not the view of all Christians.<br /><br /><i>"eternal" means "outside of time", not "of infinite duration". What does it mean to be outside of time? I haven't the foggiest idea.</i><br /><br />Me neither, which suggests to me that the concept might not coherent. And I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of time", given that the bible clearly shows your god participating <i>in</i> time, and he certainly is shown to create the universe over time.Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43285948646351923672009-09-26T03:13:57.670+10:002009-09-26T03:13:57.670+10:00So there is evil in heaven?
There is the potentia...<i>So there is evil in heaven?</i><br /><br />There is the potential for evil. Apparently it's not tolerated.<br /><br />As nobody (not even Hitler) deserves an eternity of punishment in Hell, nobody (not even the greatest saint) earns eternal bliss in Heaven. Heaven is not a reward and Hell is not a punishment (remember, God is not a behaviorist). Instead, Heaven is a freely given gift, while Hell is the big nothing the soul gets when the gift is rejected. Also remember that "eternal" means "outside of time", not "of infinite duration". What does it mean to be outside of time? I haven't the foggiest idea. However, we must remember that concepts like time and duration are simply not applicable to either a positive or negative spiritual state. <br /><br />Remember also that all stays in Hell are voluntary. We're all sinners. Hell is a place for sinners without remorse, while Heaven is a place for sinners who do feel remorse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-30777004931969940242009-09-26T02:16:30.831+10:002009-09-26T02:16:30.831+10:00In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, o...<i>In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.</i><br /><br />[intellectual rigor]<br />Not a problem! Sure, why the heck not!<br />[/intellectual rigor]386sxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-30384245150919900182009-09-26T01:46:47.318+10:002009-09-26T01:46:47.318+10:00As I said in my talk, the problem does not affect ...<i>As I said in my talk, the problem does not affect limited gods, a deist god, or merely metaphorical gods.</i><br /><br />Oh okay thanks. Mr. Heddle gave us the impression you didn't have that kind of intellectual rigor! Thanks for clearing that one up.386sxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-50940398935957195292009-09-26T01:17:16.393+10:002009-09-26T01:17:16.393+10:00Yes, I believe that when God negotiated with Abrah...<i>Yes, I believe that when God negotiated with Abraham he knew who was elect in Sodom and Gomorrah. </i><br /><br />So he wasn't really negotiating in good faith (as it were). I know that is probably not a problem for you -- I was just clarifying.Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-92050781303359246662009-09-26T00:59:33.703+10:002009-09-26T00:59:33.703+10:00Tulse,
Yes, I believe that when God negotiated wi...Tulse,<br /><br />Yes, I believe that when God negotiated with Abraham he knew who was elect in Sodom and Gomorrah. <br /><br />And he also knew that if he annihilated everyone in Sodom, the saved and the unsaved, and was then asked how many righteous men died in Sodom, the answer would be: none.<br /><br />That's the point he was making by 'negotiating' with Abraham.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28876815400765240702009-09-26T00:34:31.965+10:002009-09-26T00:34:31.965+10:00Abraham asks: will you kill the good along with th...<i> Abraham asks: will you kill the good along with the bad at Sodom? God says: if there are only fifty good men in Sodom, not only will I spare the good--I’ll also spare the bad on behalf of the good. </i><br /><br />David, I wonder how this squares with Calvinism -- surely the god had already determined, since the beginning of time, who would be saved or not, so why wouldn't he already know? <br /><br /><i>IIRC, angels fell from heaven. So yes, free will exists even there.</i><br /><br />So there is evil in heaven?Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9880368575292018672009-09-25T23:53:22.850+10:002009-09-25T23:53:22.850+10:00You place a moral obligation on God to give only b...<i>You place a moral obligation on God to give only blessings to a people that have earned none.</i> It's an obligation to turn the other cheek is it?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-49135798000299622232009-09-25T23:45:03.067+10:002009-09-25T23:45:03.067+10:00As I say, David, monstrous. And please do stop cal...As I say, David, monstrous. And please do stop calling me a liar.<br /><br />About Catholics, you say this:<br /><br />"I would absolutely argue against Catholic teaching on Justification—after all there was a Reformation over that issue—but I would never claim that there are not saved Catholics."<br /><br />That doesn't use the word 'few', but it does not suggest many. But I am through trying to discuss something with you. The third word 'word,' is my last word.Greywizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125006513512601904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-32810020057355307772009-09-25T23:38:54.521+10:002009-09-25T23:38:54.521+10:00So when we go to heaven, we become enslaved automa...<i>So when we go to heaven, we become enslaved automatons? </i><br /><br />IIRC, angels fell from heaven. So yes, free will exists even there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-671503878525047662009-09-25T23:30:31.049+10:002009-09-25T23:30:31.049+10:00Graywizard,
