tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8901370605175863396..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: David Wood Still Baffles Me.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27645311815157542292007-02-09T19:48:00.000-05:002007-02-09T19:48:00.000-05:00From earliest childhood we are told to do good thi...<I>From earliest childhood we are told to do good things. It does not come naturally. For the most part selfishness comes naturally.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, game theory suggests that you are wrong, as do studies of other animals. Altruism is advantageous in many situations, and occurs in the natural world. In fact, the most effective solution found in the Prisoner's Dilemma is the Golden Rule with a small rate of forgiveness thrown in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88024937049962446132007-02-07T02:06:00.000-05:002007-02-07T02:06:00.000-05:00—
Dear Heather,
Do reread my Feb. 6th, 1:04 AM c...—<br />Dear Heather, <br /><br />Do reread my Feb. 6th, 1:04 AM comment to you. Where anywhere can you find anything that is not simply common sense. I am an educator and father of four children. I am not inventing twilight zone theories of natural lovey-dovey states of being. What I’m saying is pure pragmatism and empiricism that any atheist or theist should easily agree with. Think about it. <br /><br />A baby is lovable but its loving is self-centered. It has natural wants and desires that serve its own survival. This is good and beautiful. When the baby receives what it wants and needs it is content and even joyful. When it does not, it rages. Only little by little does it learn what is good from a non-self-centered perspective, IF he/she is receiving a good upbringing. Babies are not self-sacrificing. They don’t know any better, They are innocent. You don’t have to be a Piaget to understand this. All parents and educators should recognize this obvious truth immediately, unless they really want to agree to disagree.<br /><br />Peace. I wish you well.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14334101189201820262007-02-06T13:45:00.000-05:002007-02-06T13:45:00.000-05:00Hi, Jose.
**This agreeing to disagree business ca...Hi, Jose.<br /><br />**This agreeing to disagree business can become habitual as a reaction against something that you simply do not wish to accept and that really has nothing to do with what is actually being said. I’m not too sure how to get beyond this. For now all I have time to say is that you reread the things I have said. What I am saying is really quite elementary. There is no real profundity to it. It’s obvious. Only a certain inner buffer could prevent one from seeing it.**<br /><br />Perhaps we should stop the conversation here. Everything that you have just said in terms of my perception can be reversed, and therein lies the problem. It is elementary and not profound to you, *because that is your worldview.* You use 'instinct' in one fashion. I use it in another. And that's just one example. <br /><br />Earlier, we disagreed on the concept of Jesus/God. Your comment then indicated an assumption that I must not've read the New Testament, or designed it as I wanted it, rather than considering that I have read the New Testament many times, and perhaps walked away with a different messsage. That's also the impression I'm getting here. I may not have said to you, "I understand what you're saying," and I may look deliberatly blind, but as you repeat back to me what you feel I'm saying, I'm telling you that the definition you provide is incorrect. Perhaps that's my fault, in not being clear in my explanations. But as you tell me what you agree with, my reaction was, "But that's not what I'm saying."<br /><br />If we also disagree on politics, or abortion, or any other hot-button issue, does that mean I'm lacking an elementary insight, or have some sort of buffer? No, it means I see through a different worldview. Absolute truth may exist, but every person on this Earth can only see it through a subjective lens. <br /><br />As Lynda said -- philosophers and psychologists have been debating this for centuries. Clearly, no consesus has been reached. Is every philosopher that disagrees with you also more eager to disagree above all else?<br /><br />I appreciate that you were willing to discuss this. You can reply, but I feel it's best if we consider the matter closed. If I come across as too sensitive or wanting to disagree above all else, I apologize. I simply don't want to go in circles, and I fear that's what we'll do here. This is also not intended to look as though I get the "last word." I just felt it would be worse to say, "Okay, let's stop," without an explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11959374675430605422007-02-06T12:47:00.000-05:002007-02-06T12:47:00.000-05:00—
Hi Heather,
It does appear to me that you have ...—<br />Hi Heather,<br /><br />It does appear to me that you have a strong desire to agree to disagree. As a result you are not actually hearing what I am saying and seek to emphasize things that I have not said nor even implied. In fact, you overlook or ignore, what I specifically said in agreement with what you are saying. This agreeing to disagree business can become habitual as a reaction against something that you simply do not wish to accept and that really has nothing to do with what is actually being said. I’m not too sure how to get beyond this. For now all I have time to say is that you reread the things I have said. What I am saying is really quite elementary. There is no real profundity to it. It’s obvious. Only a certain inner buffer could prevent one from seeing it. I don’t think there is any real disagreement with what I have said in the world of education, psychology and sociology.<br /><br />Later, as time permits, I’ll try to recap the things I have said that agree with what you are saying but add something else with which you should agree if you do not insist on agreeing to disagree.<br /><br />Peace.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90872674734779735062007-02-06T05:38:00.000-05:002007-02-06T05:38:00.000-05:00Hi, Jose.
