Hokulele - kurious_kathy Book Challenge

[Hokulele]

In KK's latest thread, a challenge was made between her and me to read and respond to various articles and books on the Christian faith. Here is the context:

The first step in critical thinking is learning how to evaluate what research is valuable and what isn't. What have you done to confirm that everything Charlie says is true? I notice that he relies almost solely on his own assertions and English translations of the Bible rather than original research.

Have you read anything by prominent biblical scholars? Do you simply swallow and regurgitate any opinion you happen to agree with?

Here is a challenge to you (I offered something similar to Jesus Freak a few years ago). I will read and offer up an analysis of any and/or all the articles on Charlie's website if you read and offer up an analysis of a book of my choice. I have in mind Bart Ehrman's God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer. He comes from a strong evangelistic background, and he isn't an atheist, so you shouldn't have to worry on that account.

Deal? Or aren't you open-minded enough to follow your own advice?

Okay I will get the audio on that book and let you know what I think after I am finished. And here are a few articles on "Evil and Suffering" for a good start to take a look and share your thoughts. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=69

also look at these articles too on "The Existence Of God" http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=46

and the articles pertaining to an evaluation of "The God Who Wasn't There" http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=161&Itemid=128
I would really like it if you would take your time while examaning the evidence and tell me if you can agree on some of it or all perhaps, or just some feedback would be nice.

And as for your above questions well I have been studying a while and in the time I have grown in my understanding I have been able to discern things I believe are important insights others may not have seen clearly yet. It took me a long time to evaluate and examine Catholics and these are some of my observations that I feel it is important to share with especially people who are Catholic.

I will be reading the articles she has linked and commenting on what is in them, and she will be reading the Ehrman book I listed in my post and commenting on it. These comments should be made publically in this thread, and fair use quoting and citing is encouraged.

Everyone and anyone is more than welcome to comment as well, and hopefully others will read the material discussed and add their own opinions. Although I do not plan on being a thread-nanny, it would be appreciated if comments can be restricted to just these works (or any related works or commentaries) and not general Christianity, religion, or what have you. Thanks in advance!

Please note, commentary should be original opinions and not merely quotes or citations of other people's reviews. This is to ensure a proper reading of the primary material is done.

 

[temporalillusion]

Interesting! I've listened to Erhman's book I'll probably listen to it again to re familiarize myself with it.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Interesting! I've listened to Erhman's book I'll probably listen to it again to re familiarize myself with it.

Well I am purchasing the audio book today so hope to be getting back to you very soon with some of my comments and concerns. I know it will be a bit gut wrentching like Joni Erikson'Tada's book "When God Weeps" Have you read that one? She goes into some pretty horrifying things people have gone through too but she has a different view than Erhman does on the suffering people have gone through I'm sure. You may want to read Joni's book too so you can have a more like comparison to Erhmans book? Think about it!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just looking at the first article wherein an effort is made to show that God did not create evil.

Evil is a departure from the way things ought to be.

So, yes?

--God created everything.

--But evil is not a thing.

Evil is simply a departure from God's will.

Therefore we conclude?

--Then, God did not create evil.

That's fine -- if I rap someone sharply on his cranium and he dies, that is a departure from God's will and I am evil. I am responsible.

If a meteorite falls from the sky and raps someone sharply on his cranium and he dies. Who is responsible for the "departure from the way things ought to be" but God? Unless the Universe has some independent will of its own, or God intends such things to happen, OR THIS IS NOT EVIL. But the person is just as dead.
³

 

[Sun Countess]

I've read through a few of Charlie Campbell's fake conversations with atheists, and wonder if he's ever tried any of them out on real people. None of the atheists that he converts seems to have much common sense or conviction. It's like feeding candy to a baby to change the mind of those gullible atheists in Charlie's world!

I loved this one:

CHRISTIAN: “Would you agree that evil is a departure from the way things ought to be?”

SKEPTIC: “Hmmm. I’m not sure...”

CHRISTIAN: “You yourself have looked at the world and have seen the famines and the diseases, and the wars, and have thought this is not the way things ought to be. They should be better. So then, evil is simply a departure (or deviation) from the way things ought to be. Can we agree with that?”

