I recently read this post at Tim Challies blog about Female Genital Mutilation. I won’t regurgitate the horrid details of the practice here. While reading the post, I remembered a sociology professor I took a few courses from at a local community college. He was a nice enough guy, and I often challenged him during class. (Yes, I was that annoying guy who always had his hand up in the air.) He always referred to morality as a social construct, varying from one society to the next.
He refused to acknowledge any absolute truths. In a way, I respected his stubborn adherence to his moral relativism. I distinctly remember asking him one day about Female Genital Mutilation. And I will never forget his refusal to say that mutilating a young girl’s genitalia is wrong.
Of course, he personally thought it was a bad idea, but he could not say that it was wrong or immoral in any absolute sense. I believe this inability to absolutely condemn obvious evil evidences the moral incoherence of a godless worldview. Without God, man cannot rationally approve or disapprove any behavior as moral or immoral, because he has no ultimate standard to which he can appeal. All moral calculations will be based on some kind of utilitarian calculus (e.g. “that which causes human suffering is wrong/evil”) that is open to varying interpretations and applications depending on varying circumstances and prejudices.
I don’t want to live in a world ruled by that kind of moral calculus.
—————-
For a interesting argument against the possibility of atheistic morality, check out the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
—————-
Now playing: Animal Collective - Fireworks
via FoxyTunes
Untrue; you’re applying the same kind of false dilemma as a lot of Theists. It is not god+morality or no-god+immorality; that is a false binary and non sequitur. There could be an innate moral law, for example, like that posited in Buddhism.
Besides, belief in a god does not equate to absolute morality - the opposite, in fact. If it were absolute, that god could not change it; if he/she/it could, then it would not be absolutely moral, but relative. Unless you posit a god which is not omnipotent, you cannot logically argue for an absolute morality.
Again, a non sequitur. Non-theistic morality systems can range from utilitarianism to Objectivism, for example, which posits a universal morality (incorrectly and badly, IMO, but that’s another story) and anything else in between.
Well, that’s your privilege to not want that; however, the truth of an argument is not dependent upon how nice it makes you feel. It is true or it is not. Whether that fact makes you feel good or bad doesn’t enter into it.
Is slavery an “absolute evil”?
Mike,
“There could be an innate moral law, for example, like that posited in Buddhism.”
Define “innate moral law”, with or without the Buddha.
“Besides, belief in a god does not equate to absolute morality - the opposite, in fact. If it were absolute, that god could not change it; if he/she/it could, then it would not be absolutely moral, but relative. Unless you posit a god which is not omnipotent, you cannot logically argue for an absolute morality.”
Huh? If God cannot change absolute morality, then… what? If absolute morality is defined by the very character of God, then it would be unchangeable and… absolute. I don’t follow your argument here.
“Non-theistic morality systems can range from utilitarianism to Objectivism…”
I would argue that all coherent non-theistic moral systems are essentially utilitarian. I don’t believe one can rationally defend an objective system of morality (at least not in an absolute sense) without some kind of transcendent/divine principle. It seems all such systems suffer from an infinite regress of “whys”.
I said, “I don’t want to live in a world ruled by that kind of moral calculus.”
You responded, “Well, that’s your privilege to not want that; however, the truth of an argument is not dependent upon how nice it makes you feel.”
Am I not allowed a preference of worldviews? I was clearly expressing a desire, not making an argument. I love angry atheists. You hate religious certainty, yet embrace a certainty in doubt with near-religious zeal.
Robert,
Firstly, belief in black and white does not preclude belief in grey. Example: I believe abortion is absolutely evil. However, I can envision a situation where a mother would surely die if an abortion were not performed, but the baby would survive a full pregnancy. Should the mother sacrifice her life for her baby, or save her own? I don’t know. I don’t believe either decision would be necessarily good or evil.
Slavery is a rather vague term. Are you referring to the African slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries? I would say that kidnapping, torture and murder are absolutely evil. Much slavery throughout history was more of an indentured servitude. While I don’t believe these kinds of economic systems are ideal, I don’t believe they are absolutely or necessarily evil.