**From earliest childhood we are told t...Hi, Jose.<br /><br />**From earliest childhood we are told to do good things. It does not come naturally. For the most part selfishness comes naturally.** This is another reason why we are probably going to disagree -- we see the world differently. If one's perspective is focused on the sin and how one behaves sinfully, even from birth, then that is the main stuff one sees. If one is focused on the goodness, then that is the dominant stuff one sees. We see the world through different lenses. I have seen very young children do good things naturally, and it came about in an environment where people lived in that elevating instinct. <br /><br />**Many mammals have strong natural instincts to protect themselves and each other. This is somewhat similar to that natural and emotional "love" you speak about among humans. Emotions can be very strong or weak and they do not determine the quality of our love. ** I don't think you can say this is the type of 'love' I'm talking about when I keep disagreeing with you. ;) Because that's along the lines of a basic, brute, instinct. Which is not what I'm saying. I'm not putting this on the level of a survival instinct. I'm talking about an 'elevating' instinct, so to speak, that would go so far beyond human thought. Like initution or just "knowing" something without being able to put it into words. Like a sense of peace, or a sense of hope. I suppose ... you see it as the instinct which is below, I use 'instinct' as something that is above human thought. <br /><br />**the child may learn to understand the meaning, function and importance of the higher love and realize that is how he/she should act** Again, though, it becomes about actions, and doing it because it is the right thing to do. What about the motivation behind that action? Because this doesn't seem to have been addressed. It's not enough to just act. Yes, the actions, regardless of motivation, makes the world and society function a lot smoother. But if you do something loving for your brother, are you in fact loving him? You have *behaving* in a loving fashion. But if you're just doing that behavior because that is what you're told to do, or it's a willful choice, then it's something that you'll constantly have to watch for, and rationalize yourself into. You are loving by law, not by spirit -- which also doesn't seem to have been addressed. What about the types that make the 'willful' part of the action irreleveant, because the type of love you're experiencing goes beyond thought? An elevating instinct? One where you're in a situation and later you realize even the person was the most wretched person ever, you never had to tell yourself to behave in a loving fashion, because 'telling' was never a factor. You were so entrenched in that elevating love that loving actions were an un-forced outcome?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91697028277852635102007-02-06T01:04:00.000-05:002007-02-06T01:04:00.000-05:00—
Lynda,
Who do you think might be filled with t...—<br />Lynda, <br /><br />Who do you think might be filled with that love for humankind that you speak about? The absurdity of your comment about Mother Teresa is mind boggling. And your unbelievable statement about Mother Teresa follows right after your extolling the behavior of the great apes. I like great apes but I’m afraid your comparisons and understanding of love are meaningless. <br /><br />Hi Heather,<br /><br />From earliest childhood we are told to do good things. It does not come naturally. For the most part selfishness comes naturally. It is pure fantasy to dream up some idyllic behavior among animals. We are most pleasantly surprised