 |
Off The Map Discussion Board for Christians, Atheists and People In-between
(closed to new posts - to participate in ongoing discussion visit our sites otmatheist.com and conversationattheedge.com)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:42 am Post subject: Interview by an Atheist |
 |
|
So I had the privilege of being interviewed for isaone's radio program the other night. You can download the podcast of our talk here, and read my follow-up thoughts about the interview (all the stuff I wish I would have said) here.
Last edited by Mike C on Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isaone
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 354
Location: Nashville
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you again Mike for being on the show. You state in your piece that | Quote: | | One of the commonly-cited characteristics of us young "postmoderns" is that we resist labels and categorizations. |
Why do you think this is? As a literal minded kind of a person I find the use ofdefinitions and labels (albeit the correct labels associated with the correct definition) to be the only hope (and it is a slim one at that) that we humans have for communication with anyone beyond those we physically associate with. Now do not get me wrong, I know that labels are limiting and I realize that people willseize on particular labels and use them to define entire groups to the confusion and detriment of all. The converse however strikes me as worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eliza
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 800
Location: Seattle WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I haven't listened to the interview yet (I'm at work) but I enjoyed your post-interview thoughts! (This links to the page of Mike's blog that has his writeup after the interview.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice job guys. Nice to hear you in real life. Mike you sound more reasonable in person than I was giving you credit for.
Mike on your site you say
| Quote: |
I wish I would have told him that I believe in the resurrection because I believe that God is just, and if there is no resurrection then there truly is no justice for those millions who live lives of unrelenting oppression, poverty, and suffering, and never receive any recompense in this lifetime. If "life sucks and then you die", end of story, then God is not just. I wish I would have said that I believe in resurrection because I believe in justice. Ah well...  |
That would be nice if there was some form of justice in the end, but then there's a lot of things we can imagine that would be nice. Brights have to believe if we want justice we have to fix things on earth ourselves. I'm sure most Christians are in favor of that also.
| Quote: |
However, again in retrospect, I wish I would have taken a different approach. I should have made the point that even if there were no supernatural events in our world, that there would still be ample reason to believe in God simply by looking at the complexity and beauty of our natural world. |
I agree that's among the best argument for gods. It still falls far short in supporting the notion of gods in my opinion (the 2 minute version of which which can be viewed Here). But at least the world is something we can all look at and agree exists even if we can't make conclusions about all the hows and whys of it yet. The supernatural we can't even agree exists let alone get to dealing with issues of the hows and whys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isaone
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 354
Location: Nashville
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah Ha, I was wondering why Mike's 'reply' did not actually relate to the show. Du.... THanks for finding the link. I'll read it later when I have a chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isaone
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 354
Location: Nashville
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Mike, I am curious ,did you actually re-listen to the show and then determine the things you would have done different or did you think of them later? I have actually never listened to a show after I completed one. It is sort of like actors who never watch themselves on screen .
Anyhow, a couple of points. First please note that the term Bright is not equivalent to Atheist. I have known Atheists (although there are not any at OTM) who, while not believing in God, did believe in reincarnation or psychics and would therefore not be qualified as Brights. Secondly I would ask why you believe that God is just and how you can make predictions about God's future actions based on that attribute? While I find the arguments for the existence of a generalized God to be insufficient, I would consider them to be hugely more convincing than any concerning the specific personality of the deity. I do not even understand how you could apply the human term "justice" in relation to God. Leaving aside the fact that our definition of the term has changed over time, Justice by our current definition would require that God eliminate the horrible suffering in the first place and go right to paradise (yes I know that you believe God has reasons for our suffering and likely that those reasons are unknowable but that is my next point). Either we measure God by our standard of Justice in which case God is completely unjust by definition in what we see all around us, or we admit that we have not a clue as to what God is trying to accomplish or why. If the answer is the latter then we can make no inferences or predictions about God's future actions based on his current ones since we do not understand his current motivation or methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hey Mike, I am curious, did you actually re-listen to the show and then determine the things you would have done different or did you think of them later? I have actually never listened to a show after I completed one. It is sort of like actors who never watch themselves on screen. |
No, I haven't gone back to listen to it again. I'm kind of scared to. I understand now why some actors wouldn't want to watch themselves.
