Interesting survey results...

[Gulliamo]

I am surpised to see "I don't believe in God" is even an option on an ABC poll. This is the same station that plays Rush and Sean.

http://www.wabcradio.com/


How could a kind and benevolent God allow the Tsunami?

God did not cause it, but allowed it, so man could show compassion. 3%
God caused the Tsunami to punish the people there. 5%
We will never know why bad things happen, just that God will help us. 90%
God has turned his back on us. This is only the beginning. 0%
I don't believe in God. This was just a natural disaster. 2%
We actually got a whopping 2%!

http://www.wabcradio.com/survey/default.asp

 

[The GM]

As I have said many times during my current personal drama, sometimes $#!+ just happens for no other reason than sometimes $#!+ happens. Is it the thumb of God? Was it the Devil out to make people suffer? Who knows? Unless some evidence surfaces to show this event to be divine in origin, I'm going with the aforementioned reasoning.

Man, am I boring.

 

[KelvinG]

I'm disappointed that "God has turned his back on us. This is only the beginning" got 0%.
That one certainly sounds the most exciting.

 

[DarkMagician]

Whoo! 2%!

 

[Batman Jr.]

Some of the most reputable religious affiliation studies have returned figures much higher than you might think for the unaffiliated, though that category doesn't necessarily limit itself to non-theists. A significant portion of the group may just practice their religion independently of any kind of organization. The ARIS survey of The Graduate Center of CUNY, for example, in 2001 tallied the percentage of the surveyed that considered themselves to have "no religion" as being 14.1%! It's a long way off from the ideal, but we should still count ourselves as being lucky for even that much.

 

[c4ts]

90% are content not knowing why. I take it we can't all be philosophers.

Where is the "God doesn't give a damn about humanity, he's way too important for that!" option? If you did suppose the existance of God, that would have been a possibility.

 

[LucyR]

Where is the "I can't believe this question is even being asked in an industrialized, more or less enlightened, and otherwise progressive nation? " option?

 

[c4ts]

Where is the "I can't believe this question is even being asked in an industrialized, more or less enlightened, and otherwise progressive nation? " option?

Nowhere in sight, because all that is meaningless since we are, for the most part, a collection of superstitious barbarians who play at sophistication to generate the illusion of accomplishment.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I am surpised to see "I don't believe in God" is even an option on an ABC poll. This is the same station that plays Rush and Sean.

http://www.wabcradio.com/


How could a kind and benevolent God allow the Tsunami?

God did not cause it, but allowed it, so man could show compassion. 3%
God caused the Tsunami to punish the people there. 5%
We will never know why bad things happen, just that God will help us. 90%
God has turned his back on us. This is only the beginning. 0%
I don't believe in God. This was just a natural disaster. 2%
We actually got a whopping 2%!

http://www.wabcradio.com/survey/default.asp

The Tsunami happened because of physical laws. Physical laws exist so that we can negotiate and manipulate the environment. We need to help ourselves. I really don't believe in a type of "God" who intervenes in physical laws. We get put in this world to undergo the extremes of emotions which are necessary for soul development. If God intervened in the world all the time so we experienced no mental or physical pain, and maybe experienced a permanent maximum logically possible happiness, this would mean that there would be no physical laws, and moreover, it certainly wouldn't seem to me to facilitate soul development!

None of the options are appropriate, but if I had to go for one it would be the first one i.e God did not cause it, but allowed it, so man could show compassion. 3%

 

[Gulliamo]

Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

If God intervened in the world all the time so we experienced no mental or physical pain, and maybe experienced a permanent maximum logically possible happiness, this would mean that there would be no physical laws,

If god truly had "infinite" power then would it not be reasonable to assume that god could intervene without messing up the laws of physics?

and moreover, it certainly wouldn't seem to me to facilitate soul development!

I'll give you credit, this is one of the few, well thought out, answers I have heard to the question, "Why does god let bad things happen to good people?" Albeit this would be one sick, twisted god. At least that is a plausible answer. Somewhat akin to the parent who would let their child touch a candle so as to facilitate their learning of "hot things" but who would also let their child douse themselves with gasoline to learn the same lesson.

 

[Yahweh]

If you disable cookies, you can vote multiple times. I dont know about you, but I'm voting for "God has turned his back on us".

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If you disable cookies, you can vote multiple times. I dont know about you, but I'm voting for "God has turned his back on us".

Uhhh.. I don't think you are eligible to participate in this pole, since you have an inside source and know the correct answer..

 

[ceo_esq]

90% are content not knowing why. I take it we can't all be philosophers.

Perhaps you're reading too much into their answer. I don't think one can deduce that attitude from the answer chosen by those 90% any more (or less) than one can deduce it from the answer "I don't believe in God. This was just a natural disaster."

In fact, arguably one can discern in the 2% answer at least a whiff of an unphilosophical lack of concern with the nature, or even the existence, of a "why".

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

None of the options are appropriate, but if I had to go for one it would be the first one i.e God did not cause it, but allowed it, so man could show compassion. 3%

Explain the moral difference between :


1. Having the power to end suffering and not doing so.

and

2. Causing suffering.


I'll donate $100 the Tsunami disaster relief fund of your choice, if in a subsequant poll, the majority of JREF members who vote, feel that you have presented a logical and acceptable explanation...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

Explain the moral difference between :


1. Having the power to end suffering and not doing so.

and

2. Causing suffering.


I'll donate $100 the Tsunami disaster relief fund of your choice, if in a subsequant poll, the majority of JREF members who vote, feel that you have presented a logical and acceptable explanation...