when a great ape does not rip us apart if we get close to it after allowing it to familiarize itself with our very gentle presence over a long time. There are no Good Samaritan chimps. They are often cannibals, killing and eating other chimp's babies and fight among each other like apes. Bonobos chimps pacify each other by trading sexual favors. They are very similar to many humans. Many mammals have strong natural instincts to protect themselves and each other. This is somewhat similar to that natural and emotional "love" you speak about among humans. Emotions can be very strong or weak and they do not determine the quality of our love. <br /><br />The child has natural love but he/she must learn the higher love that I’m talking about and at first we simply hope he/she will at least just "act it out." Higher love needs to be defined, explained and demonstrated to the child. The child raised with the "terry cloth mother" does not quite learn it. The enormous social problems that we are encountering in society today are repeatedly shown to be the result of children not being shown the meaning of higher love. Through commercialism and the media, self-centeredness and immediate gratification are extolled, just as we find practiced among the great apes. <br /><br />In time, with proper family and school education, the child may learn to understand the meaning, function and importance of the higher love and realize that is how he/she should act. This can happen passionately or dispassionately and much depends on the individual’s temperament and personality. Either one could be compassionate. Frequently an excess of emotion impedes the proper effectiveness of the expression of love.<br /><br />I will leave this here for now.<br /><br />Peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75000005240830088302007-02-05T22:03:00.000-05:002007-02-05T22:03:00.000-05:00Hi, Lynda.
I'm glad you're finding the discussion...Hi, Lynda.<br /><br />I'm glad you're finding the discussion interesting. :) And thank you for sharing your thoughts. <br /><br />**Jesus' commands to "love one another" are very open to interpretation and ambiguity** Given how many Christian denominations there are, you can probably argue that about the entire Bible. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16886939707254797872007-02-05T17:39:00.000-05:002007-02-05T17:39:00.000-05:00Jose and Heather,
Your discussion of "love" is i...Jose and Heather,<br /><br />Your discussion of "love" is interesting. Philosophers and psychologists have been trying to get a firm grip on what exactly that emotion or action entails for centuries. The research I find most enlightening are primate studies that examine great apes behavior where acts of kindness sometimes appear to have no selfish motive.<br /><br />Mother Teresa's actions, given her religious conviction, do not lead me to think of her as one filled with love for humankind. Trained as a nun to subjugate herself to the needs of others she was conditioned to behave that way. Her thoughts of afterlife rewards or duty to god probably affected her decisions significantly. <br /><br />Jesus' commands to "love one another" are very open to interpretation and ambiguity. Therefore, I find them far less useful in a person's life than concrete and less ambiguous commands, as perhaps given in the Ten Commandments (if one is convinced that they are worthwhile). Interestingly, none of those commands, either Jesus' or Moses' commands, did much to stem the violence and hatred performed by the Christian Church for centuries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60745070961231420062007-02-05T15:51:00.000-05:002007-02-05T15:51:00.000-05:00Hi, Jose.