SKEPTIC: “Yes.”

CHRISTIAN: “If there is a way things ought to be, there must be a designed plan (or designed standard) for the universe. So it would logically follow, and correct me if I’m wrong that there cannot be a way that the universe ought to be (a designed plan for the universe) without a designer of the universe.

SKEPTIC: “Why’s that?” or “I disagree”

CHRISTIAN: “But you cannot have a plan, or a way the universe ought to be if the universe is just the result of some random explosion, or accident. If the universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing (which seems foolish, but that is what atheists believe) then there cannot exist a way things are supposed to be. The universe should experience suffering, diseases, death, and we could never say that anything is wrong about those things

What atheist is out there arguing that the actual universe, or life on this planet, which has evolved over time, OUGHT to be a certain way? It is the way that it is. People behave badly and we can try to change that. We can try to change things so that babies and children aren't suffering all over the world. We can try to anticipate natural disasters, but we can't stop them. Hurricanes suck. Tsunamis suck. But they happen. We're not the ones saying that they're happening under the watch of a loving god!

If a believer thinks that the universe OUGHT to be a certain way, but that it isn't because the creator of the whole darn thing gave us free will, and then the first two people exercised that free will in a way he found displeasing, forcing him to make all of us suffer because of it, then don't turn that argument around into proof of ID!

Every article could be turned into a rousing game of Name that Fallacy!

 

[Steelmage]

Just looking at the first article wherein an effort is made to show that God did not create evil.



That's fine -- if I rap someone sharply on his cranium and he dies, that is a departure from God's will and I am evil. I am responsible.

If a meteorite falls from the sky and raps someone sharply on his cranium and he dies. Who is responsible for the "departure from the way things ought to be" but God? Unless the Universe has some independent will of its own, or God intends such things to happen, OR THIS IS NOT EVIL. But the person is just as dead.
³

To me, evil is an intent usually to harm others for pleasure or self gain. A meteor does not have any of these properties. So it is being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Bob Klase]

CHRISTIAN: “Would you agree that evil is a departure from the way things ought to be?”

SKEPTIC: “Hmmm. I’m not sure...”

CHRISTIAN: “You yourself have looked at the world and have seen the famines and the diseases, and the wars, and have thought this is not the way things ought to be. They should be better. So then, evil is simply a departure (or deviation) from the way things ought to be. Can we agree with that?”

SKEPTIC: “Yes.”

CHRISTIAN: “If there is a way things ought to be, there must be a designed plan (or designed standard) for the universe. So it would logically follow, and correct me if I’m wrong that there cannot be a way that the universe ought to be (a designed plan for the universe) without a designer of the universe.

It's already been noted that Charlie seems to think that "the way we'd like things to be" is exactly the same thing as "the way things ought to be". But the first does not imply a designer and is a more accurate phrase than second.

However, assume for a minute that there is a designer god and he has a plan for "the way things ought to be". Why should we assume that the plan failed? Maybe designer god is an evil sadistic bastard and famines, diseases, and wars are all part of his plan? Maybe we're all just characters in his 3D video game and suffering is part of his entertainment.

That makes just as much sense as saying that puny humans managed to screw up an all-power designer god's plan. Being an eternal god would probably drive you insane after trillions of centuries sitting around trying to figure out what you can create and how to kill it after you've created it.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, I am reading the first article KK linked and here are my impressions:

The article waffles between evil, pain, and suffering. The author seems to assume that the three concepts are interchangeable, and never considers the idea of intent (as several posters here have already mentioned).

In the very first section, the author addresses the article to two different groups, skeptics, and those who are actually suffering. For the people who are currently experiencing pain and suffering, he suggests potential evangelists to the following:

We need to...

--Enter into their pain.​

--Listen to them.
--Be there for them.
--Pray for them.
--Love them.
--Encourage them with reminders of God’s love and faithfulness
--and so on.

