Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[Cypress]

I think this is where you misunderstand atheism. You keep pointing to Dawkins, but Dawkins isn't all atheists. He's just one of the few who actually writes about what some think. And good on him. We've enjoyed two millennia of people forcing Christianity into every nook and cranny of our society, so at least give us a couple of people who say "The emperor has no clothes".

I don't read polemicists either of the religious variety or of the atheist variety.

Polemicists aren't convincing to me.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are mudslingers who have adopted a belligerent style to sell books, but their criticisms of religion is ultimately superficial and unconvincing.

I will never read anything from Joel Osteen or the Creation Science Museum Research Institute. Unless I need a laugh.

The most rational and compelling arguments for Christianity I've read are from the Oxford scholar CS Lewis and the American geneticist Francis Collins.

The most rational arguments for a non-relgious tradition I've read about are from Albert Einstein and the existentialist Albert Camus.

 

[gmark77]

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are mudslingers who have adopted a belligerent style to sell books, but their criticisms of religion is ultimately superficial and unconvincing.

Hitchens pulled no punches but then why should he? He stood against the horrific excesses of some religious traditions which I think you and I would both agree are repulsive in the extreme. Dawkins isn't lambasting care for the poor. He's lambasting the role of religion in defining that which we are allowed to study and that which is forbidden.

I think by and large you probably agree with Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris when they are speaking in a role as atheist critic.

I will never read anything from Joel Osteen or the Creation Science Museum Research Institute. Unless I need a laugh.

But the Creation Science folks would gladly alter how science is taught and presented, just based on their BELIEFS. This isn't just a hypothetical, Creationists have been doing this for over a century in the US school systems.

That's the point. No one is saying Christians taking care of the poor is a bad thing. No, the reason atheists speak up is because faith-based things are far too often given a pass in our society while fact-based things are long-debated.

The most rational and compelling arguments for Christianity I've read are from the Oxford scholar CS Lewis and the American geneticist Francis Collins.

That's good. They clearly aren't compelling for everyone. That's probably because at their heart they cannot and never will be able to provide evidence for an objectively defined God. If that could be done it would have been done thousands of years ago.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think when you scratch beneath the surface, most garden-variety atheists are actually somewhere on the spectrum of Agnostic - Cultural Christian - or Pantheist.

Only the most militant are willing to live out the atheist project to it's logical conclusion consistently in real life: by embracing moral relativism, the subjectivity of values, and uncompromising physical materialism, and accepting that in the end it's all meaningless and ultimately there is nothing out there but the howling void. That's what Albert Camus was willing to do in his heyday.

Human behavior has a range of extremes. Extremists only see the Black and the White, but, IMHO, most people understand the greys. Politically, those who see the greys tend to be Independents. The 40% of American voters who feel neither party is supporting their values. Most of which seem to fall upon the dividing line of individual rights vs. public good. Pedophiles and traffickers like Ghislaine Maxwell given leniency plus the redactions in the Epstein Files to the point that all names point to Trump sooooo, no names. Complete redaction. You know. To protect the innocent. LOL

Should our society hold our leaders accountable? IMO, yes. Same for holding them to a higher standard. A value shared in the Spider-Man Rule:

With great power comes great responsibility - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

based upon this idea:

Damocles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think this is where you misunderstand atheism. You keep pointing to Dawkins, but Dawkins isn't all atheists. He's just one of the few who actually writes about what some think. And good on him. We've enjoyed two millennia of people forcing Christianity into every nook and cranny of our society, so at least give us a couple of people who say "The emperor has no clothes".

Most of us are just regular folks IRL and you wouldn't be able to tell that we don't believe as you do. Most of us are like most Christians and just keep quiet about who we are and what we believe.

What most defensors fides such as yourself seem to dislike is any overt atheism. Just like most of us hate hearing non-stop about Jesus this and Jesus that from the people selling us hamburgers and chicken sandwiches.

So yeah, I get it. You dislike hearing anything from atheists anywhere. But it's not a fair match. The Jesus folks way outnumber the atheist folks. So where's the harm in 4 or 5 books which question the faith when there are about a billion books which laud the faith and justify it.

By now you've stopped reading so I feel confident in saying this openly and loudly: yes there is good in the New Testament. There really honestly is. But that GOOD doesn't HAVE to be from the Bible. It's common sense to treat others well in a society. It's inherent in our species to find murder wrong etc. People didn't need Jesus to tell them to be decent just because Jesus did so.

What is problematic is that people make POLICY based on their imagination of what God is and what God wants. That's the problem. And people demand that SCIENCE back off when it touches onto things the religious don't like. It DENIES facts when they don't comport with the FAITH. And it is at the heart of countless fights and wars going on today.