The thing about agreeing to disagre is ...Hi, Jose.<br /><br />The thing about agreeing to disagre is that we will probably run the risk of repeating ourself. <br /><br />I'm familiar with the three usages of Greek words for love: eros, philia, and agape. <br /><br />When I say instinctive love, I'm not referring to a base instinct, or a self-interest instinct. I wasn't ever referring to 'eros.' To use the parent and child reference again, I was referring to an instinctive self-sacrificing love, a love that is much higher than sensual, 'it's all about me' love. An instinct that makes you look beyond yourself, the purest kind of love there is. Or, to go back to loving someone who's cruel to you -- a love that sacrifices one's self perception of the physical evidence of cruelty, and looks beyond that, to the core/inner person. Basically, love in the same instinct that God loves. I do believe that it can be instinctive, and have seen people prove that. So this may be where our 'disagreement' is generated. <br /><br />So to me, 'love' in its 100% form is always attached to an emotion -- the self-sacrificing kind. Otherwise, you could end up doing the 'duty' of love while hating your neighbor in your heart. The thing about the New Testament is that Jesus said it wasn't enough to just follow the Ten Commandments. That was the letter of the law, but not the spirit. It started as an internal drive, an instinct. Such as even though you don't kill someone, if you harbor hate you are, in a way, killing that person. So not killing the person is the loving action -- but it's an empty action if not accompanied by loving that person. There should be a sincere joy in doing so. If it's just with the 'obligation and responsiblity,' then that seems to lead to the danger of, "I'm doing this because I'm told to because it'll lead to rewards in the end." That looks like one is 'programing' one's self to love.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26049984255739920822007-02-05T13:36:00.000-05:002007-02-05T13:36:00.000-05:00—
Hi Heather,
Better than agreeing to disagree I ...—<br />Hi Heather,<br /><br />Better than agreeing to disagree I prefer agreeing to agree, to find the means by which we may agree. This requires some effort and good will. I think a great deal of disagreeing has to do with the misuse of words or the use of words meaning something other than what the person is saying. People often imagine they are speaking a common language but since the major words they use have different meanings they might just as well be speaking different languages, indeed they are. <br /><br />Think of how much misunderstanding there is over this word "love" that people love to use. Someone said we should probably do away with it altogether and simply say what one means without using it. I do not think we should scrap the word, even if we could, because people have a very valuable lofty ideal related to the word and it is best for them to just work on clarifying its meaning.<br /><br />As you know people talk about "eros" and "agape." Maybe this is a good place to begin the clarification. At the risk of provoking a torrent of wrath and indignation on this blog, let me recommend as a starter a reading of Deus Caritas Est, the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI. It can be found at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html<br /><br />Let me warn those disturbed by such readings that it contains citations from the Scriptures and could be rated PG.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84049613268410890952007-02-05T05:39:00.000-05:002007-02-05T05:39:00.000-05:00Hi, Jose.
I think we're going to have to agree to...Hi, Jose.<br /><br />I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. :) I agree that one cannot just rely on emotion -- because how one loves at twenty will differ from how one loves at sixty. Love does have many facets. Very often, in cases of divorce, it will be because people did not act upon that emotion, and let other obligations and such interfere with keeping the marriage strong. Relationships do require nurturing, but the basis for that is the emotion. Maybe what you're seeing as 'emotion' is the superficial aspect? Because usually when people live life to the fullest, they do so in a no-holds barred emotional aspect. <br /><br />The danger I see in in saying, "conscious and willful love I am referring to that love that does not come automatically but rather by decision" or "but a particular premeditated determination, based purely on a conscious sense of responsibility is exercised" is that, to me, it comes across as purley rational, something that you can talk yourself into, and thus talk yourself out. It seems strips any emotional involvement, moving it entirely into the 'rational' area. People who are hate-filled can act more responsible than those who love consistently. That, and in keeping it rational, would make it almost harder. Those who experience God's love, or any love like that, have a hard time putting it in rational terms, because it goes so far beyond