Hmm, nothing about actually helping those people. That sounds rather, er, evil.​

After that, he begins to address the skeptics with a list of questions and answers. I will address each one here:​

1) “If God is the creator of everything, as you Christians suggest, and evil is something, then how can you say that God is not the one responsible for the existence of evil?”​

His answer has already been quoted by a few posters, but basically he avoids the issue and states that evil isn't "something" and so claims that God could not create it. Well, God thinks he did:​

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

Which, of course, leads to...​

2) “How can you say that God is not directly responsible for the origin of evil, when God says in Isaiah 45:7, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things”? It seems pretty clear that God did create evil!!”​

The author's answer is that the word translated in the King James Version of the bible really should be translated as "calamity", not "evil".​

First, that pretty much throws the KJV under the bus (KK, you might want to dispose of your copy, as apparently it isn't correct). Secondly, notice how the argument shifts away from pain and suffering to focus directly on the specific word "evil". Even if God isn't responsible for evil per se, he is clearly responsible for suffering (such as the meteorites discussed by other posters).​

3) “The Bible says that everything God made was good. But good creatures cannot do that which is evil. Yet, God’s good creatures did do that which is evil. Therefore the Bible’s account of creation can’t be true.”​

The author's answer is the pat "well, free will trumps good".​

Hmm, sounds like the creation of free will is basically the creation of evil. (And I do not want to start another billion post thread about determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism at this point. Let's just pretend that there really is such a thing as free will as Charlie describes it, OK?)​

And of course, this leads to...​

4) “Well, God is still to blame. He’s the one who made the people with free will.”​

The author's answer is that free will is just a tool, and God shouldn't be blamed for what people do with that tool. To quote:​

“If somebody stabs somebody with a knife, who is to blame, the knife company [i.e. God] who made the knife or the man who did the stabbing?"

The fault lies with the person who misused the knife.​

If the knife company knew in advance that the knife would be used to kill someone, and handed that knife over with a pat on the back and directions on exactly how and where to stab someone, yes, they would be blamed. It's that whole omniscient bit that makes this argument fall down.

5) “If the evil and suffering originated with our misuse of freedom, why didn’t God just create a world without human freedom?”​

The author claims free will is required as love can only be a choice made freely, and that choice is between love and hate.​

Here I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, we have the classic false dilemma. Why are the only options love and hate? This sounds like a nasty accusation that atheists secretly hate God, simply because atheists do not love God.​

There are options other than love and hate!

​

In addition, does anyone really choose to love or hate? Do you just wake up one morning and think, "Yeah, he is kinda cute and makes good French Toast, I think I will love him."?​

Both love and hate generally arise from a complex mixture of biological impulses most of which seem to be triggered by a history with someone/thing. I don't love (or hate) any random person/animal/zuccini that crosses my path, my love (or hate) has to be earned.​

The Christian God certainly has done nothing in that direction, so I have neither love nor hate for it. And this wasn't a deliberate choice.​

Which leads to my favorite quote in this whole article:​

A billion robots that are programmed to say “I love you God” would be absolutely meaningless to God.

So then what the heck is Heaven supposed to be about?​

And finally...​

7) “How could an all-good God allow so much suffering, for which there is no good purpose?”​

The author then goes on to state that may be a purpose to suffering, and lists them.​

Here is the strange thing, I completely agree with him that pain and suffering can and do serve a purpose. Of course, the reasons I would list are different from those Charlie lists, and has much to do with evolution (Duh, things that suffer pain learn that placing your head in a camp fire is a Bad Idea and stand a better chance of living to a reproductive age.).​

The odd thing is, the author has now shifted completely away from the problem of evil and back to simple pain and suffering.​

***​

So to summarize, the author mixes, confuses, and conflates the terms evil (which implies intent), pain, and suffering when it best serves his argument. I do not find any of the arguments convincing as to the existence of God, and certainly not convincing as to God's "goodness" even should he/it exist. I also find it somewhat disturbing that the entire article seems to be an apologetic for the existence of evil, pain, and suffering, and offers no good suggestions or discussion on how to alleviate any of the above, other than "love God" and maybe he/it will make it up to you sometime in an undetermined future.​

Buddhism and Secular Humanism do a far better job in both explaining why there is pain and suffering ("Life Isn't Fair"), and in offering ways and means to decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world that have measureable results.​

I will tackle the next article in KK's list in a day or two.​

 

[Steelmage]

I like the South Park episode called Kenny Dies, where Chef tells Stan that god causes suffering so he can drink the tears of our misery and each tear drop makes god stronger. Well it might make for a better arguement.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Just looking at the first article wherein an effort is made to show that God did not create evil.