Merry Christmas to All
Hi Jim, thanks for the reply. You leave me a bit confused.
First you say that abortion is an absolute evil, but then a few breaths later completely undercut the assertion using situational ethics. You cannot have it both ways, I’m afraid. It’s either an absolute evil, i.e., never ever to be practiced, or it’s a relative evil, i.e., evil in most cases, but good in others.
You claim kidnapping, torture, and murder are absolutely evil, but it doesn’t take much imagination (or a view of history) to come up exceptions to this as well.
What I mean by slavery is “The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.” (ref. Dictionary.com). Now that you know what I mean, would it be absolutely evil for a Christian–or anyone–to practice it in a land where it’s legal. If so, on what basis do you claim this?
“Huh? If God cannot change absolute morality, then… what? If absolute morality is defined by the very character of God, then it would be unchangeable and… absolute. I don’t follow your argument here.”
If God is all powerful, then it logically follows that s/he could change the rules (i.e. morality) at anytime. So either morality isn’t absolute (because God can change it), or God is not all powerful (because if he were he could change morality).
Bill,
“If God is all powerful, then it logically follows that s/he could change the rules (i.e. morality) at anytime.”
You’re going to have to do a little more work to demonstrate that the above equation is true.
What if the rules are derived from the very character of God? What if God defines Himself as unchanging in His essential character? If both of the above were true, then it would not follow that absolute moral principles would disprove God’s existence. If the above were true, it would follow that the rules would conform to God’s character and that they would never change.
Merry Christmas
Would God then not have the ability to change his character and thus the “rules”?
Bill,
I don’t follow why it must be necessary for God to be able change His character. For God to be God, must He be able to not be God? I don’t see why He would. I don’t believe God is “free” to be anything other than what He is.
I’m willing to continue down this road as long as you want, but I honestly don’t see the point of these kinds of “Can God create a rock so big…” types of questions. They really prove/disprove nothing.
Merry Christmas
Robert,
Thanks for the questions. I hadn’t really anticipated this line of questioning in response to this post, but it has forced me to think through this a little harder than I have for a while. That’s a good thing!
“First you say that abortion is an absolute evil, but then a few breaths later completely undercut the assertion using situational ethics. …It’s either an absolute evil, i.e., never ever to be practiced, or it’s a relative evil, i.e., evil in most cases, but good in others.”
I think we should first define our terms. When I refer to absolute truth/morality, I don’t mean to refer to the broadness of a particular truth’s application, but the sure and objective foundation of it. In other words, when I say murder is absolutely evil, I don’t primarily mean to say that it is absolutely evil in every circumstance, but that murder’s evilness is not contingent – it does not rely on social convention, human preference, opinion, deduction, etc.
Having said that, I would consent that murder, or going back to my first example, abortion, is always evil. However, life often forces us to choose among varying evil options. In my abortion example, I would say that the abortion is evil, but so is the preventable death of the mother. Because both evils result in the death of an innocent, I don’t believe either choice is obviously morally superior to the other, not because the truths involved are not absolute (in the sense I referred to above), but because they are pitted against each other in a moral lose-lose.
“The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.”
Most won’t like this answer, but here goes: I don’t believe slavery, as defined above, is necessarily or absolutely evil. Mistreatment of a slave would be evil. Under a Christian morality, treating a slave any worse than you would treat yourself would be evil. While I prefer other socio-economic systems, I don’t believe slavery is per se evil. However, because of my view of human nature, I believe any slave-system invariably increases all kinds of evil – toward masters and slaves alike.
I hope that makes my thoughts on the matter a bit clearer.
Merry Christmas
“I’m willing to continue down this road as long as you want, but I honestly don’t see the point of these kinds of “Can God create a rock so big…” types of questions. They really prove/disprove nothing.”
I don’t think that’s really fair. I’m not asking a sophomoric question about the metaphysical attributes of a human like God (i.e. can God create a rock so big that he can’t lift it which begs the question, what exactly does it look like for God to ‘lift’ something?). I’m asking about the nature of God and his character, what I want to know is if he can change.
