The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by reed9 Deductive logic is essentially true by definition. (And the above is a deductive argument.) So long as the premises are correct, the conclusion cannot be wrong. *But*, there's no reason that it has to apply to the real world. All bibbles are floovs. Jork is a bibble. Jork is a floov. This is deductively sound, but meaningless as far as the real world goes. Inductive logic, however, does not have to be true. It's more a statement of probability that we think gives good reason to believe something. For example, California has had at least 1 7.0 or greater earthquake every year on record, therefore California will have at least 1 7.0 earthquake this year. We don't know that will happen, but we're pretty darn sure. Inductive arguments usually assume that what has been true will continue to be true. That's where the circularity enters. You can't justify inductive reasoning without making an inductive argument. In the Philosophy of Science, this is called the Problem of Induction. We do have to make assumptions. Science has very few assumptions, primarily that there is an objective reality, that reality is intelligible, ie, we are capable of understanding portions of it, and that what was true yesterday will continue to be true today, ie, we're not going to wake up tomorrow and find that gravity no longer works. I think those are relatively conservative assumptions, especially given the tremendous success science has had, ie, it works. While it might all be a pipe dream, no other human endeavor has anything like that success record, so if the ground is shaky for science, how much worse for religion or those much touted "other ways of knowing"!

Thanks for that clear, concise, and polite answer (it seems that those are somewhat lacking in this thread of late, but I can see why). I took a second year critical thinking class in university for an easy credit about a year ago but apparently I remember basically nothing from it. As a Christian who thinks that science and faith can get along, nobody I've ever had disagreements with has ever brought up the Problem of Evil before and it's pretty interesting, definitely going to be looking into it more. It's definitely harder to defend against than the more conventional science-based arguments.

Originally Posted by spudgunner Thanks for that clear, concise, and polite answer (it seems that those are somewhat lacking in this thread of late, but I can see why). I took a second year critical thinking class in university for an easy credit about a year ago but apparently I remember basically nothing from it. As a Christian who thinks that science and faith can get along, nobody I've ever had disagreements with has ever brought up the Problem of Evil before and it's pretty interesting, definitely going to be looking into it more. It's definitely harder to defend against than the more conventional science-based arguments.

We've had a lack of moderate religious believers involved in this thread. People get testy.

I'm on the firm religion and science are incompatible side of the fence. It seems that generally people either point to religious scientists as proof they are compatible, or claim some variation of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. In the first case, all I see is that people can hold two opposing beliefs at the same time and in the second, it's clear that 1) religion does make empirical claims all the time, and indeed I don't see how it could not; and 2) religion doesn't actually give real answers to the questions to non-scientific questions. Primarily I'm thinking questions of morality here. Clearly these are not scientific questions, but does religion really answer them? Do we really get our morals from religion? As usual, the Greeks thought of it first. This is Eurythpro's Dilemma

Bertrand Russell put it as so

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.

Believing that the good is whatever God commands is, in a word, awful. How awful? Here is a prominent philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig demonstrating the pervasive immorality of religious thought, in reference to Deuteronomy 20)

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, ‘You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods’ (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.” . . . “So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing.

Richard Dawkins pointed to this as a reason he wouldn't debate Craig, not wanting to share the stage with someone who tries to justify genocide and the slaughter of children.

Point being most of us don't, thankfully, get our morals from religion. So what is left? Religion is wrong on empirical truths and religious morality not only lacks foundation, but is a mixed bag at best. Where is the compatibility?

Originally Posted by moxieman99 Then you must admit that He is not much of a "Loving God."

The clearest evil that I can judge as evil is that evil lurking inside of me. If God was willing and made it his plan to die for someone corrupt like me, then yes, he is very loving.

Originally Posted by reed9 I don't see how that's a problem for the argument given. Indeed, the whole thing hinges on the claim that the "right and power is his". That's the point, he has the power and the right to prevent evil and yet chose to create it and allows it to exist.

In order to prevail over evil, for God's good to be manified against evil, it has to exist, at least for an instant. In the context of eternity, an instant has barely begun.

Originally Posted by reed9 If I recall, your response in the past was that free will means people have the ability to choose to do evil. Disregarding how natural disasters fit into that, I had a question that remained unanswered. Even if I were to grant libertarian free will, it still operates within a framework of emotions and desires. Some things are easier to will away than others. If we don't have the desire, then we don't have to engage the will much. So why did God set our desires where they are? Most people aren't particularly murderous, under normal circumstances, so not killing is easy enough. I've never had to will myself not to kill someone. But most people have a strong sex drive, so not masturbating, which many religious folks have considered a sin, or not having sex outside of marriage, is much harder. Why not just make people naturally more monogamous? Why not make people so they have a brief window when the go into "heat", so they don't even have to worry about sex the rest of the time? And if the goal is to make a challenge for people to overcome, why aren't we more violent? Why don't we have a greater desire to dishonor our mother and father?

These are fair questions, as are most of the questions addressed to me. I wish I could give a satisfactory answer. I can only make my best attempt. An omnipotent God should be able to say, "Thus this be," and it be just as he says. But consider the Ten Commandments. God commands us not to covet, yet all of us covet at one point or another. Yet he said, "You shall not covet." But does God's Word accomplish his purpose? Yes. The purpose of that law, as Christ later makes clear through Paul, is to show us our fault, that we need God's righteousness and salvation--Enter Christ, our righteousness and salvation.

