tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6063871906661515838..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Background Beliefs and an Internal Criticism of Christianity Based on the Problem of EvilUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46257443491459522822008-10-23T17:08:00.000-04:002008-10-23T17:08:00.000-04:00david - For the last two, you are saying that a Ch...david - <BR/>For the last two, you are saying that a Christian must again reconcile these external experiences with his belief about God; that is, it's something he must do for himself?<BR/><BR/>If that's what you're saying, I agree with you.Jeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12531169469325647042008-10-22T18:58:00.000-04:002008-10-22T18:58:00.000-04:00Thanks Jeff, look forward to reading that.I agree ...Thanks Jeff, look forward to reading that.<BR/><BR/>I agree every Christian must reconcile what their worldview says about the world and what they glean from personal experience. <BR/><BR/>For instance:<BR/>1. Lots of suffering seems gratuitous<BR/>2. The Holy Spirit doesn't seem to be active in the Church<BR/>3. Christians seem to be easily influenced by supernatural claims<BR/><BR/>You could call any of the above an "internal problem" if you mean Christians as a group need to deal with it, <B>but </B>it isn't appropriate to call this an "internal critique" of the Christian worldview, because it affirms propositions that are denied within the worldview.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52212935717627959022008-10-22T18:33:00.000-04:002008-10-22T18:33:00.000-04:00While I appreciate Mr. Lewis’ distinctions between...While I appreciate Mr. Lewis’ distinctions between internal and external critiques and especially appreciate his strong attempts at clear thinking, I’m open to Mr. Loftus’ idea that the Christian must reconcile the problem of evil himself, apart from any input from a non-believer. <BR/><BR/>Let us then cut to the chase. For the sake of this argument only, I will admit the following:<BR/><BR/>1. Until reconciled in his own mind, the problem of suffering is an internal one for the Christian. He must account for suffering in the world. As a Christian, I must deal with these issues even if NO ONE has pressed it against me. I and I alone must do the reconciling. <BR/> <BR/>2. I MUST look at the world that exists and reconcile it with my beliefs about God. <BR/><BR/>3. The Christian understanding of the truth must be able to explain personal experience. <BR/><BR/>My full argument can be found at www.sophiesladder.com under "A World Without Suffering."Jeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84725402565691738132008-10-18T11:36:00.000-04:002008-10-18T11:36:00.000-04:00Zilch, your divinely inspired post was precisely w...Zilch, your divinely inspired post was precisely what was needed at that moment to prevent the feng shui of the entire universe from becoming fatally compromised.Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87306161030560018562008-10-18T09:20:00.000-04:002008-10-18T09:20:00.000-04:00Gary: precisely. And for exactly the same reason,...Gary: precisely. And for exactly the same reason, there is an optimum number of posts at DC that are critical of Christianity, in a self-referential spoofing way. And of course, God sees to it that the actual number of such posts is exactly equal to the optimum number at all times.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79084302296681892292008-10-18T08:56:00.000-04:002008-10-18T08:56:00.000-04:00David writes: Gary: yup pretty much And so, to pu...David writes: <I> Gary: yup pretty much </I><BR/><BR/>And so, to push the argument just a little bit farther, not only is it the case that God does not merely permit but has caused evil, it is also the case that God not only permits but has caused atheism (and atheists). At any given time, there is an optimum number of atheists in the world, a number that is always precisely equal to the actual number of atheists in the world.Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40605698042446545102008-10-18T04:36:00.000-04:002008-10-18T04:36:00.000-04:00kiwi, you say:I don't see how evil is a problem fo...kiwi, you say:<BR/><BR/><I>I don't see how evil is a problem for Christians, when suffering is presented in a positive way.</I><BR/><BR/>I can see two problems with this approach: the external one is that the word "evil" has no meaning anymore. The internal one is that if there's no such thing as "evil", why all the fuss about "evil" in the Bible?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66195429892777658772008-10-17T23:55:00.000-04:002008-10-17T23:55:00.000-04:00I don't see how evil is a problem for Christians, ...I don't see how evil is a problem for Christians, when suffering is presented in a positive way. If in your story being tortured on a cross ends up being a good thing, then how could the problem of evil possibly be a problem»?»<BR/><BR/>And what if what God considers good is creating as many possible worlds as possible? <BR/><BR/>I don't think it's an obligation to believe God is all-good if you're a Christian anyway.<BR/><BR/>I think it's reasonable to doubt the existence of an omnibelevolant God when you look at the world. But I'm not sure the argument has much weight philosophically.kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65411125735019886602008-10-17T21:05:00.000-04:002008-10-17T21:05:00.000-04:00Andre: either study the beliefs to reject/accept t...Andre: either study the beliefs to reject/accept them, or continue to speculate, but the former is always a more honest life. <BR/><BR/>Gary: <A HREF="http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/soteriology/supralapsarianism_infralapsarianism.htm" REL="nofollow">yup </A>pretty much<BR/><BR/>Heard ofdavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85464274276890130542008-10-17T20:58:00.000-04:002008-10-17T20:58:00.000-04:00The plan of redemptive history climaxes in the eve...