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
Ben Goren: Box, why do you willfully refuse to believe in Krishna, or Allah, or Zeus, or (...) or trolls…or…? My lack of belief in the Christian pantheon is no different from your lack of belief in any other pantheon. When you understand why you reject all other gods but your own, you will understand why I reject yours as well.
I'm no member of an established religion. I simply believe that there is a God, because there is excellent evidence for it. For me it's perfectly clear that, without a God, — without life after death — life is meaningless. VJTorley's quote of Russell is very much to the point:
“That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. “Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
"No God" is an unspeakable sad state of affairs. So I do understand sad atheists. I understand the atheist who says: of course I want there to be God and a heavenly hereafter, but I cannot believe it is so. What I don't understand is the willful atheist, who doesn't want there to be a God.Box
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Ok, I see Box, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. 1. As I asked earlier, what happens to those people who grow up in other religious cultures and perhaps have never even heard of Christianity, or little Buddhist kids too young to even really know about religious beliefs, or devout followers of other religions who are just as committed to theirs as you are to yours. What happens to them when they die? If they don't go to hell, is heaven the only other choice? I would really like to know what Christian belief about this is. 2. I know a great deal about Christianity, and don't believe any of it. Why would you want to sayI am "willfully refusing" to believe and not just "I don't believe." As Ben said, are you willfully refusing to believe in Krishna? I don't think you'd say that, but then I don't know why you'd say I was willfully refusing to believe in the Christian God. Can you explain further?Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
StephenB Everyone in heaven had to pass a test of love to qualify for eternal life. Why? What consistent justification can you provide showing I ought to accept that principle? See, this is what Christians so steeped in their mythology and theodicies don't seem to notice. You assert your theological claims as if they solve the moral issues, when they only further RAISE the moral issues being debated. You haven't explained anything here. The question is whether the moral reasoning you present on behalf of Christianity/yahweh, is coherent and consistent with morality and goodness as we apply anywhere else. God could make up any "test" or demand he wanted for people to get into heaven - he could demand everyone rape or murder at least twice to pass a test to get into heaven: that doesn't answer whether the demand is a MORALLY CONSISTENT one. What you have to do is show how demanding that love is only accepted as "real love" if it is conjoined with peril and suffering is a consistently moral notion. So far, you have failed to show this - I've applied your principles to real life and shown they would result in monstrous demands. There are no moral dilemmas in heaven because there are no temptations to evil. There are no moral tests to pass. There is no more virtue to be attained. It has already been attained. Again, if our ultimate destiny, and the ultimately good state of affairs is a realm where moral dilemmas DO NOT occur, and this is in fact THE BEST state of affairs to be in, and love is most fully realized in a state where there is no peril….why in the world do we need another realm of existence of suffering and peril? You want to say "but love requires a test to get into heaven." But you have not established this as anything but arbitrary. You want to attach the necessity of peril-choosing to "real love" but then have to admit the ultimate state of affairs is love in the absence of peril-choosing! So there goes that principle. This is a blatant inconsistency on your part. Further, if love for another REQUIRES the peril of the one we love in order to give us the opportunity to demonstrate and justify our love, how can we truly fulfill a love for a heavenly God who is All Powerful and will never be in peril? So, again, on no level have I found you have made a case for your claims.Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
StephenB, "Well, you need to make your mind. Love either implies action or it does not. If it does, then it is not limited to a feeling. You can’t have it both ways. Love either requires loving actions or it does not." I have already explained why that is a false dichotomy. Simply re-stating the false dichotomy is not a rebuttal. I'll explain again. Here's the principle: That X has implications for Y does not entail that Y is necessary for the existence of X. This is IF/THEN reasoning. Examples of principle: 1. Light - electromagnetic radiation exists, for instance in the form of my flashlight. One can bring in other scenarios for which this has implications - e.g. IF there were a dark room you can't see into and you shine the light into it THEN the nature of light implies you will light the room and will be able to see there. But the fact light has implications for dark rooms doesn't mean that electromagnetic radiation REQUIRES dark rooms for light itself to fully exist. 