We dislike fake Christians like the owners of Hobby Lobby who leverage their disingenuous belief in Jesus to deny women employees healthcare they don't like and then those same Hobby Lobbians turn around and steal priceless artifacts from around the world for their "Bible museum", or they partake of deceptive sales practices and get hammered by the Atty General of NY. We dislike our tax money going to overtly support religions we don't believe in.

Religion is also useful in human conflict. Not necessary but really useful. Just look at Israel for a moment: we have two people fighting over a plot of dusty land because one of them thinks God gave it to them millennia ago because it's in some book somewhere. And countless evangelicals in the USA DEMAND that the war continue so that it can lead to the END OF THE WORLD and the RETURN OF JESUS.

We make policy based on imagination and wishes. That is why some atheists speak out against religion.

NOT because all religion is ipso facto horrible, but because religion is unique in that it defies questioning and it can overcome "facts" by merit of the demands of the believer.

What's wrong with being 100% against imagination-based policy?

And please don't resort to your usual "Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization". That doesn't make Christianity necessarily TRUE nor necessarily GOOD all the time.

In fact the very fact that Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization is enough to convince one that Christianity carries ZERO weight when people want to do truly horrible and evil things. Often in the explicit name of their religion and their civilization. One cannot look at the modern world and say we are necessarily more moral than the ancients who did exactly the same shit we do.

Dawkins is simply proof that young atheists can be bilked as easily as young Christians. My guess is because "they're young". Our laws allow a lot more latitude for "doing business" with those 18 and older versus minors....although it seems the Party of Trump wants to reduce that designation to 13 years of age and older. You know. Like in the Bible.

 

[gmark77]

Dawkins is simply proof that young atheists can be bilked as easily as young Christians.

How is Dawkins "bilking" them?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

How is Dawkins "bilking" them?

The same way Trump did with Trump University. Promising them something that doesn't exist.

I was an atheist in my mid teens but changed for a more spiritual journey. Not a religious person, but I enjoy the idea of a spiritual existence beyond this mortal one. Alan Watts is much more enjoyable to me than Richard Dawkins. For one thing, Watts is more about "Us" and Dawkins is more about "Us vs. Them".

 

[Cypress]

Hitchens pulled no punches but then why should he? He stood against the horrific excesses of some religious traditions which I think you and I would both agree are repulsive in the extreme. Dawkins isn't lambasting care for the poor. He's lambasting the role of religion in defining that which we are allowed to study and that which is forbidden.

I think by and large you probably agree with Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris when they are speaking in a role as atheist critic.




But the Creation Science folks would gladly alter how science is taught and presented, just based on their BELIEFS. This isn't just a hypothetical, Creationists have been doing this for over a century in the US school systems.

That's the point. No one is saying Christians taking care of the poor is a bad thing. No, the reason atheists speak up is because faith-based things are far too often given a pass in our society while fact-based things are long-debated.



That's good. They clearly aren't compelling for everyone. That's probably because at their heart they cannot and never will be able to provide evidence for an objectively defined God. If that could be done it would have been done thousands of years ago.

I don't have the same respect and admiration for polemicists and bomb throwers that you do.

Dawkins and Hitchens merely have a litany of complaints about religion, largely about Jewish stories in the Hebrew Bible. They don't use reason, philosophy, or logic to explain why the atheist project is an attractive and compelling choice. And they don't even seem to understand the Bible or theology very well.

They are in the game to make money, throw bombs, and sell books.

Dawkins is a zoologist. He is not well versed at all in formal logic, theology, or philosophy. His books on religion are pretty superficial.

Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre were probably the last really important secular atheist thinkers.

So now you've moved the goal post marginally away from a rational argument for the existence of some type of gid, to evidence for an objectively defined God, whatever that means.

We can't explain at the objective and ontological level what causes gravity, even though humans have been investigating gravity at least Aristotle. We can't explain anything about the origin of the cosmos, and we still yell at each other about what freedom and justice really mean.

In light of our vast ignorance about many things we have been discussing for thousands of years, I don't think it's fair to expect to god to be described materialistically in terms of height, weight, physical dimension.

 

[Cypress]

The same way Trump did with Trump University. Promising them something that doesn't exist.

I was an atheist in my mid teens but changed for a more spiritual journey. Not a religious person, but I enjoy the idea of a spiritual existence beyond this mortal one. Alan Watts is much more enjoyable to me than Richard Dawkins. For one thing, Watts is more about "Us" and Dawkins is more about "Us vs. Them".

I hardly know anything about Watts. Did you read his stuff?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I hardly know anything about Watts. Did you read his stuff?