Either way, as sophomoric as the ‘rock’ question, and those like it, may seem, I think they point to an interesting problem, that is the problem of absolute power. Can a being really exist with absolute power? Or will it’s nature always limit it (as I believe you are arguing), and thus prevent it from being truly all powerful.
“I think we should first define our terms. When I refer to absolute truth/morality, I don’t mean to refer to the broadness of a particular truth’s application, but the sure and objective foundation of it. In other words, when I say murder is absolutely evil, I don’t primarily mean to say that it is absolutely evil in every circumstance, but that murder’s evilness is not contingent – it does not rely on social convention, human preference, opinion, deduction, etc.”
Here I essentially agree, though I’d guess I derive my moral standards from a much different source than yourself. But, I think your argument (and one of the most common attacks made on atheism) that one cannot derive solid morals without faith or some holy book to pass them down is fundamentally wrong. It is possible that morals are innate, take for example the famous set of ‘trolley problems’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) which people from all backgrounds answer almost universally the same (this is people are almost universally unwilling to sacrifice an innocent in any of the situations, even to save several others).
While this is by no means definitive evidence, it at the very least suggests the possibility of an innate morality that is then influenced by upbringing etc. Either way there is clearly a non-religious reason to be moral, selfishness. The golden rule works because we imagine that if we treat others the way we would like them to treat us, the favor will generally be returned; and this motivates us, because a moral society benefits all. I don’t go around committing atrocities because I have a vested interested in seeing the human species continue and survive, and on a more basic level I have a greater interest in seeing civil society upheld, because I am more likely to survive in that society than I am in an anarchist one.
I don’t know if any of that makes sense, and I’m sure others have done a far better job of explaining it that I, but hopefully you get my gist.
I guess the bottom line would then come to where does that innate morality comes from? Is from a God who created man in His image and put Him in perfect conditions, only to have man violate that ? The innate morality theory is just as easily proven by the other side of the coin - the innate tendency of human beings to succumb to violence. That’s pretty universal too.
So I would have to conclude that hunger and physical desire and survival of the fittest are also innate instinct, as well. Yet, the kind of morality you are referring to in your last paragraph is strictly cultural.
It certainly is a fact of life on planet earth, even among the non-religious, that the exception that proves the rule. Certainly the professor in question would probably not hesitate to use that as an hypothesis for other teachings. Based on that fact alone, no matter where we choose to believe morality originates, we have to conclude that such mutilation, when deliberately perpetrated on a child or another adult, with intent to harm or as involuntary form of birth control is an unconscienable violation of all human rights.
Jim,
You wrote, In other words, when I say murder is absolutely evil, I don’t primarily mean to say that it is absolutely evil in every circumstance, but that murder’s evilness is not contingent – it does not rely on social convention, human preference, opinion, deduction, etc.
Again, then you cannot claim murder is an “absolute evil”. You say the evilness of murder is not contingent, but all along you’ve been arguing for contingency. What contingency? The circumstances surrounding the murder.
You wrote, However, life often forces us to choose among varying evil options.
But since life is the creation of your god, then it’s actually your god forcing us to choose among varying evil options. Actually, It’s worse than that! When it comes right down to it, it’s your god who’s created the options! If that’s the case, then how can the options be properly termed “evil”, coming as they are from an “all good” deity?
This is why the Problem of Evil is so troublesome for Christianity.
p1: God is the creator of all that exists.
p2: Evil exists.
c1: God is the creator of evil.
This, of course, conflicts with the claim of an all-good god.
The only thing left to you to resolve the conflict is to deny the existence of evil, which leads you to the very “moral incoherence” charge you level at atheists.
You wrote, I don’t believe slavery, as defined above, is necessarily or absolutely evil.
A stunning admission, but absolutely in-line with what the Bible says.
“It certainly is a fact of life on planet earth, even among the non-religious, that the exception that proves the rule. Certainly the professor in question would probably not hesitate to use that as an hypothesis for other teachings. Based on that fact alone, no matter where we choose to believe morality originates, we have to conclude that such mutilation, when deliberately perpetrated on a child or another adult, with intent to harm or as involuntary form of birth control is an unconscienable violation of all human rights.”
