Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Over at WEIT, reader Ben Goren asks: “Why doesn’t Jesus call 911?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at Why Evolution Is True, New Atheist Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a letter he received from one of his regular readers, Ben Goren, regarding a major theological flaw which (he claims) undermines not only Christianity, but any religion that worships a God (or gods) who is both omniscient and good: why doesn’t such a being (or beings) assist the police, firefighters and ambulance workers by calling 911 whenever someone is in danger? Goren writes:

Imagine you find yourself in one of any number of calamitous situations — somebody you’re with clutches her chest in pain and falls to the floor; you hear, coming from the far end of a dark alley, the voice of a frightened old man crying for help; a tree falls as you’re driving down a lonely road, missing you but smashing the car following you.

In all such cases, the very first thing you — or anybody else — would do is call 9-1-1…

Now, imagine that it’s not just a single incident you observed and yet stood silently by, but every such case everywhere. Never mind the fact that you’d be a pervert for looking in everybody’s bedroom windows, but to look in a bedroom window, see a lit cigarette fall from sleepy fingers and catch the curtains on fire and then not call 9-1-1 to get the firefighters on the scene before the baby in the crib burns to death in uncomprehending screaming agony, well, that would go unimaginably far beyond mere perversion and move solidly into the worst brand of criminal psychopathy…

And that, at last, brings us to the question that nobody from any religion can satisfactorily answer — at least, not if at least one of its gods (however many there are) has enough awareness and ability to answer the simplest of prayers — or, for that matter, merely has a cellphone and the compassionate instincts of even a young child.

Why doesn’t Jesus ever call 9-1-1?

Goren is not impressed with theologians who respond by making “obfuscatory excuses” and by raising “obscure questions of ‘freedom of the will’ or placing the blame on an ancient ancestral maternal progenitor who procured culinary counseling from a speaking serpent.” Still less is he impressed by the claim that God dispenses justice in the hereafter – “as if post-mortem divine retribution is of any help to the person bleeding out by the side of the road after running into a falling tree, or of any comfort to the umpteenth victim of a serial criminal who enjoys continued success despite the desperate efforts of investigators hoping for a lead or even the slightest hint of a clue.”

Goren is particularly incensed at crimes committed by religious leaders against innocent members of their own flock – for instance, crimes such as child abuse. Goren expresses his astonishment at the fact that “not once in all of history has any deity ever alerted any civil authority to the misdeeds of one of its official representatives.” Crimes such as clerical child abuse, which are committed by God’s “official representatives,” would surely warrant a Divine telephone call to emergency assistance, argues Goren.

In this short post, I’m not going to put forward an answer to Ben Goren’s question: why doesn’t Jesus (or God) call 911? Instead, I’d like to identify a few background assumptions that Goren makes, in his argument. Remember that if even one of these assumptions turns put to be incorrect, then Goren’s argument collapses:

(i) the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;

(ii) the assumption that, if God is responsible for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress, He is directly responsible, and that He cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel;

(iii) the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress;

(iv) the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;

(v) the assumption that anyone – in particular, anyone on 911 – would be capable of hearing the voice of God, if He wanted to leave an important message for them.

Finally, here are a few brief comments of mine regarding these “background assumptions” that Goren makes:

(i) God is not a mere passerby, but the very Author of our being. On the one hand, this fact increases His obligation towards individuals in distress: since He is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, God is obliged to dispense perfect justice. But on the other hand, the fact that God maintains everyone – good and bad alike – in existence may also prevent Him from dispensing justice now. (Think of the parable of the wheat and the tares.) Goren has not explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right away. As far as I can tell, the only obligation that God has towards suffering individuals here and now is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. However, we should always bear in mind that what appears to be “irreparable damage” to us, may not appear so to God;

(ii) if God has delegated the responsibility for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress to some angel (or some other super-human intelligence), then we have to consider the possibility that this intelligence – call it Lucifer if you like – has “gone rogue” and is working to sabotage God’s original plan;

(iii) if God’s always alerting 9-1-1 whenever someone is in distress would interfere with the moral development of the human race as a whole (e.g. by making them apathetic about assisting crime victims, leading to a hardening of people’s hearts towards suffering individuals), then it is at least arguable that God’s obligation not to hinder the moral development of the human race as a whole would over-ride His obligation to help those individuals who are in distress;

(iv) it is entirely possible that God, after revealing His existence to the first human beings at the dawn of human history, then asked them, as representatives of the human race as a whole, how much Divine assistance they would like to receive in the future. And it is entirely possible that these “privileged” human beings opted for little or no Divine intervention, thinking that it would give them more personal freedom and enable them to escape from the suffocating embrace (as they saw it) of a Deity Who loved them too much. It’s also entirely possible that God may have promised to comply with their decision, which would “tie His hands” until the end of human history, insofar as He cannot break a promise;

(v) finally, it may turn out to be the case that our ability to hear a message from God depends on our spiritual condition, and that bad or spiritually lukewarm people are simply incapable of hearing detailed 911 messages from the Almighty, due to their poor relationship with God. In that case, it would be our fault, not God’s, that we don’t receive 911 calls from Him, about individuals in distress.