Yes, but mostly listened to his lectures both by purchasing or on Youtube. The Way of Zen is one of a few books I have. "Out of your mind; the nature of consciousness" is an album I downloaded from Amazon.

Lots of stuff on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX5WbxWCSYimtC5F-f-M6djmMQzFilJNg

 

[gmark77]

I don't have the same respect and admiration for polemicists and bomb throwers that you do.

"Bomb throwers". I see what you did there. LOL.

 

[Cypress]

Yes, but mostly listened to his lectures both by purchasing or on Youtube. The Way of Zen is one of a few books I have. "Out of your mind; the nature of consciousness" is an album I downloaded from Amazon.

Lots of stuff on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX5WbxWCSYimtC5F-f-M6djmMQzFilJNg

Ahh, one of those west coast gurus who dabble in Zen and Eastern traditions. I've heard his name, but didn't know anything about him.

 

[gmark77]

Ahh, one of those west coast gurus who dabble in Zen and Eastern traditions. I've heard his name, but didn't know anything about him.

View: https://youtu.be/cmT3t2Kdr3I?si=5ROHkNgSxS09BvAZ

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Ahh, one of those west coast gurus who dabble in Zen and Eastern traditions. I've heard his name, but didn't know anything about him.

He brought a non-religious form of Zen to the US. Yes, he was very popular with college age Americans, but I enjoyed his talks. He was very knowledgeable about both Christianity and Zen Buddhism. Zen is often seen as a branch of Buddhism but can also be seen as a philosophy just like the teachings of Jesus can be seen from a purely secular and philosophical sense such as Gnosticism.

He also studied under another famous Zen Buddhist, , D. T. Suzuki, who preceded Watts in spreading Zen to the West.

D.T. Suzuki | Zen Buddhism, Philosopher, Mystic | Britannica

D.T. Suzuki was a Japanese Buddhist scholar and thinker who was the chief interpreter of Zen Buddhism to the West. Suzuki studied at the University of Tokyo. Early in his youth he became a disciple of Sōen, a noted Zen master of the day, and under his guidance attained the experience of satori

www.britannica.com

According to Suzuki, the basic characteristic of the Eastern mentality may be found in its emphasis on nonduality, while the Western spirit, as embodied in modern sciences, is based upon dualistic distinctions. Although this Western spirit is prerequisite to daily conduct, it fails to grasp the ultimate reality, which, in Suzuki’s philosophy, is an object of intuition or experience rather than of logical inquiry and must therefore be approached by religious experience of nonduality, especially as it is expressed in the tradition of Zen Buddhism.

 

[Based Chad]

I think this is where you misunderstand atheism. You keep pointing to Dawkins, but Dawkins isn't all atheists. He's just one of the few who actually writes about what some think. And good on him. We've enjoyed two millennia of people forcing Christianity into every nook and cranny of our society, so at least give us a couple of people who say "The emperor has no clothes".

Most of us are just regular folks IRL and you wouldn't be able to tell that we don't believe as you do. Most of us are like most Christians and just keep quiet about who we are and what we believe.

What most defensors fides such as yourself seem to dislike is any overt atheism. Just like most of us hate hearing non-stop about Jesus this and Jesus that from the people selling us hamburgers and chicken sandwiches.

So yeah, I get it. You dislike hearing anything from atheists anywhere. But it's not a fair match. The Jesus folks way outnumber the atheist folks. So where's the harm in 4 or 5 books which question the faith when there are about a billion books which laud the faith and justify it.

By now you've stopped reading so I feel confident in saying this openly and loudly: yes there is good in the New Testament. There really honestly is. But that GOOD doesn't HAVE to be from the Bible. It's common sense to treat others well in a society. It's inherent in our species to find murder wrong etc. People didn't need Jesus to tell them to be decent just because Jesus did so.

What is problematic is that people make POLICY based on their imagination of what God is and what God wants. That's the problem. And people demand that SCIENCE back off when it touches onto things the religious don't like. It DENIES facts when they don't comport with the FAITH. And it is at the heart of countless fights and wars going on today.

We dislike fake Christians like the owners of Hobby Lobby who leverage their disingenuous belief in Jesus to deny women employees healthcare they don't like and then those same Hobby Lobbians turn around and steal priceless artifacts from around the world for their "Bible museum", or they partake of deceptive sales practices and get hammered by the Atty General of NY. We dislike our tax money going to overtly support religions we don't believe in.

Religion is also useful in human conflict. Not necessary but really useful. Just look at Israel for a moment: we have two people fighting over a plot of dusty land because one of them thinks God gave it to them millennia ago because it's in some book somewhere. And countless evangelicals in the USA DEMAND that the war continue so that it can lead to the END OF THE WORLD and the RETURN OF JESUS.