I agree that female genital mutilation is evil, but why? Why is it we don’t get angry about circumcision? Is it not the same thing, particularly as practiced by the Jews in antiquity (that is without modern anesthesia and around the age of thirteen)?
It seems the only reason female circumcision is so morally reprehensible is the motive behind it. The idea is to force a woman to ’save herself’ for marriage, ironically this is an ideal held strongly by most Christians (though I doubt many of them are willing to go to these lengths). What makes this practice evil is that it is used to subjugate women, the act is not evil in and of itself.
The morality then of this act is contingent on the motivation behind it, and as Robert pointed out that is a form of moral relativism.
“p1: God is the creator of all that exists.
p2: Evil exists.
c1: God is the creator of evil.”
I’ve always liked this point. Another way I’ve seen it put is this; given that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnibenevolent (all loving) then a problem arises when we see evil in the world.
God either knew the world would be evil and did nothing, and is therefore not omnibenevolent; or he didn’t know the world would be evil when he created it and therefore is not omniscient; or he knew the world would be evil, but could not/cannot fix, and is thus not omnipotent.
You can find a more well developed argument along the same lines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Formalized_arguments
Robert,
I think we are talking about apples and oranges here. This isn’t a debate about whether it’s Christian moral relativism or not, or the why’s behind it, but the results of the actual practice itself, which most of us would define as cruel and unusual punishment, no matter who carried it out.
The point is the often inexplicable and incredible selectiveness of human beliefs, which would vocally decry capital punishment for a proven murderer, and then take a fence sitting position on senseless violence promulgated against young girls against their wills. In both cases the victims on whom the atrocities are permitted suffer even worse secondary violations when basic universal human rights are held in less esteem than the the civll rights of the perpetrators.
When is it morally or ethically defensible in anyone, regardless of their religious or cultural preferences to fail to speak out - if not in moral conviction, but in simple universal human compassion - for the basic human rights of the innocent victims of this world?
if your daughter should be subjected to such an inhumane practice would you be arguing on the omnipotence or impotence of God or would you do what you could to stop it?
Bill,
“Can a being really exist with absolute power? Or will its nature always limit it (as I believe you are arguing), and thus prevent it from being truly all powerful.”
I guess I don’t see why omnipotence must necessarily entail the capacity to not be omnipotent. How would an omnipotent God as I have described be meaningfully less than all-powerful if He was “limited” to His omnipotence? It seems that you are setting up a definition of omnipotence that must necessarily entail capriciousness – i.e. if God is truly all-powerful, He must have the “power” or “freedom” to change the rules, alter His character, break His promises, etc. I simply don’t accept that this is logically necessary.
“It is possible that morals are innate…”
Really? We can’t even agree on major life/death issues like abortion, capital punishment, war, torture, etc. And I think you are mistaken regarding the Trolley questions – answers given are not universally similar, but are all over the board depending on the different variations of the dilemma.
“Either way there is clearly a non-religious reason to be moral, selfishness.”
We agree here, sort of. I agree that human “morality” is motivated by self-interest. But then it really isn’t “moral”, but self-interested. People generally don’t murder, rape, steal and pillage, because they anticipate reciprocating self-control from others (Golden Rule). This abstention from evil deeds, then, is not really moral or good. It is self-preserving.
I would turn the argument around to make it a proof of man’s Original Sin/Total Depravity. Man’s “good deeds” are, at heart, selfish and not good or moral at all.
Robert,
“You say the evilness of murder is not contingent, but all along you’ve been arguing for contingency. What contingency? The circumstances surrounding the murder.”
No, I’m not. In my abortion example above, if the mother decided to save her life and abort her unborn child, she would certainly experience tremendous mental anguish, right? Why? She recognizes the evil of the abortion. If good/evil is contingent, then the abortion becomes good (and the mother ought not to experience any twinge of conscience), because of contingent circumstances. In reality, however, it doesn’t. It simply becomes understandable. We recognize that life often confronts us with moral dilemmas – choices among varying evil options. That one evil option must be chosen among many does not make the chosen option good.
“But since life is the creation of your god, then it’s actually your god forcing us to choose among varying evil options. …then how can the options be properly termed “evil”, coming as they are from an “all good” deity?”