Well, that’s about all I want to say, in response to Ben Goren’s question. The ball is now in his court.

Meanwhile, what do readers think?

Comments
An interesting question, Box, and here's a quick answer: The difference I see is that a living organism is functioning for the sake of itself - it is breathing, digesting, moving, etc. in order to keep on living. It has an internal, self-sufficient purpose - it is acting for the benefit of itself. The watch is not like that. And a quick question for you. Does the bird, and perhaps all living things, have "something over and beyond the physical processes which constitute it"? Or is only human beings to which that would apply? We can discuss later, but a quick answer would be something for me to be thinking about.Aleta
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
StephenB, All the purported "virtues" you want to ascribe to "agape love" are there by understanding "love" and "Morality" separately, for all the reasons I've already given. Love is a good thing to be promoted to the extent anyone can experience it, as love is not only a good in of itself, but also increases moral behavior. So we can have moral reasons for promoting love. And morality supplies us with reasons for acting "good" even when we do not love. All the purported virtues you are trying to claim for your "agape love" are there with my description. EXCEPT my description does not make the mistake of entangling moral prescription WITH love and entailing peril and evil as being necessary FOR LOVE. This is where you went off the rails, and haven't gotten back on. On my understanding, if I'm experiencing love just by being with my family, that is a completely legitimate concept of love - one accepted by the majority of people. And IF my family is put in peril, both my love and my understanding of morality will compel me to sacrifice for their safety if necessary. This allows for just the type of moral behaviour you want to claim. And it also is CONSISTANT with our everyday moral intuitions, and moral reasoning. Whereas your conception takes the FURTHER implication that sacrifice/peril/evil are NECESSARY for love - that it MUST be demonstrated in such situations in order to be "real" love. THIS, as I've shown when applied to my family situation, is based on no principle you have been able to actually establish. When it is tested against our morality for consistency, as in my family example, it results in contradicting what we'd actually, morally accept. It suggests my wife and child MUST be put in peril or my love is not demonstrable or genuine. And that is monstrous. Not to mention you still are unable to answer the free will arguments we've given. You claim it's a contradiction for God to grant free will, but then interfere with it. But I have pointed out that it's logically possible for God to create nobler creatures with free will whose nature it is to choose The Good far more reliably than we do. You replied God did this, but that now we aren't so noble. But never resolved that contradiction - why did noble creatures with the nature of choosing the good choose to sin, and if so how does this make sense of their nature not to sin???? You also fail to answer the problem of heaven. In heaven apparently we are morally relevant beings who have free will but who don't sin. God Himself is also this way. Therefore free will is NOT logically necessary for goodness. You can't say "but it IS necessary to pass the test to get into heaven" but you can't establish that as anything but an arbitrary rule because heaven itself UNDERMINES any claim to the necessity of evil for free will. I don't expect you to provide a cogent answer anytime soon; I've seen Christians try in every way possible and never get there. (I'm with Ben, fading out...my last night here...)Vaal
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Aleta, thank you for your reply and questions. I will address them, but I probably won't have time until Sunday. One quick question though: A watch also has parts working "subservient to the whole". However do we agree that in reality there "is" no whole? When we speak of a watch as an entity we do this metaphorically, right? Now my question: is there any difference between a watch and an organism in this sense? Is an organism something else than a watch with respect to being a "whole"? What do you think?Box
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
But worse, it's just a flat out naiveté about human psychology to think this way. The scientific method arose because NO ONE IS UNIMPEACHABLE when it comes to our beliefs or claims. We know that biased thinking is so ingrained that the most honest scientist in the world can and will bias the results if that bias isn't accounted for. And this is the other thing you have just not addressed: the vast gulf between understanding and accepting the necessary skeptical methods of science when applied to empirical claims, especially incredible hypotheses that would alter our understanding of reality! You know very well the case you try to present to establish levitation would fail the crucibles of science MISERABLY. On St. Joseph's miracles you'd claimed: "The probability that they were all hallucinating is infinitesimal – much lower than the alleged improbability of a miracle (which, for a cosmos in which 10^120 events have taken place, could not be any lower than 1 in 10^120, on Laplace’s sunrise argument.)" and St. Joseph’s canonization, comprise 13 volumes, which are kept in the Vatican Library. For Catholics, this is our star exhibit. The evidence is as clear-cut as you could possibly get. Great, and you'll be presenting your case to the scientific community for scrutiny…when? No one is holding his breath on this. Because, if you are rational, you know it will fail to be ratified. You could cry "they are biased against my hypothesis" when it happens…and join every other kook who said the same thing when their extraordinary claims didn't pass the