2. If I'm enjoying an episode of Breaking Bad and wouldn't want to watch Big Bang Theory, then my affection for the show has implications for the proposition of "changing the channel to Big Bang Theory." IF someone changed the channel my affection for Breaking Bad implies my action of changing the channel back to that show. But that in no way entails that such a scenario of "changing the channel" has to be actualized in order for my affection for Breaking Bad to exist and be fully real. Acknowledging that X has implications for possible scenario Y does NOT entail that X is dependant upon scenario Y. Therefore I am not having to choose between love implying action or not. I'm saying that Love (X) has implications for possible scenarios (Y) of loved ones being in peril - e.g. it predicts certain outcomes/actions IF scenario Y occurred. But the fact of my love does not entail the existence of Y - the actualization of my loved ones coming into peril. You may argue against this, but I am not in self contradiction. "Christians are permitted to define love as agape love and the Christian God is the one you are presuming to scrutinize. When I use the term “love,” therefore, I mean Christian love." Sure. But remember you are supposed to be able to give an argument for why another rational person - i.e. me - ought to accept your premises. To do so you'll have to show consistency with principles and manners of behavior you and I accept elsewhere. If your version of "love" ends up having implications so inconsistent with what I and most people understand as "loving" or with generally accepted moral behavior, then your argument fails on consistency, whatever you happen to re-name as "love" or "agape love." That tells us nothing about how you will act when things are not going so well. Sure it does. As I've already said, if you love someone it would have implications for various *possible* scenarios, but that doesn't entail those scenarios must occur for there to be actual love. I know how I feel about my wife and what I'd do if she was in peril. But if you hold that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH and that rather, you must put my wife in peril so I can demonstrate my care for my wife to you or some other observers, or that you must put her in harm's way or else my love really isn't valid, then you are demonstrating a monstrous moral vision that no one actually accepts put to real life. And, again, the concept of Christian Heaven shows this - Christians think the best state of love is one in which it is felt without the existence of peril, evil and suffering. "Nonsense. The question is this: Are you going to rescue your family (or try) from the torturers, or are you going to say, “I have feelings of love for my family and that is enough.” (It isn’t necessary to write all those words.)" So here you are, actually adopting the morality of the evil guy in my story. I tell you I love my wife and kid, but that's not enough. It's "nonsense" UNLESS it is demonstrated by putting my family in peril and forcing the sacrifice upon me. My god…do you really want to pursue this line of reasoning?Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Aleta, it is more than a matter of credence on the part of the Christian, anyway, (never mind the credulity atheists would claim). As James remarked in his epistle, 'The devils believe and tremble.' Faith is proved, as well as by credence, by an ongoing commitment to Charity, a generous, self-denying love. The description of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25 is the son of God's own description of what comprises our passport to heaven, qua our 'faith', and is the only one in the whole of scripture. It seems clear, however that this sine qua non of charity - in fact, what gives value to all the virtues, each of which latter has a counterfeit simulacrum - may not be consciously exercised by an individual 'sheep', the indwelling Holy Spirit of supernatural grace animating his actions without his even being aware of its nature and provenance. He/she just sees some poor soul 'up against it', and is moved by compassion, like the good Samaritan, to do what he can to help the suffering person, unaware that, in doing so, in some strange supernatural way, it is Christ that he is seeking to rescue from his travails. We are all of us, especially via baptism, kind of clones of the god-man, Jesus. The church teaches us to see him most clearly in those who suffer. We are branches of the true vine, which is Christ, himself, as he teaches us in the Gospel. As regard wishful thinking, yes, undoubtedly it is wishful thinking, but why would it not accord with the reality, since that same theological virtue (with Faith and Charity) of Hope is inspirited in us by the same indwelling Holy Spirit, who adopts us, if we are willing, for all eternity. Indeed, why should the truth be something not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, undesirable? That 'cold, hard reason' nonsense is a fantasy of the naive realists, as the reality is that it is both personal and dynamic, as quantum physics loudly proclaims. Indeed, 'wisdom is proven by her children', and this is exactly what has transpired. Physics has proved with irrefragable certainty the truth not merely of theism by a multiplicity of most cogent indicators, but Christianity, itself, via the miraculous Shroud of Turin. As regards intelligent design, alone, the fact that matter finally reduces to information definitively confirms it as the primordial reality ('In the beginning was the word..'), if one were so wilfully blind as not to see it throughout the whole of nature without the aid of physics.Axel