The Problem of Evil cannot be addressed without defining Evil. If Evil is defined solely as the absence of pain, then I see the problem. However, Christianity does not define Evil this way. Evil can only be comprehended in contradistinction to Good. If God defines Good, then that which opposes God’s Good is Evil (sin). Sin typically ends in pain/suffering. However, pain is only a byproduct of Evil, not Evil itself.
If Good is the display of God’s Glory (the exaltation and praise of His Goodness – His attributes, character, etc.), and not our pleasure or lack of pain, then pain is not necessarily evil. In fact, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that pain and suffering (as well as pleasure) is foreordained in order to display this Glory by working all things together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Rom. 8:2
I believe the display of God’s Glory is maximized via the human experience of pleasure and pain – blessing and cursing. It would be impossible for man to praise God for His blessings if he did not also experience His curses.
Merry Christmas
“The Problem of Evil cannot be addressed without defining Evil. If Evil is defined solely as the absence of pain, then I see the problem. However, Christianity does not define Evil this way. Evil can only be comprehended in contradistinction to Good. If God defines Good, then that which opposes God’s Good is Evil (sin). Sin typically ends in pain/suffering. However, pain is only a byproduct of Evil, not Evil itself.”
Then how can anything oppose an omnipotent God? If all power truly resides in a single being, nothing could possible oppose that being, unless of course God chose to allow that opposition in the first place, in which case the Evil emanating from said opposition is a byproduct of God’s choices and part of his will.
“If Good is the display of God’s Glory (the exaltation and praise of His Goodness – His attributes, character, etc.), and not our pleasure or lack of pain, then pain is not necessarily evil. In fact, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that pain and suffering (as well as pleasure) is foreordained in order to display this Glory by working all things together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Rom. 8:28)”
Could God not have displayed his glory in a way that would not have caused trillions of sentient beings to suffer? It seems an all loving God would be able to display his glory (by the way I wonder why God feels the need to display his glory in the first place, is he that insecure?) without Evil. Or is he not powerful enough for that and thus not omnipotent?
“I believe the display of God’s Glory is maximized via the human experience of pleasure and pain – blessing and cursing. It would be impossible for man to praise God for His blessings if he did not also experience His curses.”
I have to be honest, this sounds more and more like a very sadistic God. What kind of being would be willing to create humanity knowing full well the massive scale of suffering that would occur, simply so he could make a display of power? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but it seems like this is the God you describe, and even if you could prove his existence to me I doubt I would want to serve him, and I certainly would not believe that he loved me.
Bill,
You said:
“Could God not have displayed his glory in a way that would not have caused trillions of sentient beings to suffer?”
Yes, that was actually God’s original plan that we live life in perfect circumstances. That’s why He told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of good and evil. But, in his goodness and love, He has also given us the ability to choose. Because the first man chose to partake of the forbidden that is why trillions of setinent beings contine to suffer because of disobedience to God not because God enjoys it. Obviously, if He had He wouldn’t wouldn’t have sent His only Son as a sacrifice for all sin, so that we could be reconciled to Him. once more. We will once again live in perfection when Christ comes to separate his own from the evil and the unrepentant.
“It seems an all loving God would be able to display his glory (by the way I wonder why God feels the need to display his glory in the first place, is he that insecure?) without Evil. Or is he not powerful enough for that and thus not omnipotent?”
God’s glory is also shown throughout creation, both in the majesty of the heavens and in the predictable seasons of the earth. It is also shown as the continuing life-giving cycle. For example, how do you suppose a tiny cell can divide itself with no outside help, except for nourishment from it’s mother, and turn into a fully developed human being? How do you suppose a tiny bird knows how to survive with no cover from the elements? These are all examples of God showing His glory.
Let me ask you a question. Do you consider yourself pretty savvy when it comes to planning your retirement? Most people would think they are. Yet most folks only plan for retirement until they die. I plan to enjoy mine through eternity. So if I die and there is no eternal life we are both just dead. But if we’re right and you die and there is such a thing, you’re sunk, but we’re going to be enjoying the original perfection man was designed throughout eternity. Think I’d rather bet my life on God.