We make policy based on imagination and wishes. That is why some atheists speak out against religion.

NOT because all religion is ipso facto horrible, but because religion is unique in that it defies questioning and it can overcome "facts" by merit of the demands of the believer.

What's wrong with being 100% against imagination-based policy?

And please don't resort to your usual "Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization". That doesn't make Christianity necessarily TRUE nor necessarily GOOD all the time.

In fact the very fact that Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization is enough to convince one that Christianity carries ZERO weight when people want to do truly horrible and evil things. Often in the explicit name of their religion and their civilization. One cannot look at the modern world and say we are necessarily more moral than the ancients who did exactly the same shit we do.

you know you love it in the cranny.

 

[Cypress]

He brought a non-religious form of Zen to the US. Yes, he was very popular with college age Americans, but I enjoyed his talks. He was very knowledgeable about both Christianity and Zen Buddhism. Zen is often seen as a branch of Buddhism but can also be seen as a philosophy just like the teachings of Jesus can be seen from a purely secular and philosophical sense such as Gnosticism.

He also studied under another famous Zen Buddhist, , D. T. Suzuki, who preceded Watts in spreading Zen to the West.

D.T. Suzuki | Zen Buddhism, Philosopher, Mystic | Britannica

D.T. Suzuki was a Japanese Buddhist scholar and thinker who was the chief interpreter of Zen Buddhism to the West. Suzuki studied at the University of Tokyo. Early in his youth he became a disciple of Sōen, a noted Zen master of the day, and under his guidance attained the experience of satori

www.britannica.com

According to Suzuki, the basic characteristic of the Eastern mentality may be found in its emphasis on nonduality, while the Western spirit, as embodied in modern sciences, is based upon dualistic distinctions. Although this Western spirit is prerequisite to daily conduct, it fails to grasp the ultimate reality, which, in Suzuki’s philosophy, is an object of intuition or experience rather than of logical inquiry and must therefore be approached by religious experience of nonduality, especially as it is expressed in the tradition of Zen Buddhism.

You gotta respect a guy who thinks about more than just money, beer, and pornography.

There's nothing new under the Sun I guess. Over two thousand years later even prominent secularists coopt and borrow the ideas, teachings, and philosophies of Buddhist monks, the avatars of Hinduism, and Jesus Christ.

The guy that was kind of looked upon as a sage in the circles I ran in at college was Edward Abby.

Edward Abbey - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You gotta respect a guy who thinks about more than just money, beer, and pornography.

There's nothing new under the Sun I guess. Over two thousand years later even prominent secularists coopt and borrow the ideas, teachings, and philosophies of Buddhist monks, the avatars of Hinduism, and Jesus Christ.

The guy that was kind of looked upon as a sage in the circles I ran in at college was Edward Abby.

Edward Abbey - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Agreed.

Agreed again. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years so the maxim about "nothing new under the Sun" rings true for our species. Even if "modern thinking man" has only been around for 30,000 years, or even 3,000 (Bronze Age collapse), that's still a lot of time for people to think about and discuss spiritual matters. The study of Comparative Religions reveals the essence of these thousands of years of human thought on spiritual matters.

Abbey is a little extreme, but an interesting personality. I'm not a fan of anarchism since, like communism and socialism, it doesn't work as a primary system but it's certainly a good addition to any system. Married 5 times, died of cirrhosis at age 62 and final words "No Comment"? He sounds fun to be with but not live with. LOL

Homo sapiens sapiens | Characteristics & Facts | Britannica

Homo sapiens sapiens, subspecies of Homo sapiens that consists of the only living members of genus Homo. Traditionally, this subspecies designation was used to separate modern humans from more-archaic members of H. sapiens. It is thought to have evolved sometime between 160,000 and 90,000 years...

www.britannica.com

H. s. sapiens is thought to have evolved sometime between 160,000 and 90,000 years ago in Africa before migrating first to the Middle East and Europe and later to Asia, Australia, and the Americas.

Comparative Religion (Concepts & Beliefs)

Explore the diverse world of faith through Comparative Religion, delving into the rich tapestry of beliefs and practices across cultures.

philosophybuzz.com

By analyzing the origins and similarities between different religious traditions, this field of study offers valuable insights into the fundamental philosophical concerns of religion, such as ethics, metaphysics, and salvation.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed.

Agreed again. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years so the maxim about "nothing new under the Sun" rings true for our species. Even if "modern thinking man" has only been around for 30,000 years, or even 3,000 (Bronze Age collapse), that's still a lot of time for people to think about and discuss spiritual matters. The study of Comparative Religions reveals the essence of these thousands of years of human thought on spiritual matters.