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Andre, Christians are the one who blame Jesus's incompetence on free will. For me, it's a moot point; Jesus is a fictional character, and free will is an incoherent self-contained contradiction -- what a married bachelor might practice in spartan luxury north of the North Pole. I personally couldn't give a flying flip what excuses Christians make for why their imaginary Superman doesn't fly in and rescue Gotham from Lex Luthor. None of it has even the slightest bearing in reality. I do care that Christians are deceiving themselves, wasting a lot of their lives, and espousing some very dangerous positions -- though, to be fair, most simply speak in favor of profound evil even whilst being positively horrified at the mere notion of actually doing anything about it. Right up front, Vincent himself reassured us that he'd do the right and honorable thing, and alert the proper authorities if he even so much as suspected child abuse...even at the same time as he was trying to explain why such inaction is only to be expected from an entity infinitely more loving and able than he. All y'all have so much to contribute to our efforts to make an Heaven of our own here on Earth, and I hate to see such waste and so much that's counterproductive coming out of your fantasies and wishful thinking. And that's why I'm trying to point out the incoherence of the fantasies. I'm hoping that, by pointing out that Lex Luthor doesn't exist, doesn't have a doomsday machine, the earthquake just happened for no reason, and we would have expected Superman to have stopped Lex just in time before the city was destroyed if the stories were true...I'm hoping to get Christians to stop begging Superman to carry them away to Krypton with him, and to help me build some new homes that're up to code so they won't collapse and burn when the next quake hits. Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Perhaps John 3:16 should be amended to read "whoever believes wants to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life".daveS
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
My question for those people “who willfully refuse to believe” is: Why?
Box, why do you willfully refuse to believe in Krishna, or Allah, or Zeus, or Thor...or Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Faery...or the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot or the Chupacabra...or Leprechauns or unicorns or trolls...or...? My lack of belief in the Christian pantheon is no different from your lack of belief in any other pantheon. When you understand why you reject all other gods but your own, you will understand why I reject yours as well. Yes, you insist that your gods are special, completely unlike all the other gods. But the Muslims say the same thing about Muhammad and Allah, the Hindus the same about Krishna and Brahma, the ancient Egyptians the same about Horus and Ra, and on and on and on. From where I sit, Jesus and Jehovah are cut from the exact same cloth. Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Aleta: What is the difference between just “not believing in God” and “willfully refusing to believe in God”?
In post #236 VJTorley writes:
I might add that Pope Francis himself has said that even atheists may be saved, if they follow their consciences. Hell is for people who willfully refuse to believe, as opposed to people who want to believe, but cannot. The Bible nowhere says that people in the latter group go to Hell.
Do you not understand which distinction is being made here? - - - - I do not understand ppl who don't want to believe. I honestly do not. Hence my question.Box
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
And all I hear Ben Goren say is "Damn you Jesus for giving me free will, damn you!!!! I want you to be a big brother so I won't have to be responsible for the things I do! Damn you Jesus!"Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Box, I don't quite know what you mean when you write,
My question for those people “who willfully refuse to believe” is: Why?
What is the difference between just "not believing in God" and "willfully refusing to believe in God"? There are many reasons why I don't believe that God exists, and I see no reason why I should believe he does. Am I "willfully refusing" to believe in him? Or does "willingfully refusing" mean that I accept his existence, but refuse to accept him as my God, which would be an entirely different thing (and one that doesn't apply to me.) can you explain more?Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Ben said "Jesus is a monster in a fairy tale" Yeah, I didn't expect much more, that's how your basic idea and worldview looks unwrapped. You don't need to hide it behind the smoke screen of verbosity. We are happy to help you understand that, you are welcome. But for you and your friends - Jerry Coyne's Boot worshipers there is no problemo, being that doesn't exist cannot be monster so you can sleep peacefully. You can get back to playing your trumpet.Eugen
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Aleta: His response was the very reasonable point that what we want concerning meaning and death is irrelevant – we have to accept and live with what is in fact the case.