“Yes, that was actually God’s original plan that we live life in perfect circumstances. That’s why He told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of good and evil. But, in his goodness and love, He has also given us the ability to choose. Because the first man chose to partake of the forbidden that is why trillions of setinent beings contine to suffer because of disobedience to God not because God enjoys it. Obviously, if He had He wouldn’t wouldn’t have sent His only Son as a sacrifice for all sin, so that we could be reconciled to Him. once more. We will once again live in perfection when Christ comes to separate his own from the evil and the unrepentant.”
Why put the tree there in the first place? Didn’t God know humans would rebel? If so, why would he start something he knew would end in so much pain? Again, could he not have done a better job, created a world without the possibility of evil?
“God’s glory is also shown throughout creation, both in the majesty of the heavens and in the predictable seasons of the earth. It is also shown as the continuing life-giving cycle. For example, how do you suppose a tiny cell can divide itself with no outside help, except for nourishment from it’s mother, and turn into a fully developed human being? How do you suppose a tiny bird knows how to survive with no cover from the elements? These are all examples of God showing His glory.”
All these natural events happen via biological processes, most of which are full understood by man. I’m no biologist so I couldn’t explain them to you, but I’m sure any even a college student in a low level biology class could.
“Let me ask you a question. Do you consider yourself pretty savvy when it comes to planning your retirement? Most people would think they are. Yet most folks only plan for retirement until they die. I plan to enjoy mine through eternity. So if I die and there is no eternal life we are both just dead. But if we’re right and you die and there is such a thing, you’re sunk, but we’re going to be enjoying the original perfection man was designed throughout eternity. Think I’d rather bet my life on God.”
Pascals wager? Here’s the problem, you claim there are only two options, either I’m right and we both simply die and neither of us gains anything, or you are right and you gain eternity in heaven while I end up in hell; but the reality is there are hundreds of religions, so what if you picked the wrong one? So rather than a simple 50/50 what you really have is a very minute chance that one of us has chosen the right path, thus I chose to follow what I believe is most reasonable rather then gamble.
Further more you claim that if I am right neither of us will have gained or lost anything, but I disagree. I am fairly confident that you and I live very different lives precisely because we have such different world views. I find my life very fulfilling, and I would argue that it would be less so if I were concerned with an after life, and how to please the deity that will rule that after life, so in the end I would argue that in general the religious life is often more restrictive and less fulfilling.
To use an extreme example, imagine the monk who has spent his entire life fasting, praying and living the aesthetic life with the hope that he will have bountiful rewards in heaven, if he is wrong he was wasted his life. Now obviously once he is dead he will have no idea that he was wrong, but none the less his life will have been wasted. By living with the understanding that this life is all I have, I feel motivated to make the best of it in every situation.
“Why put the tree there in the first place? Didn’t God know humans would rebel?”
Certainly. He was well aware, being God. That’s why He made the provision for Jesus before the foundations of the world. But consider this, He did choose not to create clones of Himself, only human beings with the freedom to live their lives under the very best circumstances possible, like you and I strive to do. I’d call that true love on His part, knowing in advance what would happen. Unfortunately since Adam and Eve blew it, now we all have to create our ideal lifestyle for ourselves here on earth, whether we’re believers or not. If you enjoy your life as much as you say, wouldn’t you be pretty angry at a God who didn’t give you such a choice? I can just hear it now. If that had been the case instead you’d probably be asking: “Why doesn’t your God give me a choice? He must not be very loving, etc.”
You continued:
“If so, why would he start something he knew would end in so much pain? Again, could he not have done a better job, created a world without the possibility of evil?”
Certainly. But remember man was given a choice out of grace, as is still the case, and ultimately chose the knowledge of good and evil over the perfect life he was originally offered. Had you ever stopped to to wonder what a difference it might have made if they had just fessed up and apologized for their sin? That’s all God still asks of us, to come Him and confess our wrongdoing, ask for forgiveness, and then turn away from the sin. In the bargain we receive a promise to be reinstated to the perfection that Adam and Eve knew but this time it is in a place God created that doesn’t have evil. I’d call that a pretty fair trade.