that. It goes beyond words, beyond understanding. It's the emotional at its most primal, pure level. A consistent, never-ending emotion. So when I say you can't 'choose' to love, that's the type of emotion I'm referring to. This is one that doesn't ever wane, or shift. This is the love for a brother/child that you're supposed to transfer on a worldly scale. The priest and Levite may have had the love for a brother -- they simply weren't seeing the injured man as their brother. And that's how you 'active' this love: by seeing everyone as your brother (used in a generic sense). <br /><br />I don't think Mother Teresa just acted out of a sense of responsiblity, with no emotional involvement whatsoever. It was also because of her horror and sense of compassion. Again -- a very deep emotion that apparently never went away for her. <br /><br />I suppose what you call an active effort and determination to love, I would call an active determination to see everyone as my brother -- to put myself in a mental state where I can access the love that's already there, it's just hard to see at times (or feels near impossible).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55050352421992569752007-02-05T00:21:00.000-05:002007-02-05T00:21:00.000-05:00—
Hi Heather,
I understand what you are saying wi...—<br />Hi Heather,<br /><br />I understand what you are saying with regard to loving a child or spouse. By my use of the comparative term "low level" I am not belittling that love which of course varies in itself from parent to parent, and there are some very bad parents. But this love is fairly automatic. By conscious and willful love I am referring to that love that does not come automatically but rather by decision; the love that one would actually prefer running away from, prefer not even thinking about it. It is the love that most of us ignore practicing just about every day, illustrated in the good Samaritan story. That "certain priest" and the Levite who "looked and passed on the other side" most likely had the love that you speak of for child, wife and family. But they lacked the higher love that I speak of from which it is so easy to walk away. Attaining the higher level strengthens us to stabilize all other forms of loving.<br /><br />You talk about the “emotion” of love and that emotion of love may exist or not. But when that emotion is not there, when one would rather flee or cross the street, but a particular premeditated determination, based purely on a conscious sense of responsibility is exercised, we have the higher level of love that I am referring to. Now, regular practice of this higher level of love will cultivate within the individual a more consuming emotional correspondence with all acts of love. Merely emotional love is unreliable. This is the great underlying problem leading to the family fragmentation epidemic these days, where it is so easy to just say, “I am sorry darling, I do not love you anymore. Goodbye.” <br /><br />The Scriptures are filled with examples of a higher love. If you see the distinction I am making we need not squabble over words. When most Christians, or others who imagine themselves good, observe a life truly lived in this love we suffer embarrassment. Mother Teresa embarrasses us.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19607518318591625852007-02-05T00:13:00.000-05:002007-02-05T00:13:00.000-05:00Hi Heather,
Yes, that example of the hot stove is ...Hi Heather,<br />Yes, that example of the hot stove is very appropriate. The Christian god really is a lousy parent!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44080715899178177312007-02-05T00:10:00.000-05:002007-02-05T00:10:00.000-05:00Eric,
I hear your frustration. I want to bang my ...Eric, <br />I hear your frustration. I want to bang my head against a very hard surface everytime I hear GW Bush pontificate about being the "Decider". Intelligent people, like yourself, have always found it depressing to deal with the likes of Bush and Cheney and religious Fundamentalists. Imagine the state of the minds of people like Galileo who had virtually no support network of atheists to encourage them in their fight against ignorance. <br /><br />I think you'll find that dealing with your feelings of depression, and perhaps futility, through Cognitive Behavior Therapy will really improve your ability to find some hope. I tend to be pessimistic when I spend too much time listening to the idiots managing the White House or British parliament. So I read Carl Sagan. Adam's suggestion to watch Comedy Central is good and I find Monty Python's movies very helpful too when the stress of dealing with stupidity becomes overwhelming. <br /><br />Try not to jump to conclusions about what the future will hold politically or religiously. Great thing about science is that there is no "holy" scripture forecasting the future. You don't know what's going to happen. It may be a lot better than you're anticipating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56828799453072622092007-02-04T22:39:00.000-05:002007-02-04T22:39:00.000-05:00Hi, Jose.