<I>The plan of redemptive history climaxes in the eventual removal of evil from the world...its sort of the underlying narrative for the Judeo-Christian eschaton.</I><BR/><BR/>One critique of this view is that, on the assumption of divine infallibility, it would necessarily seem that the "plan of redemptive history" included the introduction of evil into the world. That is, whatever evil there is in the world must itself be a part of the divine plan. If God is the "first cause" of the world and everything in it, including evil, it would follow that God is the first cause of the evil in the world -- however one defines "evil." Thus, God does not merely <I> allow </I> evil -- he <I> is the cause </I> of it.Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83675165916202739382008-10-17T20:19:00.000-04:002008-10-17T20:19:00.000-04:00So if I understand you correctly, it seems your Go...So if I understand you correctly, it seems your God will just one day say enough is enough, because he can't stand being offended anymore. Don't you think your God is powerful enough to withstand evil forever and ever? I think evil will exist in the universe as long as good exists also. <BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that Jesus said only his father was good. So that means we humans will always be able to do bad, unless we all (or those who go to heaven) will become as good as God also. But can that be?Ignerant Phoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13166860576010836032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59670484619144877502008-10-17T19:39:00.000-04:002008-10-17T19:39:00.000-04:00Evil "matters" to the Christian because its an off...Evil "matters" to the Christian because its an offense to God; one He decided to overlook for some (through Christ) but punish others for.<BR/><BR/>The plan of redemptive history climaxes in the eventual removal of evil from the world...its sort of the underlying narrative for the Judeo-Christian eschaton.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20084586193206673542008-10-17T19:26:00.000-04:002008-10-17T19:26:00.000-04:00Yes David, you are right, that is what Christians ...Yes David, you are right, that is what Christians would say.<BR/><BR/>But what if I were to say to you that even if your God exists, wouldn't it seem you that evil doesn't matter, since he's allowing it. And if you say he's going to end it one day, the fact still remains that evil did/does exist. So my next question would then be, if God feels it's appropriate for it to be in our world now, why is not going to be appropriate after his plan is fulfilled?Ignerant Phoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13166860576010836032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80078168441573753522008-10-17T16:25:00.000-04:002008-10-17T16:25:00.000-04:00Andre,Christians would say that objective moral ev...Andre,<BR/><BR/>Christians would say that <I>objective moral</I> evil doesn't make sense without God.<BR/><BR/>Evil by John's definition (simply the description of suffering with no prescriptive moral value) does not fall into this category.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11331415039932893202008-10-17T14:16:00.000-04:002008-10-17T14:16:00.000-04:00John, what could people do to stop evil in this wo...John, what could people do to stop evil in this world?POC777https://www.blogger.com/profile/05001167810894910090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2417713602397080392008-10-17T13:46:00.000-04:002008-10-17T13:46:00.000-04:00Not only do they have to retreat again and again t...Not only do they have to retreat again and again to their background beliefs, but they must also put up an "internal" shield to protect them from arguments that otherwise would make sense to them.<BR/><BR/>David - lets say you have a daughter who was gang raped, would you just tell her "God has a purpose"? Why did God not made us so that instead of thinking about wanting personal revenge on these attackers, to just have the instinct to think immediately that "God has has a purpose"?<BR/><BR/>And another question to theists, why must evil only make sense with a god?Ignerant Phoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13166860576010836032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28790851452408048872008-10-17T13:31:00.000-04:002008-10-17T13:31:00.000-04:00Thanks WW, I fixed it. Nitpick all you want to.Thanks WW, I fixed it. Nitpick all you want to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3070631111539015692008-10-17T13:04:00.000-04:002008-10-17T13:04:00.000-04:00Oh ok, so you're saying "internal" just means a pr...Oh ok, so you're saying "internal" just means a problem that the Christian faces with regard to competing external propositions. <BR/><BR/>So an "internal critique" is just showing that we have to deal with seemingly conflicting data from outside the worldview...doesn't really make sense to me given the traditional usage of "internal critique" but I see what you're saying now, thanks.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19305544763287803312008-10-17T12:56:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:56:00.000-04:00Good post.Nitpicking:"So it’s simply false that I ...Good post.<BR/><BR/>Nitpicking:<BR/>"So it’s simply false that I must assume your whole worldview (an impossible task) when disputing any single <B>tenant</B> insider your worldview. Such a task cannot be done when looking at any single <B>tenant</B> inside your worldview. But I have examined each major <B>tenant</B> you believe in the many other chapters in my book, all which converge to make the over-all case that your faith is delusionary."<BR/><BR/>Tenet. Please.