No name calling? Except for callous, ...Graywizard,<br /><br />No name calling? Except for <i>callous</i>, I guess.<br /><br /><i>”You are wrong to say that the Bible simply says that we are going to suffer and should not be surprised.”</i><br /><br />“Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. (1 Pet 4:12)”<br /><br />Seems pretty simple.<br /><br /><i>”You have given up on that effort altogether.”</i><br /><br />No, I have actually used the biblical arguments to make my case.<br /><br /><i>”A few Roman Catholics, you say, might be saved.”</i><br /><br />You are lying again. Where did I say “ a *few* Roman Catholics might be saved,” as if it were an exception to the rule? I acknowledged that salvation is not based on a theology test, that God has mercy upon whom he will have mercy. <br /><br /><i>”Live with it, but please don't pretend that there is no problem here.</i><br /><br />That says nothing. I can respond with an equivalent assertion: <i>please don’t pretend there is a problem, when there isn’t one.</i><br /><br />Read God’s own theodicy—or rather pick one. His response to Abraham when Abraham presents God with Rabbi Kushner’s question is both humorous and instructive: Abraham asks: <i>will you kill the good along with the bad at Sodom?</i> God says: if there are only fifty good men in Sodom, not only will I spare the good--I’ll also spare the bad on behalf of the good. Abraham negotiates this down to ten. But God, like Diogenes, finds no good men in Sodom. Why, because <i>none are righteous, no not one.</i> God cannot be good and refuse affliction on a race of traitors. <br /><br />You place a moral obligation on God to give only blessings to a people that have earned none.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71693925542045960592009-09-25T23:18:50.139+10:002009-09-25T23:18:50.139+10:00A perfect universe would be a dead place, forzen i...<i>A perfect universe would be a dead place, forzen in its own perfection. It's inhabitants would be enslaved automatons, incapable of committing evil.</i><br /><br />So when we go to heaven, we become enslaved automatons? Or is heaven not perfect, and allows evil?Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-26473329204895187152009-09-25T23:09:07.693+10:002009-09-25T23:09:07.693+10:00David, I'm not going to get involved in name-c...David, I'm not going to get involved in name-calling. You are wrong to say that the Bible simply says that we are going to suffer and should not be surprised. The Bible actually tries to explain suffering, and in some cases, to try to explain it away. There is, throughout the Bible, an attempt to understand how, granting that we suffer, it is right to call God good. You have given up on that effort altogether. Suffering exists. It's all a part of God's plan. Nuff said. This is to accept, as Russell says, that God is a monster. And, indeed, your God is. A few Roman Catholics, you say, might be saved. The only chance of salvation is through Jesus Christ. Those who are not saved will suffer for eternity. The suffering of animals counts for nothing in the scheme of things, millions and millions of years of suffering, and still the God you believe in is, in some sense, good. Yes, yes, I know, not omnibenevolent. Well, that's just another way of saying that God is good to those whom you think will be saved. As for the rest, they deserve it all. That's a pretty good definition of monstrous. You may, of course, believe what you like, as Russel says. If you are comfortable with a monster, that's fine. Live with it, but please don't pretend that there is no problem here. The biblical writers noticed it. Theologians throughout the ages have noticed it. The anicent Greek philosophers noticed it. And it is still a continuing problem in philosophy. Your posture of serene distance from all of this may convince you. It's not clear that you have convinced anyone else. And to criticise, I mean, actually criticise Russell and Jerry Coyne for "pseydo-intellectualising Mill" is beyond all reason foolish. Believe what you like, but don't pretend to some kind of intellectual coherence. That's just a bit over the top, even for you.Greywizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125006513512601904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-33157218946432368342009-09-25T22:45:52.810+10:002009-09-25T22:45:52.810+10:00But also, the callous acceptance of suffering, as ...<i>But also, the callous acceptance of suffering, as we have all witnessed in David's case, is something that drives many other things as well.</i><br /><br />You have to accept suffering and pain. Without them there would be no freedom or life. A perfect universe would be a dead place, forzen in its own perfection. It's inhabitants would be enslaved automatons, incapable of committing evil.<br /><br />God made our imperfect, but perfectly free, universe deliberately out of love for us. A perfect universe was too horrible to contemplate.<br /><br />For those who complain that such a universe is too painful and would rather be slaves in a dead universe, God gives the same advise He gave Job: "gird your loins like a man".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-2523479136766850292009-09-25T22:39:59.958+10:002009-09-25T22:39:59.958+10:00Why do religious people spend so much time trying ...<i>Why do religious people spend so much time trying to organise and prescribe the lives of others if religion is a private thing? After all, if it's private, why legislate it?</i><br /><br />Oh I agree completely. The main reason that religion is flourishing in America and declining in Europe is their state sponsorship of official religions. What you have in Europe is socialized religion, no wonder it is failing.<br /><br />Traditional state supported religions (e.g. the Church of England) are essentially no different than the old state run economies of the former Warsaw Pact — and just as lacking in choices and products to meet consumer needs. Perhaps this explains why Western Europe (especially compared to the US) is spiritually moribund. Apparently Westminister and Chartres are as bad at meeting the spiritual needs of their "consumers" as the old GUM department store in Moscow. Like the former East Block, Western Europe also has its religious equivalent of the black market — newly arrived religious movements like Mormonism and Islam or locally derived non-Abrahamic religions like neo-paganism and druidism.<br /><br />Fundies in America should get down on their knees and thank God for the wall separating church and state in America. Ironically, it has allowed religion to flourish independent of government interference or political taint. Furthermore, nothing is more poisonous to religion than political power. Should the Fundies succeed in breaking down that wall, if they are lucky they will become as moribund as the CofE. Or if not so lucky, they will become as corrupt as the Borgia Papacy.<br /><br />CS Lewis aalos warned about the evils of theocracy:<br /><br /><i>"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.</i><br /><br /><i>And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication," </i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18198466868487443042009-09-25T22:13:14.848+10:002009-09-25T22:13:14.848+10:00Cheap shot alert!