I know. Everyone knows. It's a perfectly irrelevant glaring truism. My question was not: do you hold that you can change the foundations of reality by wanting something? I cited Thomas Nagel for clarity: "It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." Why don't you e-mail Thomas Nagel and tell him your great insight that his wanting there to be no God doesn't change anything? My question for those people “who willfully refuse to believe” is: Why?Box
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
For my part, I am describing love in terms of Christian charity, which means generous actions, or, if you like, Agape love, which means self-sacrificial love. [...] No, it isn’t. Everyone knows that morality refers both to intentions and actions. Yes. Love (Christian) must be tested by evil in order to prove itself. [...] You can’t have it both ways. What is your decision? Does love (agape) require action or not?
Christian, heal thyself. If Vaal's love for his wife requires the action he care for her even when she is old and senile, then Jesus's Agape for all humanity requires the action that he alert local authorities when his own priests start a serial rape spree. Vaal already has, and, I'm confident, will continue to demonstrate his love for his wife. Jesus has already failed and will assuredly continue to fail to demonstrate his Agape for the children of his own priests's flocks. b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Box, I believe Ben was responding to you, who wrote,
I have a question for those people “who willfully refuse to believe”. Why? Why do you want a universe without meaning? Why do you want death to be the end?
His response was the very reasonable point that what we want concerning meaning and death is irrelevant - we have to accept and live with what is in fact the case. If one wants life to go on after death but in fact life doesn't, then accepting the truth about death is better than nursing wishes which are not true.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Ben Goren: Whether or not I want the universe to have meaning, whether or not I want death to be the end…my wishes on the matter no more give nor deny meaning to the universe or create or obliterate life after death than my desire to fly to the Moon gives me wings.
Why do you offer this glaring truism? No one has made the claim that your wants are capable of changing the foundations of reality — I certainly didn't.Box
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
SB: [it is necessary to choose good over evil in order to prove that love is really present. According to traditional Christianity, everyone in heaven had to pass the test of love by overcoming evil.” Vaal
I see no reason to accept your claim. First let me clarify: I certainly don’t deny that loving someone has implications for behavior. Of course it does, that’s one reason why I conclude a Good God doesn’t exist.
Well, you need to make your mind. Love either implies action or it does not. If it does, then it is not limited to a feeling. You can’t have it both ways. Love either requires loving actions or it does not. With respect to the official definition, I will address that issue now: For my part, I am describing love in terms of Christian charity, which means generous actions, or, if you like, Agape love, which means self-sacrificial love. However, if you do not want me to use the term love as synonymous with these things, then I will simply use the word Agape love or Christian love each time. However, that seems a little unwieldy, don’t you think?
:No one is obligated to accept your version without very good reasons to do so. And here is why you’ve supplied no such good reasons:
I think I have now provided good reasons. So, are we in agreement that Christian love, or agape love (self-sacrificial love) goes beyond the dictionary definition. Christians are permitted to define love as agape love and the Christian God is the one you are presuming to scrutinize. When I use the term “love,” therefore, I mean Christian love.
Your claim that love requires testing in the face of evil to show it exists, or be real deep or legitimate, is inconsistent with normal moral reasoning.
No, it isn’t. Everyone knows that morality refers both to intentions and actions. Yes. Love (Christian) must be tested by evil in order to prove itself.
Example from real life: Recently I was on vacation with my family, sitting by a pool reading, and also watching my son play in the pool with my wife. Taking in scenes like that, especially without other distractions, is when I most feel, am most in tune with, the experience of “love” for my family.
That tells us nothing about how you will act when things are not going so well. It is a completely meaningless scenario. The question persists: will you continue to love your wife when she is 90 years old and begs you not to put her in a nursing home, even though, it will cost you 12 hours a day to care for her? Or, will you say, “I feel good things for my and wife, but that is good enough.”
So let’s say at one point I looked up from my magazine and my wife and child were gone. As panic rises in me, a man approaches and says “We saw the way you were looking at your family. It seemed to indicate your affection. But we aren’t sure and have to be sure. Further, even if you were feeling that love, it’s not legitimate unless it has been deeply tested. Therefore, to help out, we have kidnapped your wife and child. Currently we are torturing them in an undisclosed location. If you love them you’ll want us to release them from torture. But you must demonstrate it to objective observers by making a significant sacrifice. We’ll release your family upon a demonstration of your willingness to sacrifice for them. We will accept your cutting off a hand, arm, or foot. After this is over, others can be satisfied your love was demonstrated, and you will have met the requirements of making your love truly real.” That isn’t the question. You are, again, writing many words and saying very little. The question is very simple: Is it enough to “feel” for them, or must you do something. Now, this gentlemen would appear to exemplify just the logic you expect me to accept about love – this is what “real love” demands, or perhaps what God demands for “real love.” And yet, I, and every normal person (including you no doubt) would recoil in horror and see this as insane. Your logic does not stand up to real life consistency.