**This a very low level of love, a na...Hi, Jose. <br /><br />**This a very low level of love, a natural and instinctual love. It is the love that comes and goes. Conscious and willful love is much greater**<br /><br />In referring to the love that one doesn't choose, I was using it in reference to the love a parent has for his/her child, the love between husband and wife, or between friends/siblings/other family members. so I wouldn't refer to that as a 'very low level' of love, because of how essential it is in meaningful relationships. Overall, parents never stop loving their children in this fashion. <br /><br />To me, 'conscious and willful love' is a contradiction, almost. It makes it sound like love is an on/off switch controlled by the person. Yes, in a marriage or raising children there needs to be an active committment -- you can't just rely on the love itself. There will be times when you're so angry that it seems like you forgot that you love the person. But after a while, you realize the anger just seemed to overshadow the love, and it was always there. (Granted, in those emotional circumstances, you do have to remind yourself that you love the person ;)<br /><br />Now, people do end up doing things they don't want to do because they love a person. Such as the obligation and responsiblity -- but the action is conscious, because of a love that developed. Such as marriage. It's telling a person, "I love you enough to want to build a life together, and work together, even though this will require sacrifice on my part and hard times." The love's already there. In your experience with God -- did you choose to love God, or did you realize you loved God and what He did, and that inkling of love was enough for you to accept the obligation/responsility? And even when it's very difficult, you hold on, because you know that you love God. You just can't feel it at all times. <br /><br />I could face someone that has unbelievably cruel to me and say, "I'm going to love you no matter what." But I can't just produce that emotion. I can act in a loving fashion, yes. But the emotion itself isn't generated by my will. Now, yes, it would take an effort on my part to not respond in kind, and be willing to learn how to love the person, and actively seeking loving qualities. <br /><br />Perhaps what you're using as "conscious and willful love," I'm seeing as the actions that come out of the instinctual love.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49415866298172824092007-02-04T22:03:00.000-05:002007-02-04T22:03:00.000-05:00Hi, Lynda.
**If prior to eating of the tree they ...Hi, Lynda.<br /><br />**If prior to eating of the tree they are ignorant of evil, according to the Bible, then they must not have known that it was evil to disobey god. Therefore, they could not have exercised free will. ** I've pondered this as well. What's interesting is that after they eat the fruit, God says that they're now like God, knowing good and evil. So were they not aware of either before? <br /><br />Also, one of the consequences of disobeying was that they would die, both spiritually and physically. But death was only a consequence of sin, and before there was sin, could Adam/Eve understand what that meant? <br /><br />If you tell a child not to touch a hot stove because it will hurt, the warning means nothing if the child hasn't experienced pain. It's only after touching the stove that the child understands what 'hurt' means. So the next time you tell a child that an action will hurt, the child has the first-hand experience of the stove, and will fully comprehend the consequences of going against what you're telling them. <br /><br />The Adam/Eve story seems to place them in the same situation as the child who has no way of comprehending pain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81861089723417983352007-02-04T21:27:00.000-05:002007-02-04T21:27:00.000-05:00Eric,
Cognitive Behavior Therapy (often combined ...Eric,<br /><br />Cognitive Behavior Therapy (often combined with medication) is the state of the art in depression treatment. You could pick up a few books on it and perhaps your general physician could prescribe antidepressants, if you can't afford to see a psychologist/psychiatrist.<br /><br />But you should also realize that atheism is actually on the upsurge -- in backlash against the Christianism our country has witnessed. I think the worst of the Christianist crazies has passed -- at least for now. Atheists were recently featured in a fair light on night line -- the rational response squad. Dawkins, Harris are on the Colbert Report and elsewhere. You've gotta watch some comedy central to get your spirits up. Go out and find people whose company you enjoy as well. Again, I'm actually pretty upbeat about the prospects for atheism. We have a Democratic Congress and Bush will be gone soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13720984092617660782007-02-04T20:55:00.000-05:002007-02-04T20:55:00.000-05:00—
Hi David Wood,