| Quote: | | Anyhow, a couple of points. First please note that the term Bright is not equivalent to Atheist. I have known Atheists (although there are not any at OTM) who, while not believing in God, did believe in reincarnation or psychics and would therefore not be qualified as Brights. |
Yeah, I know. I just didn't want to get into the full explanation on my site. Besides, I think the way I worded it was technically accurate. I said that some atheists are appropriating the term "Bright" for themselves. That would imply that some atheists are not Brights, just as you said.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all Brights are atheists, but not all atheists are Brights. Is that right, or is it the other way around?
| Quote: | | Secondly I would ask why you believe that God is just and how you can make predictions about God's future actions based on that attribute? |
To me it's just part of the definition of God. If God is not just then God is not God, or, at least, not a God that I would worship. If God is not just then he is Satan, or Angra Mainyu, or at best, Loki - i.e. an evil or indifferent god. But because justice does exist (that is, we humans have a conception of it, and a sense of longing for it), I believe that a God exists who upholds justice. As C.S. Lewis has argued, if a longing exists that no earthly thing can fulfill, then that is evidence (not "proof", mind you, just suggestive evidence) that perhaps something beyond this world exists that can satisfy that longing. In other words, because I - and pretty much all of humanity - longs for perfect justice (which of course is impossible in this natural world), I choose to believe that God, if she exists, is both the source and fulfillment of that longing.
| Quote: | | I do not even understand how you could apply the human term "justice" in relation to God. Leaving aside the fact that our definition of the term has changed over time, |
Indeed it has, but not so much as you might think. I'm fairly well read in ancient literature (and in different cultures' conceptions of ethics - my MA was in Intercultural Studies), and I find that while the specific applications differ, almost all cultures and time periods share certain common conceptions of justice. (In the back of his book "The Abolition of Man", Lewis actually compiles quotes from a wide range of cultural and classical writings that demonstrate a universal moral law - what he calls the Tao.)
| Quote: | | Justice by our current definition would require that God eliminate the horrible suffering in the first place and go right to paradise (yes I know that you believe God has reasons for our suffering and likely that those reasons are unknowable but that is my next point). Either we measure God by our standard of Justice in which case God is completely unjust by definition in what we see all around us, or we admit that we have not a clue as to what God is trying to accomplish or why. If the answer is the latter then we can make no inferences or predictions about God's future actions based on his current ones since we do not understand his current motivation or methods. |
I think I'd disagree with your assertion that justice demands an immediate end to suffering. I'm not sure what definition of justice you refer to, but personally, I believe that justice essentially has to do with the restoration of broken relationships. (I write about that more here.) It's not clear to me that if God were to suddenly end all suffering and send everyone to paradise, that would necessarily restore the broken relationships that currently need healing. It seems to me that we could all be whisked away to "paradise" and yet the bigots would still be bigots, enemies would still hate each other, oppressors would still seek ways to exploit others, etc. True reconciliation and restoration of relationship - that is, true justice - it seems to me, would take a lot more time than just the waving of some magic wand. In fact, that long, ongoing process is what I think the Christian gospel is all about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike C wrote: | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all Brights are atheists, but not all atheists are Brights. Is that right, or is it the other way around? |
Some atheists are not Brights as we've covered before, but also some Brights are not atheists... these would be pantheists and those that somehow believe in a natural (non-supernatural) god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Right, got it. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isaone
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 354
Location: Nashville
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I disagree with the majority of the Brights. That is because I consider Pantheists or absolute Deists to actually be Atheists for all practical purposes. By allowing the definition of Theist to become so broad the term no longer has any meaning to the average person. Yes all Brights are Atheists as the term (A)theist is generally understood.
Ok Mike instead of paradise then use the broken relationship concept or better yet never having any broken relationships in the first place. A just God who is omnipotent must eliminate suffering. It is self evident that using the only definition of just that we have (ours) God is either not omnipotent or not just. Please note if God is omnipotent there can be no need for our learning anything toward achieving any goal. God could simply create us in that state where we seemed to have had the experiences required to become that kind of person. The same holds true no matter what your definition of Justice is. The only way that a just God could allow the lack of Justice that we see around us is either that he is not Omnipotent or God's definition of Justice is not ours.