muster. And isn't a coincidence that it's the Catholic Church "documenting and ratifying" catholic miracles. Like the Mulsim's document theirs, the Mormon's theirs, the Hindus theirs, the Indian Mystic's theirs, the astrologers theirs, the homeopaths theirs….and on and on. Science has taught us that empirical claims we want to be confident about can not just past parochial, biased investigation: it has to pass the crucible of SKEPTICAL investigation, using hypothesis testing, directly accessible empirical evidence, results repeatable by other groups employing the same skeptical method, etc. We can't demand this for hypotheses like Einstein's, or the Higgs Boson, or drug therapies…and then just make some big exception for your Catholic Miracles, lowering the bar to accept resurrections, levitations etc. This is wildly inconsistent and irrational. And that's where I'll end my input here. Thanks again for hosting this dialogue.Vaal
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Box, let's take your questions in two parts: first the "organism as a whole" You write,
Please, define “whole organism” under materialism/physicalism. Are the parts of the organism functionally subservient to the interests of the “whole organism”, as you suggest? Is “the whole organism” something over and beyond the physical processes which constitute it? If so, what is it? If not, then there is nothing but parts that cannot possibly “work together in the interests of the whole organism” because there is no such thing. IOW if there is no whole that causes the parts to behave as they do, then the functional subservience of the parts has no explanation in the whole.
"Whole organism just means the totality of my biological being, yes the parts are subservient to the whole (but not in the way you imply in your last sentence), and no, there is nothing beyond physical processes. This is standard biology. Let's think of a simpler animal - say a bird (although we could easily pick something much simpler than that). The various parts of the bird work together in order for the bird to go about the business of being a bird: to find food, to reproduce and raise young, to escape predators, etc. Some of that occurs automatically: the heart beats, the lungs process oxygen, the gut digests food. Some of that includes a perceptual component: the bird sees an insect and many parts of the bird work respond together to try to catch the insect. All this works together to make the bird the unique bird that it is. It is a "whole organism." Question #1. Is it not true that the parts are working together here for the benefit of the bird? Is not the bird a "whole organism" in which and for which the parts work together to accomplish the major tasks of being alive as a bird? How do you see it? Question #2. Does the bird have something beyond physical processes going on it? Or is a bird purely material? What do you think? Interestingly, you say "[the] parts that cannot possibly “work together in the interests of the whole organism” because there is no such thing. IOW if there is no whole that causes the parts to behave as they do, then the functional subservience of the parts has no explanation in the whole." What I gather is your view is that there is something, the whole, that is somehow separate from the parts and causes the parts to function for the benefit of the whole. That doesn't seem to me to need to be the case. The whole is what it is because of the way all the parts work together, but there is no extra-material entity, the whole, that makes the parts do that. The bird is the sum of its parts, each contributing to the existence of a unified, distinct being - that particular bird. Does any of this make sense to you? What parts do you or do you not agree with?Aleta
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
As I said: the CLOSER we get to the "evidence" of supernatural/miracle claims, the more publicly available and closer to the source we can get, the more unimpressive the miracles become. Take this description: There was a figure in modern times who has astounded crowds by channelling the divine. He showed astounding powers, healing the sick of all sorts of incurable diseases, changing the fortune of their lives. Further, he could channel Divine invisible power, that would lay people out with a touch, and in fact cause whole crowds to fall, flip, faint as if hit by an invisible wave, with a flip of his hand or coat without even touching them! These numbers of eyewitnesses to these miracles were not merely in the handful. Or even a thousand. This figure regularly travelled the world wielding his miracles in front of packed sports stadiums, resulting in witnesses numbering in the TENS OF MILLIONS per year. How in the world could one discount so many witnesses to the miraculous? Sound impressive? Except I'm describing Benny Hinn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI And once you have actual access to the figure at the bottom of those amazing claims, things aren't as impressive, are they? He looks like an obvious charlatan, and to the extent his "miracle cures" have been investigated, people who swore they were cured weren't cured. The question we can't answer is, despite the amazing claims for your Saint, WHAT would he look like if we had video footage as we do for Benny Hinn and Sai Baba? What would it look like if we could actually, skeptically examine his "levitation" ourselves? The inductive case against the miracles not holding up to the eyewitness's beliefs is huge, given all the Benny Hinns and Sai Baba's and other supernaturalists we can list who have failed scrutiny in the face of amazing claims. This is the NATURE of eyewitness testimony - unreliable, and never more so than when it comes to extraordinary claims. It doesn't matter HOW impressive some claims sound, when you have direct access to the people making the claims - when you can actually cross-examine them - stories begin to falter and change. Why do you think this happens in court all the time? And worse, when you get direct access to the figure at the centre of supernatural claims, he/she doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You get Sai Baba. You get Benny Hinn. You get (in the cases of psychics) Sylvia Brown. You get Uri Gellar. Nothing that ever holds up, once you have direct access instead of anecdote. You can't rely on purported eyewitness claims to miracles! This is why claims of testimonies from "unimpeachable witnesses" are utterly unconvincing. First, we don't have direct access to cross examine these people and are left to take just some other person's word they are "unimpeachable." We have hearsay.Vaal