That's fine -- if I rap someone sharply on his cranium and he dies, that is a departure from God's will and I am evil. I am responsible.

If a meteorite falls from the sky and raps someone sharply on his cranium and he dies. Who is responsible for the "departure from the way things ought to be" but God? Unless the Universe has some independent will of its own, or God intends such things to happen, OR THIS IS NOT EVIL. But the person is just as dead.
³

Considering that the bible states that god makes evils, great calamities, and war? I'm afraid his analysis doesn't even stand up to human-caused evil in that case. Some interpretations of the bible have an easier time getting around the problem of evil than others, but it's a problem without a resolution IMO.

Calvinists, for instance, assert that humanity has no free will and that God causes all actions according to His will. This essentially means, when you follow it to its logical conclusion, that nothing is evil in the universe except God. He wills the rapist to rape, the warmonger to make war, the murderer to murder, and the child molester to molest children. For Calvinists, the problem of evil is much more apparent. I've had this discussion before with Calvinists and they merely attempt to weasel their way out of the debate using a form of the Loki's Wager fallacy. Typically they assert that God makes evils but is not evil himself in the way that God makes mice and is not himself a mouse. However, you don't "make" evils in the sense that you make brownies you cause them through your actions. The Calvinist God, through his actions, is evil because he performs evils, causes pain and suffering and apparently for nothing more than his own personal glory. IMO, that is why their argument is a form of Loki's Wager, they're using the term "make" loosely and conflating it with literal creation rather than causation.

Concerning the free will argument, a rather popular quote comes to mind. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." What we have with the free will argument is a god willing to do nothing. Many of you would consider my actions cowardly or even evil if I saw a man raping a woman and, despite being armed or otherwise physically larger than her assailant, and still did nothing to help. And no one would consider it a particularly valid argument if I stated that I didn't want to interfere with his free will.

The argument that we have evil because of deviation in God's plan is invalid as well. If I set X into motion and intend it to go a certain way but do not interfere when Y and Z occur then I'm responsible for whatever happens after I observe the deviations from what I intended to happen. If by interfering with X I can prevent the pain and suffering of many people but choose not to do so I am responsible for Y and Z. Likewise God is responsible for upkeep on his plan, if deviations from it cause evil than He is required to act in order to stop it. If he chooses not to then it is his fault, end of story.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

To me, evil is an intent usually to harm others for pleasure or self gain. A meteor does not have any of these properties. So it is being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That, of course, is a different definition.

 

[I Ratant]

To me, evil is an intent usually to harm others for pleasure or self gain. A meteor does not have any of these properties. So it is being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

.
The meteor is following the nature of the meteor, to fall to earth, its natural resting place.
The injured party OTOH, has the free will to NOT be where the meteor impacts.
Or does he?
God said... "Joe, whyncha go over here and stand around for awhile.
No reason.
Don't have any smiting on my mind.
It's just a suggestion.
Ignore it if you wish."

 

[kurious_kathy]

It's already been noted that Charlie seems to think that "the way we'd like things to be" is exactly the same thing as "the way things ought to be". But the first does not imply a designer and is a more accurate phrase than second.

However, assume for a minute that there is a designer god and he has a plan for "the way things ought to be". Why should we assume that the plan failed? Maybe designer god is an evil sadistic bastard and famines, diseases, and wars are all part of his plan? Maybe we're all just characters in his 3D video game and suffering is part of his entertainment.

That makes just as much sense as saying that puny humans managed to screw up an all-power designer god's plan. Being an eternal god would probably drive you insane after trillions of centuries sitting around trying to figure out what you can create and how to kill it after you've created it.

But did you ever really look at all Jesus suffered to die in our place? He is not the one that deserved that!

 

[kurious_kathy]

Sorry Hokulele I ran into a couple snags this weekend so I just downloaded that book today so I will need a couple more days to comment.