I’ve taken a leave from another ...—<br />Hi David Wood,<br /><br />I’ve taken a leave from another thread I was commenting on to peruse through this one. You’re doing a fabulous job in addressing the problem of evil and I am learning a lot from your comments.<br /><br />I want to touch on two points here. One that Heather brought up on another thread and that I do not remember addressing, as there were so many other questions I was focusing on. Heather brings it up again here. She states: "My conflict over free will is that one doesn’t ‘choose’ to love. It’s something that just develops without a conscious choice."<br /><br />This a very low level of love, a natural and instinctual love. It is the love that comes and goes. Conscious and willful love is much greater. It is the love that comes from accepting obligation and responsibility, like it or not. It is the love that acts because it recognizes the essential goodness of its action. And it is the love that demonstrates the ultimate value of free will because it comes from a real conscious volition and not from the restrictions of some tyrant god or some compelling instinctual drive. Without free will one cannot attain this dependable and even predictable love. This is the love that God has for us and it is the love that He wills each of us should have for each other. This is the love that cannot come from a robot and must be why God in His wisdom has placed so much at stake for its realization.<br /><br />Now, I offer a second point just to be pondered for the time being. If symbolically we are told that Adam and Eve had the freedom to choose in the Garden of Eden and they made the wrong choice, the choice of disobedience to the Summum Bonum, then perhaps in this degeneracy they lost in the fall the freedom to choose again or they had it but only in potential. As they entered a bestial state they had no more freedom to choose than does a dog, and all of the general ability of a person to choose was no more than mere behaviorist (Skinnerian) mechanical reactions devoid of true freedom and will, leaving only the illusion of freedom and will. And this remains the present state of humanity. We act, for the most part, according to our likes and dislikes without any concept of some objective good for which we must take responsibility. What if this were the case but we were told that there is at least the possibility of attaining free will. Would we try to attain it? <br /><br />I share this simply as another perspective on this question of free will and love that I suspect may have much to do with this discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39542153030112328742007-02-04T18:10:00.000-05:002007-02-04T18:10:00.000-05:00I dont want to pay for others' stupidity.I dont want to pay for others' stupidity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-209476607902208902007-02-04T18:09:00.000-05:002007-02-04T18:09:00.000-05:00I simply have no sense of security in my world.
W...I simply have no sense of security in my world.<br /><br />What you say is true, but how else am I supposed to react when the government works to marginalize respect for the individual and rational thought, my way of life? I have very little to hold onto in the event of fully-gestated Christian Reconstructionism. I neither see the cup half-full or half empty: I see people drinking out of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82461224480464862432007-02-04T15:18:00.000-05:002007-02-04T15:18:00.000-05:00Eric,
The actions of other people do not need to ...Eric, <br />The actions of other people do not need to result in your depression. I have been told that Cognitive Behavior Therapy can be very useful for learning to deal with cognitions that cause depression. You might consider checking out http://www.livinglifetothefull.com<br /><br />Religionists have robbed the world of so much as it is. There is no sense in letting them rob us of emotional health as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43046470695873821412007-02-04T13:26:00.000-05:002007-02-04T13:26:00.000-05:00Lynda: I wholeheartedly agree.
I do suffer from d...Lynda: I wholeheartedly agree.<br /><br />I do suffer from depression and I am an atheist, and I'll tell you why: My world is governed by people like David Wood who have no useful or plausible "knowledge" of the natural world, and I am very fearful that other people believe what these suchlike shapeless people say. Humanity's ease of being manipulated by demagogues and charlatans is simply frightening. People, more often than not, are more concerned by securing their bubble of comfort than being correct in their beliefs, regardless of the often disastrous consequences (simple hypocrisy, leading to mass political movements, resulting in tyranny and totalitarianism, and dark ages). I live in an Atlas Shrugged-like universe, governed by Nabokov's "Party of the Average Man," whose ideology is simply described as anti-intellectual. Other reasons I shall not go into because they have no relevance here.<br /><br />I think I have described accurately why God created the universe in the 31st post of "David Wood's Argument: Does This Make Any Sense?" saying that God is simply a megalomaniac.<br /><br />I think that with many other arguments against the validity of religion (spiritual and political usefulness, scientific facts about the natural world), the problem of evil is almost minuscule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33644695645534265232007-02-04T12:31:00.000-05:002007-02-04T12:31:00.000-05:00David,