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Vjtorley, You have completely missed the point I've been making and in fact not answered the challenge. OF COURSE once you will find the evidence level for Sai Baba's miracles underwhelming. That is the point! It's the premise I started out with: he's an unimpressive huckster. AND YET…thousands upon thousands of people have been convinced they have witnessed him perform miracles! And the miracles attributed to him include resurrecting the dead, controlling the weather, bi-location (appearing to people simultaneously hundreds of miles apart)…and a great many other miracles. So challenge I put to you isn't "show me why we shouldn't be impressed with Sai Baba" the challenge was, GIVEN Sai Baba is so unimpressive, explain how people came to believe they witnessed such miracles from him. For instance in the book Sai Baba: Man Of Miracles the author purports to have detailed many eyewitness testimonies to Sai Baba's miracles, including levitation. You won't take up the actual challenge because if you start going through all the miracle claims for Sai Baba and say "Here's how people could have believed Sai Baba levied…here's how people could have falsely believed he appeared in different places at the same time…here's how people could have been mistaken he controlled the weather…here's how people could have believed they witnessed Sai Baba resurrect their dead relative…here's how they could have come to believe Sathya say Baba…and Shirdi Sai Baba…gave bodily resurrection appearances…etc. If you were to go through all the claims for Sai Baba and pile on naturalistic upon naturalistic explanation, his devotees will make the SAME type of responses you will make to atheists "You are exhibiting a clear bias in rejecting a mass of eyewitness testimony to miracles." More important, you will necessarily start undermining all sorts of Christian apologetics for your miracles. "Legends of resurrections don't arise so soon after the death of a religious figure." "People don't just become convinced they've seen a bodily resurrection." Except, oops, they do - with indian God men. The more miracles you explain away for the God-men, the more you simply high-light the gullibility, the tendency toward error, of purported "eyewitness testimony" and so appealing to that very type of evidence is shown to be dubious.Vaal
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Still missing the point, Stephen. You've now just agreed that Free Will is, in fact, not the cause of evil on Earth; now, you're blaming temptation in its place. But your god is also the one who created both the temptations themselves and our desire to partake of them -- not to mention that it absented itself from us, removing (so you claim) the prime motivation to disregard temptation. There's a term for the type of vindictive petty games you're describing your god as playing with us: NIGYSOB, an initialism for, "Now I've Got You, you SOB." Google it for details. Psychopaths play that game all the time; sane people don't. b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Box @345, thanks very much for the comment. I have always found you to be open-minded and thoughtful.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
If free will doesn’t lead to misbehavior in Heaven, it can’t do so here, either.
Cuz Ben Goren sez so! Free will doesn't lead to misbehaviour. It just allows for it. Free will is predicated on choices and choices are predicated on attractions. Different sets of choices on Earth and in Heaven.Virgil Cain
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
StephenB, thank you for your very informative presentation of Christian "Agape love"; especially post #306. I'm very much impressed by the concept.Box
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Ben Goren
Yes, and I’ve already addressed the irrelevancy of this. Never mind that it demonstrates that your god is not only less than all-powerful but,......"
It doesn't demonstrate any such thing. The law of non-contraction applies to all of reality, God included. God cannot create a boulder so heavy that He cannot lift it. God cannot establish a love relationship with a creature who will have it. God cannot give free will and not give it at the same time. The fact that God cannot contradict himself does not, in any way, challenge his omnipotence. Also, notice that I didn't say God cannot prevent humans from using their free will. I said that He cannot grant it and take it away at the same time. That logical fact has nothing to do with His infinite power. ...
indeed, incompetent at what should be its specialty; your claim is contradicted by the Christian Heaven. If free will doesn’t lead to misbehavior in Heaven, it can’t do so here, either.
That is incorrect. On this earth, there are temptations to misuse free will. In heaven, there are no such temptations. First, there are no evil humans or spirits to do the tempting. Second, there is no potential to be tempted since no happiness can surpass the experience of being in God's direct presence. Third, the will has already passed the test of love and formed itself permanently by habitually refusing to place undue value on earthly things.
Again again again, we’re again re-re-treading the same ground, so you’ll forgive me if I fade away….