Nonsense. The question is this: Are you going to rescue your family (or try) from the torturers, or are you going to say, “I have feelings of love for my family and that is enough.” (It isn't necessary to write all those words.) You can’t have it both ways. What is your decision? Does love (agape) require action or not?
The problem of Heaven. Most of Christianity subscribes to the concept of Heaven as a realm where one experiences constant bliss and love WITHOUT peril and “tests” of the sorts you imply.
I have already addressed that issue. Everyone in heaven had to pass a test of love to qualify for eternal life. Please stop asking me to explain things two or three times.
In other words, the value of Heaven as depicted by most Christianity is being about a state of mind, state of feeling, NOT ACTIONS choosing between evil or saving loved ones from evil. And this state of being is seen as the Ultimate State Of Being – the one of highest desire and value.
There are no moral dilemmas in heaven because there are no temptations to evil. There are no moral tests to pass. There is no more virtue to be attained. It has already been attained.
Therefore your claims that for Love to be real or significant it must be accompanied by tests of evil and peril is in contradiction to Heaven, where the ultimate form of love is does not require this.
Only love that has proven itself qualifies for heaven. It doesn’t need to prove itself again. So my point stands. Please try to make your points more concisely and please stay on topic. We were not discussing heaven.StephenB
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
I have a question for those people “who willfully refuse to believe”. Why? Why do you want a universe without meaning? Why do you want death to be the end?
Box, just because you wish the world were different doesn't make it so. Whether or not I want the universe to have meaning, whether or not I want death to be the end...my wishes on the matter no more give nor deny meaning to the universe or create or obliterate life after death than my desire to fly to the Moon gives me wings. Wouldn't you want to fly to the Moon and bounce on its craters? Swim through the Great Red Spot on Jupiter? See what it's like out amongst the stars? I sure would. So where are our wings? If you don't have wings, it must be because you don't really care what space is like. But then why would you want to be such a dull, unimaginative person? Where your own wings are, that's where you'll find my belief in your gods. b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
VJ writes,
Hell is for people who willfully refuse to believe, as opposed to people who want to believe, but cannot. The Bible nowhere says that people in the latter group go to Hell.
Is that the orthodox position? What happens to those people who grow up in other religious cultures and perhaps have never even heard of Christianity, or little Buddhist kids too young to even know about religious beliefs. What happens to them when they die? I would really like to know what Christian belief about this is.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Vincent, why should we bother with the words of Swiftian flappers interpreting Jesus for us, when we can read what we are to believe is his official authorized biography for ourselves? Did Jesus not describe Hell as a place of fire and torment and weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth? Or was Luke in error when he wrote verses such as 13:28? Or perhaps Luke's original text has not been faithfully preserved? If I should wish to understand the words of the person who is said to have the greatest possible insight into the human condition, I'll consider his actual words long before I let somebody else of inferior intellect, quite possibly with an agenda, tell me what the great man really meant to say but couldn't quite phrase correctly. ...which, of course, is why interpreters such as Lewis are necessary in the first place. It's instantly obvious to anybody who reads the actual Bible, as opposed to an heavily annotated Cliff's Notes redaction of the Bible, that Jesus is far from being a love god and is, instead, the over-the-top archvillain of the story. So, if, for whatever reason, you wish to maintain the fiction that Jesus is a love god, you've got to put words in his mouth and hope nobody reads nor remembers passages like Luke 19:27 or Matthew 5:27-32 or Matthew 10:34.
I don’t think atheism offers people a meaningful view of life.
Of course it doesn't! Not believing in the Loch Ness Monster, or Santa, or the faeries at the foot of the garden doesn't offer a meaningful view of life, either. Nor does accepting the discoveries of science as having a very high probability of being reasonably accurate offer a meaningful view of life. If it's meaning you want -- and who doesn't? -- it's up to you to make it for yourself. That's part of what it means to grow up, to embrace adulthood. Do you want to be an astronaut? Would adventure give your life meaning? Maybe you want to be a firefighter, and make your meaning by giving other people a second chance? Perhaps you could make stuff and give your life meaning through your own creations? Be a scientist and make your meaning the discovery of the meanings of your surroundings? It's all up to you. Which, of course, is frightening at first...and then most exhilarating, once you embrace it.