<BR/><BR/>/Nitpicking<BR/><BR/>:)Susannah Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11923063322849781223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63092403964631228162008-10-17T12:39:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:39:00.000-04:00david, the problem is an internal one to the Chris...david, the problem is an internal one to the Christian. He can either reconcile this problem and continue believing or he can leave the Christian worldview and accept the conclusion. If he wishes to remain within Christian theism he needs to answer the problem to himself, if no one else. If he cannot do this then he takes a step outside of Christian theism.<BR/><BR/>I see no problem here. For it is no longer a problem for those who accept its conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71474915281952589342008-10-17T12:34:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:34:00.000-04:00The minute a Christian accepts the idea that suffe...The minute a Christian accepts the idea that suffering could occur outside of God's providence he has affirmed a proposition that is external to the Christian worldview.<BR/><BR/>The tension is between the internal proposition <I>God has a purpose for suffering</I>, and the external proposition that you deem probable: <I>all this suffering probably wouldn't be part of a triple-O God's plan</I>.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, where's the internal problem with what Christians believe?davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23285762299016195542008-10-17T12:29:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:29:00.000-04:00David said...Correct, but remember any instance of...David said...<I>Correct, but remember any instance of suffering you point to the Christian is going to basically say "God has a purpose." </I><BR/><BR/>So what? Let them tell us what the purpose is. I claim they cannot do it and that all such theodicy's fail. Again, it's irrelevant if they disagree with me. It's still an internal problem within the things they believe, which is my main point here.<BR/><BR/>david said...<I>Internally, the evidential argument presents no logical inconsistency...</I><BR/><BR/>Again, so what? My argument is a probabalistic one.<BR/><BR/>David continues...<I> but I think the emotional aspect is much more compelling here, i.e. God is supposed to have a reason but this sure seems pretty gratuitous to me.</I><BR/><BR/>The distinction between an emotional and evidential argument is blurred. I see no reason to distinguish them.<BR/><BR/>David said...<I>Actually, the first time I stumbled onto your blog it was a problem of evil article and it shook me up for weeks.</I><BR/><BR/>;-) That's my goal!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1656463468140326272008-10-17T12:16:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:16:00.000-04:00"the evidence in this world is against his claimin..."the evidence in this world is against his claiming there isn't any gratuitous evil"<BR/><BR/>Correct, but remember any instance of suffering you point to the Christian is going to basically say "God has a purpose." Thats the Biblical position, and only recent apologists from the molinist camp have attempted to comport with the factual premise and deny the theological premise (meticulous providence).<BR/><BR/>Internally, the evidential argument presents no logical inconsistency but I think the emotional aspect is much more compelling here, i.e. God is supposed to have a reason but this sure seems pretty gratuitous to me.<BR/><BR/>Again as I commented on Drew's blog, how much evil would you expect if the theistic God existed? Would half the suffering be ok? Relative to what? What qualifies the relationship between amount of suffering and the probability of the theistic God?<BR/><BR/>Thats fine, I think the emotional aspect in itself is a powerful force for unbelief, but only when other forces contribute to that unbelieve in a way that makes the factual premise "seem true." Actually, the first time I stumbled onto your blog it was a problem of evil article and it shook me up for weeks.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13730517856794612432008-10-17T12:09:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:09:00.000-04:00David, I've already explained this in detail. Let ...David, I've already explained this in detail. Let me try again. It's because the evidence in this world is against his claiming there isn't any gratuitous evil, that's why. And since he believes that "all truth is God's truth," he must be able to explain the evidence of senseless suffering with his belief that there is a perfectly good omnipotent God. He must show that this evidence is internally consistent with his belief that there isn't any gratuitous evil. He cannot merely assert otherwise or he'd be a fideist, which can easily be dismissed, given the number of mutually contradictory religious viewpoints there are based on the Outsider Test for Faith.<BR/><BR/>My argument is a probability one, that these two beliefs probably cannot both be maintained, i.e. that there is intensive suffering, AND that there is no gratuitous evil, given his belief there is a perfectly good omnipotent being.<BR/><BR/>It is completely irrelevant if I cannot convince him otherwise. It's still an internal argument based upon the things he believes.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37056706009278064012008-10-17T11:42:00.000-04:002008-10-17T11:42:00.000-04:00If the argument is internal, then why wouldn't the...If the argument is internal, then why wouldn't the Christian just respond that "gratuitous evil exists" is not a proposition within his worldview?<BR/><BR/>Thats the whole point of the theological premise...the factual premise in the evidential argument is <I>not</I> internal...this is Drew's whole point which I still think you're missing.davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.com