I will forgive you for fading away, but I will not support your false claim that we have gone over this before.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
I already explained that God cannot grant free will and, at the same time, prevent His creatures from misusing it.
Yes, and I've already addressed the irrelevancy of this. Never mind that it demonstrates that your god is not only less than all-powerful but, indeed, incompetent at what should be its specialty; your claim is contradicted by the Christian Heaven. If free will doesn't lead to misbehavior in Heaven, it can't do so here, either. If there's no free will in Heaven, then it's not only not needed here but its deliberate infestation in us is itself an act of evil. And if there's both free will and evil in Heaven, what's the point of Heaven? Again again again, we're again re-re-treading the same ground, so you'll forgive me if I fade away.... b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Aleta: Nonsense. Of course I’m a real person. You have a very cartoonish view of the perspectives you want to criticize. “I” am not a “neuronal illusion” – I’m an integrated biological organism whose parts work together in the interests of the whole organism.
Please, define “whole organism” under materialism/physicalism. Are the parts of the organism functionally subservient to the interests of the “whole organism”, as you suggest? Is “the whole organism” something over and beyond the physical processes which constitute it? If so, what is it? If not, then there is nothing but parts that cannot possibly “work together in the interests of the whole organism” because there is no such thing. IOW if there is no whole that causes the parts to behave as they do, then the functional subservience of the parts has no explanation in the whole.
Aleta: My conscious experience, and the role it plays in my life, is part of who I am, but so are all sorts of other biological processes. I don’t see how I could be much more real than that! The fact that I am made of matter surely doesn’t take away the reality of who I am.
If blind physical processes — which are not in the least interested in reason — produce your reason, then your reason cannot be under “your” control. This simple fact does take away the reality of who you are as a rational person.
Reppert: . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as [C S] Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Box
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Ben Goren
Stephen, you seem to have missed the part where you yourself claimed that Christian Agape demands action, yet this whole discussion began with my own observation that Christ doesn’t act when simple responsibility — never mind love — demands trivial, banal, unremarkable action.
I already explained that God cannot grant free will and, at the same time, prevent His creatures from misusing it. Nor can he, at the same time, release them from the principle of cause and effect, whereby they use their free will to sin and pay the inevitable price of suffering and guilt, absorbed either by themselves or someone else. If you have an answer, I will listen respectfully. However, to simply claim that God should intervene, presumably because you want him to abrogate his decision to create humans with the faculty of will and the consequences for misusing it, does not really address the issue. Then, of course, when He does intervene, you shrug off documented reports of the miracles as superstitious nonsense. It isn't as if God didn't become man, suffer and die to reverse the process of destruction caused by His own creatures. So, there seems to be at least a bit of truth in the observation that God cannot win with you.
If you don’t recognize that as a refutation — or, for that matter, at the very least an attempt at one, even if you consider it invalid — then I’m afraid you simply don’t understand the meaning of the term.
I do, indeed, accept it as an attempted refutation. As indicated, I don't think it is a successful refutation. However, I apologize if I overstated the case.
Do you really want people to think that Christians are that obtuse, whether honestly or mendaciously? Shouldn’t you be holding yourself to an higher standard, for Jesus’s sake and that of the yet-to-be-Saved if for no other?
Well, if you are going to take that tack, you should have at least read my refutation to Vaal, whose objection was essentially the same as yours. I did address the issue, and I have not yet received a rational response to it.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Vaal
With respect, I don’t care that you can simply describe your concept of Christian Agape Love; I care whether you can argue for why I ought to ACCEPT this notion of love.
Because it is a virtue to cultivate and practice agape love. There is no virtue in following your feelings, unless they just happen to take you in the direction of virtue. Indeed, some feelings of love will prompt you to commit vice and harm people. To practice virtue is to move in the direction of the good, to love in the way you were designed and intended to love by your Creator. To be an atheist is to deny the very existence of virtue, which depends on the existence of good. (Then, there is the not so small problem that you discount so frivolously: You could lose your soul).
I’ve given reasons not to accept it, including that we already have a generally understood concept of love (dictionaries report to us what most people mean by the word), which does fine work and to replace it would require a very strong argument for doing so.
So your argument against agape love is that the dictionary defines love in a different way? That sounds like a very strange argument to me. "Honey, why did you betray my trust and sleep with your brother's wife? I thought you loved me." "Because, my dear, the dictionary defines love as a "feeling," and I have loving feelings for other women."