Mike I can understand how you (and everyone) would prefer to have a just God but that offers no evidence that such is the case. As I see it your reasoning is; - There is a God because God is Just and a Just God would not allow us to simply live and then die without Justice
- God is just because my needs and preferences is that he be so
Eliminating the terms concerning Justice we have. God exists because my needs and preferences are the he does. I of course agree with that statement completely since I believe that all Gods are completely fabricated by those who believe in them. Do you ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 648
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isaone, I am left wondering if you are trying to understand at all.
Most of your statements, which you assume are logical, are anything but.
| Quote: | | A just God who is omnipotent must eliminate suffering. |
That may be the case, but on what timetable? Do you have kids? Did you sometimes allow them to struggle through something in order to learn it when you could have just done it for them? Suffering and struggling are not always the same as evil.
| Quote: | | Please note if God is omnipotent there can be no need for our learning anything toward achieving any goal. |
There is no need for God to learn anything, but I believe He is a creative God and desires a relationship with His creation. This requires all sorts of messy things like change, growth, free will, learning. I do not believe God had to do this, but He chose to in order to be creative.
| Quote: | | The only way that a just God could allow the lack of Justice that we see around us is either that he is not Omnipotent or God's definition of Justice is not ours. |
It's called free will. I believe God intends to bring ultimate justice one day, but until then He has allowed us to do as we please, even if that hurts others. You can't have true love and a real relationship without free will, and you can't have free will without the possibility to do wrong.
I can't speak for Mike, but I can assure you that he is more intelligent than the circular reasoning you laid out.
| Quote: | | The only way that a just God could allow the lack of Justice that we see around us is either that he is not Omnipotent or God's definition of Justice is not ours. |
Really, do you even read what we write? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Ok Mike instead of paradise then use the broken relationship concept or better yet never having any broken relationships in the first place. A just God who is omnipotent must eliminate suffering. It is self evident that using the only definition of just that we have (ours) God is either not omnipotent or not just. Please note if God is omnipotent there can be no need for our learning anything toward achieving any goal. God could simply create us in that state where we seemed to have had the experiences required to become that kind of person. The same holds true no matter what your definition of Justice is. The only way that a just God could allow the lack of Justice that we see around us is either that he is not Omnipotent or God's definition of Justice is not ours.
|
And disregard the process? Do you really prefer determinism to relationship? Yes, if God is omnipotent he could do all this, but at what price? Do you really want God to force us all to get along against our own will? Would you prefer that God instantly zap you into someone completely different than who you are now? Or create a world with no possibility of human freedom (which is what a world with no broken relationships would require)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be operating under a static, deterministic view of the universe, where God could just zap things into being by divine fiat with no thought for process or evolutionary development (kind of like the Creationists believe he just zapped the world into existence a few thousand years ago, with everything already fully mature to the way we experience it today.) But I look at the world and I don't see a static creation. I see a world that is constantly unfolding, developing, progressing. That leads me to believe that God designed it that way - as an unfolding, progressive creation - that he is not done creating, whether in the natural world or in the realm of human hearts and relationships.
If you really insist on using your terms however, I guess you could say that I don't believe God is completely "omnipotent", at least in regard to this creation. Actually the classical, orthodox Christian belief is that God is self-limiting. That is, he is all-powerful and thus he could have created this world in a perfect state, with no possibility for growth or change or corruption, but he chose not to. Instead he placed a higher value on relationship and growth and creativity than on static perfection - which, as Stephen pointed out, logically necessitates the possibility of corruption and broken relationships.
You may disagree, and believe that a static world would be more just, but that's a hard case to make since we don't have any experience with such a world. We know what justice looks like in this world, a world full of growth and change, freedom and oppression, brokenness and reconciliation. We don't know whether an imaginary "perfect" world would be preferable to that, but personally I prefer this one.
(I still remember the lesson I learned from that old children's book "How to Be Perfect in Just Three Days" - remember that one? The moral of the story was that if you want to be perfect then you have to pretty much lock yourself in your room and do nothing because living real life involves making mistakes.)
| Quote: | Mike I can understand how you (and everyone) would prefer to have a just God but that offers no evidence that such is the case. As I see it your reasoning is; - There is a God because God is Just and a Just God would not allow us to simply live and then die without Justice
- God is just because my needs and preferences is that he be so
Eliminating the terms concerning Justice we have. God exists because my needs and preferences are the he does. I of course agree with that statement completely since I believe that all Gods are completely fabricated by those who believe in them. Do you ? |
That's not quite my reasoning. Rather I would instead say: "If there is a God then he must be Just, otherwise he is not God. There may be no God; or God may exist but might be an evil, unjust god; but in that case there is no point in obeying or worshipping such a god. If that's the case then basically we're all just screwed. Because I believe there is such a thing as justice and that this universal human longing (not just my own preferences) points to the possibility of fulfillment, I choose hope rather than despair. That is, I choose to believe in a good God rather than an evil one. I choose to believe that our longings are more than just empty promises."