Your speculation about John's psychological...David,<br />Your speculation about John's psychological state indicates a significant lack of understanding of depression. I have known a number of Christians who suffer from depression and have been treated with drugs to control the condition. Others persevere waiting for some miracle from their god to cure them, which seems mighty dangerous to me. To date I have not come across an atheist who suffers from depression, but this is not to say they do not exist. Atheists are in a minority. <br /><br />One of the underlying beliefs that depressed individuals often have is that they do not measure up somehow. They consider themselves unworthy of happiness. Christianity's constant bombardment with messages of sinfulness cannot possibly help one feel content with one's accomplishments. The lack of self-esteem contributes significantly to distorted cognitions that are responsible for depressed emotions. <br /><br />If one, such as John, is discussing the incongruity of god's attributes with the "problem of evil" then one may appear to be focusing on the suffering in the world, but this certainly should not be construed as a general attitude towards one's life. That's just silliness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90065038613209277592007-02-04T11:59:00.000-05:002007-02-04T11:59:00.000-05:00Hi everyone,
I am an atheist/agnostic and checking...Hi everyone,<br />I am an atheist/agnostic and checking out this blog for the first time. Interesting debate.<br /><br />According to the Bible's account of the beginning of humankind, humans were created perfect and without "sin" or "evil". Through the act of one human this apparently changed, changed so much so that one of the offspring of this perfect couple killed his own brother. That's an extremely quick descent into evil. <br /><br />Free will may appear to be present in all people who came after that first couple, but one must seriously consider whether the first humans were allowed free will. <br /><br />The "evil/sin" of disobedience to god comes through their eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. A few verses after the couple has eaten of this tree, god laments that the couple now <b>know</b> what evil is. <br /><br />Now I seriously question how humans can be seen as possessing "free will" if they are not knowledgable about the choices they can make. If prior to eating of the tree they are ignorant of evil, according to the Bible, then they must not have <b>known</b> that it was evil to disobey god. Therefore, they could not have exercised free will. <br /><br />When one is thinking of free will the issue of coersion needs to be addressed as well. In human societies a person's confession to a crime is deemed a fraud if that person if forced to confess under the threat of death or torture. For present day humans, according to most Christian theology, god threatens death or even everlasting torture if one does not obey/worship god. In order to have "free" will one must not be under the threat of punishment. It is a mystery to me how anyone could believe that free will is present under the Biblical declarations.<br /><br />From my studies of the Bible I have not actually found the term "free will" used. It does not seem consistent with the other attributes of the Biblical god, especially the Ten Commandments which offer no indication that anyone has a free will option to follow those rules. Some Christians over the evolution of Christianity have rejected the doctrine of free will and insist that god's chosen have been predetermined.<br /><br />If free will is good. Then god must possess free will if he is wholly good. Therefore, he was free to not create humans or the earth. He could have prevented much suffering and evil by choosing not to create this planet, especially since he <b>knew</b> (another attritube of god is apparently omniscience)that evil would erupt from his creation.<br /><br />To state that god <b>had</b> to create humans in order for them to exercise free will, eliminates his other attribute of omnipotence. So the Christian must decide which of god's attributes he/she can comfortably dispense with and still find that god worthy of worship. It's quite a dilemma as far as I can see. One with which I am grateful to have dispensed since I do not believe this god, or any other, exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64721172069860523492007-02-04T08:19:00.000-05:002007-02-04T08:19:00.000-05:00Heather, correct.
------------
Lok said...To be h...Heather, correct.<br /><br />------------<br />Lok said...<i>To be honest, at the beginning I was more on Wood's side that the problem of evil alone is not too strong, but now I am fully convinced that John is right on quoting Sennett that "if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it.”</i><br /><br />Wow! Many atheists don't see the problem of evil for what it is. I'm very happy to see you change your mind. This is a very serious problem that people on both sides of the fence don't properly understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com