“I find my life very fulfilling, and I would argue that it would be less so if I were concerned with an after life, and how to please the deity that will rule that after life, so in the end I would argue that in general the religious life is often more restrictive and less fulfilling.”
Guess I must be a notable exception then. I’ve got a great life now, and couldn’t ask for much more this side of heaven, except for perhaps a little better health. But then I’ll be 66 on Monday, and I’m still able to do most everything I like with the exception of down hill skiing because of a bum knee, and some heart problems. I plan to have that taken care of pretty soon so it won’t stop me.
As far as the example of the monk goes, how do we know he wasted his life if he enjoyed the aesthetic life? Some folks are natural born loners and they don’t need or want anything but God. And, oh yes, last but not least: that pesky little argument between creationists and college students in a “low level biology class.” I sincerely hope you know someone that can explain to you what has never been able to be conclusively proven either, and that is the theory of evolution. It may be some folks religion of choice, but those few old bones that have been discovered don’t promise everlasting life with a brand new body. That’s why I like my religion best, and enjoy life more, not less, knowing whatever happens here on earth my eternal future is assured by a loving God.
I hope you have a happy Christmas holiday, Bill. And I’ll catch up to you again after Christmas, (dare I say it?) ……God willing. Be blessed. And please forgive me for having so much fun with this.
Bill,
“If all power truly resides in a single being, nothing could possible oppose that being, unless of course God chose to allow that opposition in the first place, in which case the Evil emanating from said opposition is a byproduct of God’s choices and part of his will.”
This gets us into a discussion of primary and secondary causes. Because I believe God’s will/purpose/plan is never thwarted, I believe He is the primary cause of everything and everything occurs according to His will of decree. However, we live in the world of secondary causes. Influenza is caused by a virus – a secondary cause. God is the primary cause. So, yes, I believe Evil is a “byproduct”, if you will, of God, though He does not directly cause or perpetrate Evil.
I recognize that this answer will not satisfy you and I have only sketched it here briefly (and likely very poorly), but it is what I believe the Bible clearly teaches.
“Could God not have displayed his glory in a way that would not have caused trillions of sentient beings to suffer? It seems an all loving God would be able to display his glory (by the way I wonder why God feels the need to display his glory in the first place, is he that insecure?) without Evil.”
If God is “that than which no greater can be conceived” (Anselm), then He possesses all perfection and no imperfection. Therefore, nothing could be more loving or Good than allowing humanity to participate in and benefit from the display of this absolute perfection/goodness. If God is “that than which no greater can be conceived”, then I believe His creation is the “best-of-all-possible worlds” (the seventh point of “7-Point Calvinism”). That pain and suffering occurs in this world is a reality that I do not wish to pretend to fully understand – though I do accept it. (I think this brings us back to defining Good as “pain-free”.)
“…even if you could prove his existence to me I doubt I would want to serve him, and I certainly would not believe that he loved me.”
I do not doubt this. Romans 1.
God Bless & Happy New Year
I had a sociology professor who taught a Senior Social Studies capstone class I had to take who had much the same take on female genital mutilation. He showed a documentary on the subject and the introduction disgusted me so much that I made a point of falling asleep and missing the rest of the movie.
Looks like you started a firestorm though! I’ll stay out of it and just say that I thought the post was good.
Sorry to be a pain Jim, but why did you tag this with Islam?
Just asking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Islam
FGM is the unique province of Islam in the 21st Century.
Not sure about that, Jim. The only person I’ve met who went through female circumcision was not from a muslim background. She was from a Christian background. I’d be surprised if the practice is found in the Koran, but I stand to be corrected.
My suspicion is that the practice comes from animist traditions. Many such practices continue in the Islamic world, granted. But also in syncretic (heretical) variations on Christianity that include ancestor worship etc.
Well, I’m not going to argue reality. The practice is not found in the Quran, but in the Sunnah. While the practice may not be exclusively perpetrated by Muslims, it has a long history in Islam up to this day.
Google Female Genital Mutilation or Female Circumcision, and it will be almost universally associated with Islam.
I didn’t turn up to argue either.