Originally Posted by reed9 Our emotions have a huge range they could be set to, but aren't, and it doesn't contradict free will to have them set to some level where the desire to "sin" or commit evil isn't there. At best it seems like God chose to make people want to sin, so they could prove to him they can resist the very desires he gave them in the first place. Which is pretty f-ing perverse.

It's not for us to overcome sin. It's for Christ. The main difference (in my view) between a religious hypocrite and a saint is this--the one doesn't believe in or care about the power of God to change him; the work of God on the character of the other demonstrates his true faith in the power of God.

Originally Posted by bluegospel These are fair questions, as are most of the questions addressed to me. I wish I could give a satisfactory answer.

Don't worry. I've read through the works of many christian apologists and there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. You can't get to God through reason or logic, it truly does require a leap of faith. Which is where religion loses me, for faith is a terrible and pernicious thing.

With regards to the original question:

Was a fundamentalist, born again Christian but I would now class myself as an atheist of the existential nihilist variety.

Originally Posted by bluegospel In order to prevail over evil, for God's good to be manified against evil, it has to exist, at least for an instant. In the context of eternity, an instant has barely begun.

An omnipotent being should be able to create world without suffering. If it cannot do it, it is not omnipotent or not omniscient. If it can but is not willing to, it is not "good" or "just".

Originally Posted by bluegospel The clearest evil that I can judge as evil is that evil lurking inside of me. If God was willing and made it his plan to die for someone corrupt like me, then yes, he is very loving.

The problem is that if god was involved in creation, the god created evil inside of you.

Originally Posted by bluegospel These are fair questions, as are most of the questions addressed to me.

So you finally admit that you don't have an answer. Perhaps, now the thread will be able to move on instead of going in circles.

Originally Posted by reed9 You can't get to God through reason or logic, it truly does require a leap of faith. Which is where religion loses me,

Exactly. I do not want to follow something that can't stand a little test, because I do not want to be lying to myself. Religion should either be fairly harmless, or at least fairly convincing. Christianity doesn't fall into either category. Not for me, at least.

The same old pattern still, eh.

Atheist/Agnostic - Hey, you still didn't answer what I've been asking from 35 pages.
Believer/Lost - Only my faith is good, My faith is great, my faith is best. You go die. * Repeat 10 times.

Atheist/Agnostic - Tell us why there is this problem of evil, then?
Believer/Lost - Only my faith is good, My faith is great, my faith is best. You go die. * Repeat 10 times.

Atheist/Agnostic - We're giving facts which are in front of you too, what you offer?
Believer/Lost - Only my faith is good, My faith is great, my faith is best. You go die. * Repeat 10 times.

Atheist/Agnostic - Alright! I'm done, last time you idiot, anything logical to say?
Believer/Lost - Only my faith is good, My faith is great, my faith is best. You go die. * Repeat 10 times.


*Sigh, long live this thread. I too had my share of fun.

Regards.

I'm obviously not religious (duh ), but the way I see it, if you really want to "live by science", as it were, life gets really, really depressing in a big hurry:

• One has to accept naturalistic materialism; …means no afterlife/reincarnation, no free will, nada. Once you're dead, you're dead. Oh, and by the way, you're deluding yourself if you think you have any "control" of how you spend the time beforehand.
• People (actually all living things) essentially become machines to you; no longer is a person a person, but rather a biochemical soup. Considering otherwise is delusion; a meaningless abstraction arising from our (apparently) hideously irrational social programming.
• Life ceases to have any meaning; don't bother trying to "make meaning for yourself", either. See the above: you're reduced to minutae and nothing else.

Please note that what I'm saying here is how I see "the other side" (i.e. being firmly atheist; not "non-religious", not "indifferent", but firmly atheistic/skeptical).

Originally Posted by MrCode I'm obviously not religious (duh ), but the way I see it, if you really want to "live by science", as it were, life gets really, really depressing in a big hurry:

No, if you take in account the unknown things to discover, the experiences to do to acquire knowledge etc.. science can be an adventurous way of life somewhat, but surelly, it requires open-minded attitude and ability to admit lack of knowledge

Originally Posted by MrCode no free will, nada. ... Oh, and by the way, you're deluding yourself if you think you have any "control" of how you spend the time beforehand.

Nope, it is you deluding yourself with your strongly deterministic view. But nevermind, in that case I don't think that anyone can get you to think that over.

Are those people "just" very irresponsible, or simply evil? I don't know which one, but I'd personally lock them up in prison.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16117269

Originally Posted by sycamorex Are those people "just" very irresponsible, or simply evil?

They might sincerely believe in whatever they're saying.

Originally Posted by SigTerm They might sincerely believe in whatever they're saying.

Well, that's even worse.

Originally Posted by SigTerm An omnipotent being should be able to create world without suffering. If it cannot do it, it is not omnipotent or not omniscient. If it can but is not willing to, it is not "good" or "just".

If he had not permitted evil, his character would not be magnified as victorious. His sovereignty would merely be to the extent which he wields over the animal kingdom, humans & angels; nowhere magnified; nowhere supremely sovereign; no beings maximally subjected to him. No opposition = No supremity. Humans were created for friendship with God, not subjection by God. The angels as ministers to God, those defying him as examples against rebellion, contempt & condemnation.

Originally Posted by SigTerm So you finally admit that you don't have an answer.

Again SigTerm, I said that I don't have an answer that is satisfactory (to you or to atheists/agnostics).