To be sure, many atheists are loving people who are deeply devoted to their families, but at the back of their heads, they continually have to keep away the thought that ultimately, life is absurd.
Of course life is absurd. Haven't you noticed!? Incredibly, powerfully absurd. So? As with everything else, just because you wish it were otherwise, merely because you can't bear to admit it is so...well, tough titties. Reality is that which persists even when you wish it wouldn't.
I cannot fathom why atheists like yourselves are not in the least curious about checking out the evidence for these miracles.
As the saying goes, we've got the T-shirt. You know why you're not convinced by today's Indian mystics, despite their massive and sophisticated PR campaigns? We're even less impressed by your centuries-old unsophisticated minor PR campaigns. Again, you can prove for yourself that gravity is real; just grab that apple and a stopwatch. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever in anybody's mind that each and every miracle you cite couldn't even withstand the slightest attempt at critical objective evaluation -- any more than the Indian mystics, any more than the Gypsy card readers, any more than the stage magicians, any more the Uri Geller, any more than any such performer, whether honest or avaricious. Were these phenomena real, and as readily available as one must conclude from their widespread belief...well, don't you think we'd be putting them to better use than getting people to toss a few pennies in the hat when it gets passed around? Billions of dollars have been spent on superconducting magnetic levitation for use in rail transport. Wouldn't it be so much cheaper to hire a few yogis, one for each car in the train? Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
vjtorley "Finally, regarding miracles: none of the quoted testimonies on Sai Baba relate to levitations performed over a period of hours, under normal lighting conditions, with Sai Baba floating several meters above the ground, in the presence of dozens or even hundreds of witnesses. To compare the levitations of St. Joseph of Cupertino with those of Sai Baba is intellectually lazy." On the contrary, it's being intellectually consistent, and I submit, cheekily and respectfully, if anything the laziness is on the other foot :-) I'm applying consistent skepticism. The tendency of humans to create false supernatural claims - as shown by the many contradictions found in these claims, and from the prosaic "evidence" we find whenever they can be thoroughly investigated - cautions strongly against the reliability of "eyewitness claims" for the supernatural. (Heck, eyewitness claims for mundane, accepted phenomenon like "He started the fight" or "He was shot while he was trying to give himself up to the police" are held to high skepticism and cross-examination). I'm being consistent with our most fully realized account of how to vet empirical claims: science. For any claim that would go against, or significantly expand our understanding of how the universe operates - e.g. perpetual motion machines, people levitating or rising from the dead - we rationally hold these to our HIGHEST levels of scrutiny. Again, look at all the work demanded simply to verify something like a Higgs Boson, something that actually fits in with current theoretical understandings of physics, let alone forces that DON'T fit in or contradict our understanding of what is possible. Your case for someone levitating hundreds of years ago would, as you well know, not remotely pass muster if presented to the scientific community, for all the good, justified reasons for why science is so successful in vetting claims in the first place. So I'm being consistent across the board with rational skepticism. On the other hand: You are presenting purported eyewitness claims to a miracle - levitation. All you are presenting is the claims about the purported BELIEFS of a number of people. Your argument is the suggestion that, unless one could explain how people could come to those beliefs without appeal to the reality of the miracle, then they should be compelling evidence for the reality of the miracle. I've simply asked that you demonstrate consistency by appling the same logic to OTHER claims of miracles. It doesn't matter whether Sai Baba did "an exactly similar miracle" (Sai Baba after all did many other miracles your Saint did not achieve!). The point is that amazing miracles have been ascribed to Sai Baba, and other God men, and by your logic if you can not come up with non-miraculous explanations, the truth of those miracle claims remains the best conclusion. So, please be my guest and apply your same argument to the miracles of Sai Baba, explaining them away. How could eyewitnesses come to believe Sai Baba altered the course of a river? Controlled the weather at will? Resurrected people from the dead? Appeared simultaneously to different people 600 miles apart? How could followers (and non followers!) of Sai Baba of Shirdi come to believe they had seen bodily post-mortem appearances? How could current followers of Sai Baba come to believe they have seen him after death as well? The point is if you actually attempt to come up with non-miraculous explanations to explain the belief of their devotees, it will have clear implications for the miracles of Jesus and your flying Saint as well. Which is one reason I probably shouldn't expect any such attempt on your part in the first place. (I have been putting up the Sai Baba challenge to Christians for years and years and no one has ever taken up the challenge of explaining how the eyewitness claims could have arisen through non-miraculous events. Again, it's not that their explanations fail…it's that when they even begin trying they quickly get to "uh-oh" land for their own miracle claims, and suddenly have better things to do).Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