As for your above post I'll get back to you soon but it's late and I must get some rest for now. I would just like you to know when I went to my womans Bible study group tonight they prayed for me and even though I cried it helped as I know God hears his saints when we pray together.
Please do not undermine the power of prayer as it is powerful and this whole world is hurting so we can use a lot more of it. I believe if we as a nation would get down on our knees and seek God he would indeed hear us and heal our land.

 

[Obsequious]

But did you ever really look at all Jesus suffered to die in our place? He is not the one that deserved that!

What does this have to do with the post you quoted from Bob Klase? He does not mention Jesus.

Please explain how your post relates to what you quoted. Thank you.

 

[joobz]

But did you ever really look at all Jesus suffered to die in our place? He is not the one that deserved that!

With all respect to Hokulele, I wish to simply quote my response to this view that I made in the other thread.

KK, This is my take on Jesus' suffering argument.

I see you just moved into the neighborhood. Well, you see, there's some things you should know. I'm here for you. I can get and do anything I want arround here. If you need something, don't be afraid to ask. I have access to many things and nothing happens without my say so.

Now, I'm a peaceful, loving man, but you see... Some people here, aren't so nice. Well, I have the power to keep these guys from messing you with, but you'll have to well. You see, I've already had to sacrifice some of my time protecting you. So, I think it only fair that you provide me with some compensation in return. It's a nominal amount. consider it a minor tithe. Nothing major. Just a sign of respect you know? If you can keep me happy with those signs of respect, than I'll keep these goons from messing with you ever. However, If you choose to not give the respect expected, well I can't be responsible for what happens, now can I?

Now now, don't go crying about how and what is fair. I know you didn't agree to this arrangement originally. I know you hadn't been here when I sacrificed myself for you. But what's done is done, and you are responsible for these things anyway. So. our relationship really relies on you, Doesn't it? You can either play ball and be my friend, or you can choose to disrespect me. Free will being what it is, I really hope you choose the respect road, as that's much easier on you.

Capiche?

 

[Alareth]

But did you ever really look at all Jesus suffered to die in our place? He is not the one that deserved that!

Have you ever read your Bible? That was the very reason for his existence. He was supposedly created and placed on Earth specifically to suffer and die.

Your god is a sadomasochist.

 

[Paulhoff]

But did you ever really look at all Jesus suffered to die in our place?

In our place, good, I don't have to die now.

Paul

 

[Bob Klase]

But did you ever really look at all Jesus suffered to die in our place? He is not the one that deserved that!

Jesus (even assuming that he was a real person, and that he was actually tortured and crucified) suffered for 3 days. Millions of people have suffered much worse and for much longer- many people suffered much worse and much longer at the hands of the Catholic church. POW's in wars have suffered much worse and much longer. And of course Jesus knew it would only be a couple days and then he'd come back to life- doesn't really seem that significant compared to the suffering of so many others, much of it caused in his name.

Now, if you'd care to address anything that I actually wrote....

 

[Bob Klase]

I see you just moved into the neighborhood. Well, you see, there's some things you should know. I'm here for you. I can get and do anything I want arround here. If you need something, don't be afraid to ask. I have access to many things and nothing happens without my say so.

Now, I'm a peaceful, loving man, but you see... Some people here, aren't so nice. Well, I have the power to keep these guys from messing you with, but you'll have to well. You see, I've already had to sacrifice some of my time protecting you. So, I think it only fair that you provide me with some compensation in return. It's a nominal amount. consider it a minor tithe. Nothing major. Just a sign of respect you know? If you can keep me happy with those signs of respect, than I'll keep these goons from messing with you ever. However, If you choose to not give the respect expected, well I can't be responsible for what happens, now can I?

Now now, don't go crying about how and what is fair. I know you didn't agree to this arrangement originally. I know you hadn't been here when I sacrificed myself for you. But what's done is done, and you are responsible for these things anyway. So. our relationship really relies on you, Doesn't it? You can either play ball and be my friend, or you can choose to disrespect me. Free will being what it is, I really hope you choose the respect road, as that's much easier on you.

So Jesus was the original Mafia.