Again, I'm not saying that any of this is "proof" that things "must" be this way. I could be wrong and we could all be living in an evil or indifferent universe. This is simply an existential choice of hope over despair that goes beyond proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 648
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That's not quite my reasoning. Rather I would instead say: "If there is a God then he must be Just, otherwise he is not God. There may be no God; or God may exist but might be an evil, unjust god; but in that case there is no point in obeying or worshipping such a god. If that's the case then basically we're all just screwed. Because I believe there is such a thing as justice and that this universal human longing (not just my own preferences) points to the possibility of fulfillment, I choose hope rather than despair. That is, I choose to believe in a good God rather than an evil one. I choose to believe that our longings are more than just empty promises." |
Thanks, Mike. You just made my participation here today worthwhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isaone
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 354
Location: Nashville
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mike you state | Quote: | | Actually the classical, orthodox Christian belief is that God is self-limiting. That is, he is all-powerful and thus he could have created this world in a perfect state with no possibility for growth or change or corruption, but he chose not to. Instead he placed a higher value on relationship and growth and creativity than on static perfection |
OK I have heard this said before. Is your God Omniscient? If he is the there is no possibility of that God placing value on creativity or growth since all is already known. We of course also run aground here of the question of why would God bother creating us at all but lets skip that one. So assuming that you accept that God has also self limited his Omniscience then we have- God cannot end all suffering because he has chosen to limit his capabilities for some reason
- Humans experience what we define as injustice as a result
I assume that you do not know the reason God has chosen to limit himself (let me know if you do). This now resolves to God allows human suffering for some unknown(unknowable) reason. Please explain how that statement is in any manner different from any statement of what we humans define as the activities of an unjust individual (Charles Manson, Pol Pott...). While in some cases we may know why someone acted unjustly, do we consider them any less unjust if we do not know why they 'did it'. Why do we give God a free pass? As I said above either- God is not just because his actions (or inaction) do not meet our definition of Justice or
- Our definition of the term Justice is not equivalent to God's definition and in that case we can make no projections of God's behaviour since we have no understanding of this attribute
Mike correct me if I am wrong but the key to your explanation on Justice seems to be | Quote: | | I choose hope rather than despair |
This is great place to start since we both agree. I also choose hope. You also say | Quote: | | I believe there is such a thing as justice and that this universal human longing (not just my own preferences) points to the possibility of fulfillment |
I am almost with you here. I agree with the first part although that universal longing has been expressed differently over time. You say 'points to', true but in what sense? For example if I state that "There is a universal longing in humans to fly like the birds without any equipment and that points to the possibility of fulfillment". 'Points to' is still valid in the sense of implying a meaning but not in the sense of any increased possibility that humans will every violate the laws of physics and fly unaided. The real break in our logic comes in | Quote: | | If there is a God then he must be Just, otherwise he is not God. There may be no God; or God may exist but might be an evil, unjust god; but in that case there is no point in obeying or worshipping such a god. If that's the case then basically we're all just screwed. |
I certainly agree that we are screwed if God is evil but I completely disagree with your implication that 'we are screwed if there is no God'. With no God are we screwed because we cannot fly? More interestingly are we screwed because there is suffering? I certainly think so and that is why we need to do what is possible to reduce/eliminate the suffering of humans, thus the underlying drive from whence comes (IMO) morality.
I am but a simple engineer and both of these points beg a paradox that no believer has ever clarified for me.- Are God's motives and attributes knowable by humans (i.e. they must be definable in human terms).
- Yes
- Then God is not just, loving, kind.........or
- God's actions do not demonstrate his attributes and we an know nothing of them
- No Then there is nothing we can say in human terms concerning God's attributes.
So God is either unjust or we can know nothing definite in humans terms about him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I just now realized that I had linked to the wrong post at my blog. I've fixed it. And here is the correct link: 