vjtorley wrote: "Believing in God is a matter of the heart as well as the head." That is silly. It's all in your head. Imagine you were an atheist/polytheist/pseudotheist/demitheist/oligotheist who suddenly had a sublime experience that overwhelmed your entire being with both the feeling and the certainty of Yahweh's existence and love towards his creation (something that has happened several times, to be sure) - and because of that you wholeheartedly converted to christianity. Now imagine suffering an injury to the brain two hours later, one that permanently affected an area upon which recollection of recent memories depends (which happens quite frequenly). Now, when you wake up you will have no recollection of the sublime experience that lead to your conversion, nor the conversion itself. It will be as if you were never a christian. THAT is how significant believing in gods and other supernatural being is. Completely dependant on the recollection and reinforcement of the fuzzy feeling in the belly from when you were certain Yahweh loved you. This is also what takes people to churches, temples, mosques, religious organizations, meetings and websites. The strangest thing of all, though, is that even though no religious person will refrain from saying that their faith is what matters, that they feel in their hearts such and such, some still go to lengths in the completely futile (by their own implicit admission) endeavor of concocting excuses and rationalizations for conclusions they did not arrive at rationally in the first place. It would be much, much more honest to just drop the post-hoc excuses and say outright "STFU atheist, god exists because I want it to, GTFO my faiths."rtkufner
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
VJ, Isn't it 4:00 AM there? Do you ever sleep?Barry Arrington
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
VJTorley: Hell is for people who willfully refuse to believe, as opposed to people who want to believe, but cannot. The Bible nowhere says that people in the latter group go to Hell.
I have a question for those people "who willfully refuse to believe". Why? Why do you want a universe without meaning? Why do you want death to be the end?
Thomas Nagel: It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
Box
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Vaal, Sastra and Ben Goren: Summing up: it seems that the differences that divide us ultimately boil down to epistemology. I have a few questions I'd like you all to ponder. 1. How would you rate the prior probability of a miracle? I'd like an actual number, please. I've already given you my estimate of 1 in 10^120, based on Seth Lloyd's calculations of the number of discrete events that have taken place during the history of the observable universe, and on Laplace's famous "sunrise argument." If you don't like that figure, what's your alternative? 2. I can understand your reluctance to believe in an omnibenevolent Being, given the suffering in the world. But why aren't you investigating the possibility that a Designer may exist, but that He's the God of Spinoza (i.e. not a Being Who is interested in us personally)? Or why aren't you having a look at Jewish physicist Gerard Schroeder's book, The Hidden Face of God, in which he argues for a Creator who is finite and who makes mistakes? Surely these are hypotheses worth considering. Why are you interested in only two alternatives: materialism or an infinitely loving God? 3. Why do you keep bringing up the Bible, Heaven and Hell, as if the only kind of infinitely loving God would have to be the Judeo-Christian one? 4. If you are convinced that inference to the best explanation makes the notion of an infinitely loving God unlikely, then why do you object to Intelligent Design arguments that cosmological fine-tuning, combined with solid scientific arguments against the multiverse and calculations by evolutionary biologist Dr. Eugene Koonin showing that abiogenesis is astronomically unlikely, are best explained by the hypothesis of a Designer Who created life and the cosmos? It's the same kind of reasoning. For that matter, you might combine the two inferences and conclude that there's a Designer, but He/She/It isn't infinitely loving. But you seem to think that the argument from evil outweighs the argument from design, despite the fact that the latter argument is rigorously quantitative while the former is not. Why? Well, I've contributed long enough to this thread, and I think I'll leave it there. If you want a handy summary of the various strands of evidence for God's existence, please see here, and good luck to you all with your search for truth. I would like to thank you for your patience and courtesy, and I'll leave the last word to you.vjtorley