as I sated in various ways many...Cheap shot alert!<br /><br /><i>as I sated in various ways many time</i><br /><br /> Sated indeed by suffering!<br /><br />Just kidding David.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-79822422389871288932009-09-25T21:50:32.795+10:002009-09-25T21:50:32.795+10:00Did it again! I need to learn English or at least ...Did it again! I need to learn English or at least comprehensible English.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-85783314715196510292009-09-25T21:49:11.069+10:002009-09-25T21:49:11.069+10:00Acknowledging that suffering is real and that the ...<i>Acknowledging that suffering is real and that the bible tells us that we should not be surprised that we suffer does not mean we are insensitive, as I sated in various ways many time</i><br /><br /> Yet, however sensitive you are, you think us reprobates merit damnation for the "crime" of reserving judgement on something that is not obvious to anyone who isn't already a believer? You think all animal suffering is part of some plan to save the elect?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36965342726012735632009-09-25T21:35:26.991+10:002009-09-25T21:35:26.991+10:00GreyWizard
”But also, the callous acceptance of s...GreyWizard<br /><br /><i>”But also, the callous acceptance of suffering, as we have all witnessed in David's case,”</i><br /><br /><br />You’re an ass. You know nothing about whether my acceptance of suffering is callous. In addition to being an ass you are a liar: I said explicitly that we are <i>not</i> to be stoics, that the grief is real, and that even Jesus wept with sorrow at the death of a friend. Do you know what callous means? I think not. It means insensitive or indifferent. Acknowledging that suffering is real and that the bible tells us that we should not be surprised that we suffer does not mean we are insensitive, as I sated in various ways many times—and it certainly doesn’t necessarily make you more compassionate or sympathetic towards suffering than I am. Have you witnessed my personal response to suffering that I have encountered or witnessed? I think not.<br /><br /><i>”thanks to Russell for drawing out the implications of the last couple days' worth of discussion so clearly.”</i><br /><br />You are spot on: he did just that. At first all he (and Coyne did) was plagiarize Mill, badly, converting a cogent argument into a mishmash of poor thinking. Mill taught that god cannot be all powerful and all good. Mill and was able to express the problem succinctly and elegantly. (He didn’t invent the problem: it is already addressed numerous times in the bible.) Coyne and Blackford pseudo-intellectualized Mill’s argument (expanding its word count by a least a factor of ten) into a shallow appeal to consequences: <i>accept this argument if you want to be intellectually honest.</i> But you are correct to salute him for summarizing all the debate with his intellectual magnum opus: <i>the God of the bible is a monster!</i><br /><br />Marx taught that God was a myth fostered for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Freud taught that god arose because man feared nature. Bertrand Russell argued about the inconsistency of scripture. All intriguing ideas. <br /><br />Yet behold the state of modern intellectual atheism: “God is a monster!”Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67339463048177406782009-09-25T20:49:16.244+10:002009-09-25T20:49:16.244+10:00I need to learn to proof my comments!I need to learn to proof my comments!Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-56900993547065953092009-09-25T20:48:46.030+10:002009-09-25T20:48:46.030+10:00It is distressing, however, to think that people a...<i>It is distressing, however, to think that people actually do believe in a monster, and, on top of it all, call this monster good and loving.</i><br /><br /> For all his faults, Eric Blair was a understood a lot about humans.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.com