But more important given this began as a debate about the problem of suffering, the concept of Agape Love as you are presenting it smuggles in premises that I am challenging. Therefore you have to not just state “this is what Christians believe about love” but argue for why I ought to accept it!
Do you mean the premise that love on this earth always involves suffering? It isn't a mere premise; it is a fact of life. To the extent that you love someone, you will suffer when they suffer. To the extent that you love truth, you will suffer when others lie. To the extent that you are good, you will suffer when bad people persecute you. Evil always persecutes good.
I have pointed out that your concept of Agape Love seems to entangles morality/obligation/requirement INTO the concept of Love.
Certainly, agape love is tied to morality. Morality defines what it means to be good. In order to be good, you must love the right things so that you will act in the right way. Bad people have feelings of love for the wrong things. If you love the wrong things, you will acquire bad habits and destroy yourself. Feelings that have not been subjected to a moral test, can destroy you. You don't become a good person by simply following your feelings.
And that there are dubious consequences, better reasons to understand “love” as being distinct from such obligations.
I don't think there are any dubious consequences for following agape love. There are certainly no dubious consequences for tying love to morality, unless you think that you don't have a moral obligation to continue loving your wife when the feelings of love fade. I certainly would not want to be married to someone who loves me only when she feels like it.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Ben Goren:
Box: HOWEVER atheists are somehow totally convinced by some argument that God does not exist.
I’ve yet to meet any atheists for whom that would be an accurate characterization of their positions. Most atheists are simply utterly unconvinced by the arguments of theists.
That’s weird … there are many atheists of the “strong” persuasion attending this forum. But you never met them?
Ben G: I personally fall into a much smaller set of atheists, those convinced that there aren’t any gods.
So, in a sense, you never met yourself?
Ben G: But, as with most of those like me, it’s not because of any argument against the gods; (...)
Ok, that’s a very honest answer. You simply admit that your view on God has no basis whatsoever in positive argument. Wow! This is exactly what I expected. Allow me to quote myself: "HOWEVER atheists are somehow totally convinced by some argument that God does not exist. And after all these years I haven’t found out what that argument is. Maybe I have missed something. Are there any positive arguments for the strong “there is no God” position? If so, what are they?"
Ben Goren: (…) it’s because the gods themselves are presented by the theists as self-contained contradictions.
So you base your conviction that God cannot possibly exist on perceived inconsistencies in the depiction of God by others? Well that’s simply crazy Ben … it doesn’t follow at all. But hey ... don’t sweat it, not everyone is a logician.Box
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Vaal
But this notion depends on the idea people can “make themselves love” and you’ve already admitted the obvious point of how readily people fail at this. Why? Because we aren’t in enough control of our emotions, we can’t just be “commanded to love” and then love. So my previous objection stands.
On the contrary, we often do, with God's help, have to "make ourselves" rise about mere feelings of love to practice real acts of love. You may have "feelings" of love for your brother's wife, but to act on those feelings is to refuse to love your own wife, even if you also have feelings of love for her.
(That is, if you wish to retain anything of the common notion of “love” within your concept, that is strong affectionate feelings toward another.
Love usually does involve good feelings, but not always. If I choose to love my enemies, it is not because I feel like loving them. The irony is that good feelings usually follow acts of love that were not there in the first place. I have actually had that experience. I have come to like people I once had to decide to love in the name of Christian discipline. If I had depended on my feelings, my distaste for that person would have persisted. Indeed, I can attest to the fact that making sacrifices for someone will cause you to love him/her just as surely as loving that person will prompt you to make sacrifices. The dictionary definition of love as feeling cannot begin to probe this mystery.
But if what you mean by “agape love” did not appeal to any such feelings, but only denoted some form of moral obligation, then again: I see no reason to take on terms that simply confuse two already existing, useful terms: “love” and “morality.”
Agape love can, indeed, begin with feelings. They key point is that it doesn't have to, and is even more heroic when it does not. That is because it involves overcoming the temptation to hate, which doesn't happen when you already have feelings of love to begin with.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Sorry, but I’m endeavoring to make this my last post in this discussion, as I suspect all others will be on the same merry-go-round and I’d like to address Mr. Torley before I go. I truly do appreciate the dialogue, thank you.
Yeah...I've got some three score replies of my own in this thread, and the more recent ones are restatements of points I've already made. Time to wind it down. In case there's nothing else that I should reply to directly...thanks all, especially Vincent, for the discussion. Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