Abbey is a little extreme, but an interesting personality. I'm not a fan of anarchism since, like communism and socialism, it doesn't work as a primary system but it's certainly a good addition to any system. Married 5 times, died of cirrhosis at age 62 and final words "No Comment"? He sounds fun to be with but not live with. LOL

Homo sapiens sapiens | Characteristics & Facts | Britannica

Homo sapiens sapiens, subspecies of Homo sapiens that consists of the only living members of genus Homo. Traditionally, this subspecies designation was used to separate modern humans from more-archaic members of H. sapiens. It is thought to have evolved sometime between 160,000 and 90,000 years...

www.britannica.com

H. s. sapiens is thought to have evolved sometime between 160,000 and 90,000 years ago in Africa before migrating first to the Middle East and Europe and later to Asia, Australia, and the Americas.

Comparative Religion (Concepts & Beliefs)

Explore the diverse world of faith through Comparative Religion, delving into the rich tapestry of beliefs and practices across cultures.

philosophybuzz.com

By analyzing the origins and similarities between different religious traditions, this field of study offers valuable insights into the fundamental philosophical concerns of religion, such as ethics, metaphysics, and salvation.

Agree

Good point on the longevity of homo sapiens.

I think what my college age peers liked about Abby is that he was edgy....he lived life on his own terms, and didn't conform to the expectations of society. That was where the anarchist edge to him came into play.

In hindsight, his philosophy of life was never actually realistic, and he didn't live the kind of life we would call admirable and measured.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Agree

Good point on the longevity of homo sapiens.

I think what my college age peers liked about Abby is that he was edgy....he lived life on his own terms, and didn't conform to the expectations of society. That was where the anarchist edge to him came into play.

In hindsight, his philosophy of life was never actually realistic, and he didn't live the kind of life we would call admirable and measured.

That seems to fit with the maxim about not being a liberal when young means one has no heart and not being a conservative in middle-age means one has no brain. Abby's living "life on his own terms" is the aspiration of most teenagers. Most people outgrow it since they either do it or they don't. Most do. 25 year olds still living at home is an anomaly of our times.

Agreed his philosophy seems more idealistic, as opposed to realistic. Again, common among teenagers but not for the over-30 age group.

Millions of young (and not-so-young) adults still live at home

Facing affordability challenges, the share of 25- to 34-year-olds living with parents has risen after trending down during the pandemic.

www.realestatenews.com

Facing affordability challenges, the share of 25- to 34-year-olds living with parents has risen after trending down during the pandemic.

During the pandemic, more young adults started living on their own, but as rents and home prices rose, that trend appears to have stalled.

About 8.5 million adults between the ages of 25 and 34 were living in the homes of their parents or parents-in-law in 2023, according to a National Association of Home Builders analysis of the most recent U.S. Census data. That's a slight increase from 2022 after declining for five consecutive years.

Trends over time: The financial crisis of 2008 had both immediate and lasting effects on millennials, who were about to embark on college or careers at the time. They found themselves saddled with student loan debt, and over the next decade, they had higher rates of unemployment than any other generation, making it difficult to save up for an apartment or house.

That coincided with a sharp increase in the share of young adults living with parents, which rose from about 15% in 2007 to 22% — or 9.7 million young adults — a decade later.

But in 2019, the percentages began trending back down, with big drops between 2020 and 2022.

While below peak levels seen in 2017 and 2018, the latest numbers remain well above historical levels. In 2000, for example, just 12% of young adults (4.6 million) still lived at home.

 

[Margot]

Numbers 31
Vengeance on the Midianites
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2“Take vengeance on the Midianites for the children of Israel. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people.”
3So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm some of yourselves for war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian. 4A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.”
5So there were recruited from the divisions of Israel one thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 6Then Moses sent them to the war, one thousand from each tribe; he sent them to the war with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, with the holy articles and the signal trumpets in his hand. 7And they warred against the Midianites, just as the Lord commanded Moses, and they killed all the males. 8They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of those who were killed—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. Balaam the son of Beor they also killed with the sword.
9And the children of Israel took the women of Midian captive, with their little ones, and took as spoil all their cattle, all their flocks, and all their goods. 10They also burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts. 11And they took all the spoil and all the booty—of man and beast.

Kinda yesterdays newspaper

 

[Margot]

Your original post seemed like it was directly and unequivocally related to religion and to questioning it's rationality -->

Let me give you a tip,I was given at my Epiphany!
"Steer clear of Organized Religion" ! It will just put you in Spiritual Babel!