First of all I don't believe in a personal God, I believe in an impersonal one. I'm vastly more sympathetic to Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism, than I am to Christianity. This is why I said that none of the options are appropriate for me to choose.

Be that as it may, let's assume that there exists a personal God who has concern for our existence. Now to directly cause suffering by intervening in the world i.e. interfering in the physical laws of nature, reveals a direct intention to cause such suffering. I assume that this much is uncontroversial. However, to create a world which changes according to physical laws of nature, and to have the intention of never interfering in such physical laws even though he is capable of doing so, is of quite a differing order. One might argue that God has the intention of creating a world which operates according to physical laws in order that finite creatures like ourselves can discern the patterns, and manipulate the environment accordingly by an understanding of these patterns. Now if God continually interferes with his own physical laws, so that no one ever dies (at least before their time), no one ever suffers any pain, either physical or mental, no one can ever hurt each other then this would scarcely be the type of world which facilitates "soul making"!. You seem to be assuming that the whole purpose of the Universe, the whole purpose of our existence, is to endure a perpetual state of bliss, maybe something like a permanent Christmas morning as we felt when we were kids. I do not agree that this is the purpose of existence.

Now, if you were to argue that physical laws should be different from what they actually are so that there is less pain and suffering, then maybe this can be so argued. You would need to argue that physical laws could be just as useful, but somehow result in less pain and suffering, and still be no less useful for the development of our souls. Maybe you can do that, I don't know

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

First of all I don't believe in a personal God, I believe in an impersonal one. I'm vastly more sympathetic to Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism, than I am to Christianity. This is why I said that none of the options are appropriate for me to choose.

...........................................

Now if God continually interferes with his own physical laws, so that no one ever dies (at least before their time), no one ever suffers any pain, either physical or mental, no one can ever hurt each other then this would scarcely be the type of world which facilitates "soul making"!. You seem to be assuming that the whole purpose of the Universe, the whole purpose of our existence, is to endure a perpetual state of bliss, maybe something like a permanent Christmas morning as we felt when we were kids. I do not agree that this is the purpose of existence.

Neither do I ...

I was just making the point that many Christians ( and other religious types as well ), have no problem with a God who lets innocents suffer, supposedly for the achievement of some higher purpose..

If it was a matter of putting ( physical ) laws in place, then making them off limits; this doesn't jive with the concept of Heaven and Hell where the laws do not appear to apply..

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

Explain the moral difference between :


1. Having the power to end suffering and not doing so.

and

2. Causing suffering.

I've got a book in front of me called "A Companion to Ethics", and it includes a section describing the difference between killing people and letting them die. It's too long to type up an excerpt, but one of the distinctions seems to emphasize a difference between "making happen" and "letting happen", so that there are limits on a person's duties and moral responsibilities. The argument runs something along the lines of "it requires little or no effort to refrain from killing anyone, it usually requires effort to save a person".

It would be absurd to assume that failing to aid starving Africans is the moral equivalent to sending them poison, so we are more (or differently) responsible for the deaths of people we kill than those we fail to save.

All things being equal, killing a person is worse than allowing them to die. At least, that is true for humans. Perhaps things are different when your omnipotence prevents the idea of "effort" from ever applying to you...

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

All things being equal, killing a person is worse than allowing them to die. At least, that is true for humans. Perhaps things are different when your omnipotence prevents the idea of "effort" from ever applying to you...

And this is of course the crux of the matter. It's not as simple as "what's the difference between killing someone and letting them die." For an omnipotent God, it is an issue of killing someone or letting them die when it would not require a significant effort to save them?

There was a letter in the local paper again recently about "Don't blame God for bad things that happen" yadda, yadda, yadda. Of course, the simple response is, we'll stop blaming God as soon as the believers stop crediting him for anything that is remotely good, including winning a football game or saving their daughter from boulder that demolished the car (who sent the boulder in the first place?)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

The argument runs something along the lines of "it requires little or no effort to refrain from killing anyone, it usually requires effort to save a person".

The author obviously doesn't work for my boss..



So, not being in the mood to give a little CPR, makes everything O.K. ?




Seriously, pgwenthold ( thanks ) shares the point I would have made..

We are talking about people who rationalize the immoral behavior of a supposedly omnipotent God..

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting survey results...

The author obviously doesn't work for my boss..




Seriously, pgwenthold ( thanks ) shares the point I would have made..

We are talking about people who rationalize the immoral behavior of a supposedly omnipotent God..

I have said it many times and it is worth repeating: keep an eye out for excuses for God that take away omnipotence. It is an extremely common tactic for apologists.

A good example is any comparison between what God can do and how humans handle the situation. For example, the old "you let your child burn themselves on the stove to teach them it is hot" and "you let your child tip their bike while they are learning how to ride" lines are very common.

Of course, if I could teach my child to not touch a hot stove without having them burn their fingers, I would certainly do it. God is omnipotent. He can. The same goes for bikes, and, in fact, that is why training wheels were invented.