StephenB, "You say that feelings of love will “predict” acts of love. Notice, that you didn’t say that they guarantee acts of love." I don't have to notice it; that is precisely WHY I used the words "predict." (Insofar as "acts of love" equates to behaviors we'd expect from someone in love). All we have are probabilities in predicting behaviour. I doubt you deny this, so…? "That is because feelings can mislead us and even cause us to be very unloving. On a daily basis, those feelings of love are in competition with many other feelings that can be even more compelling. If those other feelings win the day, then feelings of love fail to produce acts of love. " Yes! And that's the point for separating "love" from "moral obligation/requirement." You can not control it, and if moral obligation becomes entangled with/dependent upon those feelings, then moral obligation becomes less sure. E.g. if you are to do "good" only if you can feel love, then in a great many instances you would not do good where you should have! You are making my point quite well. "In other words, feelings of love, undisciplined by the conviction that other feelings must be suppressed, will lead to unloving actions. Thus, agape love will, through decision and discipline, supported by grace, will conquer those other destructive feelings, It is only by deciding to love in spite of our feelings, that we can perform loving Actions." But this notion depends on the idea people can "make themselves love" and you've already admitted the obvious point of how readily people fail at this. Why? Because we aren't in enough control of our emotions, we can't just be "commanded to love" and then love. So my previous objection stands. (That is, if you wish to retain anything of the common notion of "love" within your concept, that is strong affectionate feelings toward another. If you maintain that within your concept, you get the problems I've raised. But if what you mean by "agape love" did not appeal to any such feelings, but only denoted some form of moral obligation, then again: I see no reason to take on terms that simply confuse two already existing, useful terms: "love" and "morality." ) Like I said, it makes all the sense in the world to see love as a good thing. To promote it. To encourage it as much as possible. But it is better to recognize that it makes no sense to build in REQUIREMENT TO LOVE into our concept of love, if this is not possible. And therefore it makes more sense to encourage love to the extent anyone can manage, but to understand that obligations come from moral reasons, which give reasons to do good EVEN WHEN WE CAN'T SUMMON LOVE. I'm sorry, but if I find a lost dog I can't summon "love" for someone (the owner) whom I've never met. But I can access reasons to return the dog, nonetheless. And further, I have shown that entangling "choices to do evil' "tests that must be passed" "suffering" etc as necessary components of love results in monstrous moral ideas, such that I could not satisfy such a definition by merely loving my family conventionally, but it would demand they be put in harm's way, or in a position of evil, in order to ratify this notion of love. You never dug yourself out of that hole I'm afraid. Sorry, but I'm endeavoring to make this my last post in this discussion, as I suspect all others will be on the same merry-go-round and I'd like to address Mr. Torley before I go. I truly do appreciate the dialogue, thank you.Vaal
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
StephenB, With respect, I don't care that you can simply describe your concept of Christian Agape Love; I care whether you can argue for why I ought to ACCEPT this notion of love. I've given reasons not to accept it, including that we already have a generally understood concept of love (dictionaries report to us what most people mean by the word), which does fine work and to replace it would require a very strong argument for doing so. But more important given this began as a debate about the problem of suffering, the concept of Agape Love as you are presenting it smuggles in premises that I am challenging. Therefore you have to not just state "this is what Christians believe about love" but argue for why I ought to accept it! I have pointed out that your concept of Agape Love seems to entangles morality/obligation/requirement INTO the concept of Love. And that there are dubious consequences, better reasons to understand "love" as being distinct from such obligations. So here we go again…(hopefully for my last time)...Vaal
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
So how do the atheists posting here explain our existence? My bet is it will fail the criteria for acceptance.Virgil Cain
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Andre, Whoa pard'ner, slow down…:-) If you had been following the full conversation - and I'm inferring you haven't - then you likely wouldn't be so confused. In the course of a POE debate where StephenB has been asked for reasons to accept his premises, one of his premises has been that "love isn’t love until it consciously chooses good over evil," and "“That is why love must be tested in order to determine if it is real. Hence, it is necessary to choose good over evil in order to prove that love is really present." Since this concept of love smuggles in EXACTLY the dubious free-will-type claims I am challenging, clearly it is not one I ought to simply accept! I have asked for reasons to accept that premise. Any case made for why I ought to accept this notion of "love" will necessarily have to show consistency with other accepted principles - e.g. is it more cogent, coherent with human experience, does it rest upon other accepted/acceptable principles, or come into contradiction with other principles we hold, e.g moral principles? Etc. So in debate, we say: ok if we accept your concept of love, what are the consequences, are they acceptable? And visa versa. Obviously I am saying that *the arguments* put forward by StephenB for accepting this concept of love* fail this criteria for acceptance, and result in unacceptable moral ideas when the principles are tested. Whereas my arguments for an alternate concept of love is both more generally consistent with accepted concepts of "love" and, in keeping it distinct from moral obligation, results in more consistency with our moral principles. I have continually given the principles on which I'm rejecting StephenB's account and supporting mine, and shown these are not special pleading principles but ones we accept elsewhere. Hence, showing consistency. StephenB thus far has not been able to lift his arguments out of inconsistency, special pleading, question-begging etc. Hope that helps :-) VaalVaal
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Stephen, you seem to have missed the part where you yourself claimed that Christian Agape demands action, yet this whole discussion began with my own observation that Christ doesn't act when simple responsibility -- never mind love -- demands trivial, banal, unremarkable action. If you don't recognize that as a refutation -- or, for that matter, at the very least an attempt at one, even if you consider it invalid -- then I'm afraid you simply don't understand the meaning of the term. Do you really want people to think that Christians are that obtuse, whether honestly or mendaciously? Shouldn't you be holding yourself to an higher standard, for Jesus's sake and that of the yet-to-be-Saved if for no other? b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
to Stephen at 329: That was not the heart of Ben's argument. A stronger point is that you and Ben both agree all other religions, from the world's great religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. to all the countless little religions that have existed, are all imaginary and wrong. Obviously, human beings have a strong propensity to make up religions. Why, therefore, should one believe that a real god, years after people started making up religions, would show up and tell the truth about the one and only real religion? The much more solid conclusion is that Christianity is just like all the rest, and all the defenses and rationales about why Christianity is "really true" are no different than similar defenses others have made about their religions over the millenia.Aleta
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
bornagain77, I've made plain the type of evidence I need to take seriously your claim that cognition involves something more than the physical workings of the brain: build a perpetual motion machine using the same principles. And why shouldn't you? You'd become the most famous scientist in all history, you'd win multiple Nobel prizes in multiple categories, you'd get stupid stinking rich, and you'd have the most amazing platform ever from which to preach the Gospel. But it really would take that kind of evidence to overturn something as fundamental as the conservation laws. So, since you clearly don't, continued silence from you would, indeed be wise; you won't keep contributing to the evidence that a disproportionate number of Christians don't understand basic science and instead latch on to irrelevant poetic parallels between dogma and reality to support sophistry. Vincent's Matrix-style conspiracy theory is at least within the realm of possibility. Superbly unlikely and woefully under-evidenced, but that's okay; 100% of new ideas start out that way -- and, to be sure, 99 44/100% of them end up that way, too. But your brains-as-perpetual-motion-machines theory is pure snake oil, flat Earth, chupacabra, alien pyramid grade-A bunk. The sooner you stop arguing it, the better for everybody -- you, for the embarrassment you cause yourself; and the rest of us for the empathetic embarrassment we experience on your behalf when you put it forth. That's especially the case for your fellow Christians, many of whom I'd imagine really would rather not get tarred with your brush.... Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Ben
Stephen, I was asked for my personal motivations, not for refutations of the irrational superstitions of theism. For the latter, you’ll have to look to other posts of mine here.
Ben, I couldn't find any refutations. I did notice that you made several unsubstantiated claims to the effect that Christianity is not unique because, as you would have it, miracles occur all over the place. Apparently, you prefer the sobriety of science over the mysticism of religion, unless a Hindu trickster claims to defy the laws of gravity. In keeping with that point, I find no evidence that you have confronted, or even considered, the rational arguments for the existence of God. The essence of your argument appears to be this: The world can be a hard place to live, therefore God doesn't exist.StephenB
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
ba77 writes,
Aleta, but alas by your own admission ‘you’ are not ‘you’ but ‘you’ are ‘made of matter’.
I admitted no such thing, You seem to think that unless there a non-material something inhabiting a body made of matter, there is no "you." I disagree, and I explained my position. Being made of matter and having an identity as "I" are not contradictory ideas.Aleta
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
bornagain77, that there is substantial resilience in brains should hardly be surprising. You've got two kidneys, after all. Remove one and you might not notice. Remove them both and you die a slow, agonizing death. And you've got two lungs; same deal, save death comes much quicker if you remove both. You're fond of videos. Try this one and then tell us how the brain is irrelevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Ben Goren, I'm more than satisfied that you are just another atheistic dogmatist without a real clue what you are talking about. Thus I will take my leave and respond to your silliness no further. I simply have much better things to do today than put up with your atheistic nonsense. Especially since it is clear you have no intention of ever being fair to the evidence.bornagain77
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 13

Leave a Reply