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
StephenB Re why couldn't God have created more noble creatures, with a greater tendency toward choosing The Good? "That’s easy. According to classical Christianity, which is what I am arguing, God did create creatures (humans) more noble and more inclined toward the good. They are not as noble as they once were." Ok, glad it's easy. But I can't imagine you think your response suffices as an answer to the problem. You'd have to answer: Why aren't we as noble as we once were? Is it because the original noble creatures chose to sin? If so, that contradicts the claim of their nobility - their tendency not to choose sin. I look forward to your making a coherent argument for this problem.Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
StephenB Sorry, I hadn't seen your new reply to me when I posted my last one to you. "If your notion of love is limited to a feeling, it is superficial in the extreme." "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. According to traditional Christianity, everyone in heaven had to pass the test of love by overcoming evil." I see no reason to accept your claim. First let me clarify: I certainly don't deny that loving someone has implications for behavior. Of course it does, that's one reason why I conclude a Good God doesn't exist. IF someone you love is in peril, of course you will want them to be safe, and if that required your action you'd take it. But that is different from saying that the existence of real love REQUIRES such scenarios of peril. That is where I find you to go off the tracks. 1. First, dictionaries display what most people refer to by the term "Love," and you can look at any number of dictionary definitions and see that they describe certain states of mind, feelings - e.g. "to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person)." So your claim as to the nature of love, with it's additional claims that the dictionary meaning is insufficient, is already in competition the normal use of the word "love." No one is obligated to accept your version without very good reasons to do so. And here is why you've supplied no such good reasons: 2. Your claim that love requires testing in the face of evil to show it exists, or be real deep or legitimate, is inconsistent with normal moral reasoning. Example from real life: Recently I was on vacation with my family, sitting by a pool reading, and also watching my son play in the pool with my wife. Taking in scenes like that, especially without other distractions, is when I most feel, am most in tune with, the experience of "love" for my family. But on your logic, this is not good enough. This is love…without test. So let's say at one point I looked up from my magazine and my wife and child were gone. As panic rises in me, a man approaches and says "We saw the way you were looking at your family. It seemed to indicate your affection. But we aren't sure and have to be sure. Further, even if you were feeling that love, it's not legitimate unless it has been deeply tested. Therefore, to help out, we have kidnapped your wife and child. Currently we are torturing them in an undisclosed location. If you love them you'll want us to release them from torture. But you must demonstrate it to objective observers by making a significant sacrifice. We'll release your family upon a demonstration of your willingness to sacrifice for them. We will accept your cutting off a hand, arm, or foot. After this is over, others can be satisfied your love was demonstrated, and you will have met the requirements of making your love truly real." Now, this gentlemen would appear to exemplify just the logic you expect me to accept about love - this is what "real love" demands, or perhaps what God demands for "real love." And yet, I, and every normal person (including you no doubt) would recoil in horror and see this as insane. Your logic does not stand up to real life consistency. 3. To elaborate on 2 toward another point: Situations of well being are more conducive to the experience of "love" than ones of peril. I love my son, but when he was young and for a short while we couldn't find him after school (eventually found) what I experienced was distress, fear, panic. Yes I experienced those because I love him, but it certainly was not REQUIRED for me to love my son! Love is a positive feeling. Putting my son in peril actually has the effect of being overruled by horrible, negative feelings of panic and fear. Which brings us to…. 4. The problem of Heaven. Most of Christianity subscribes to the concept of Heaven as a realm where one experiences constant bliss and love WITHOUT peril and "tests" of the sorts you imply. In other words, the value of Heaven as depicted by most Christianity is being about a state of mind, state of feeling, NOT ACTIONS choosing between evil or saving loved ones from evil. And this state of being is seen as the Ultimate State Of Being - the one of highest desire and value. Therefore your claims that for Love to be real or significant it must be accompanied by tests of evil and peril is in contradiction to Heaven, where the ultimate form of love is does not require this. In fact, this is related to point #3. Christians realize that situations of peril and evil and "tests" are NOT the optimal scenario for experiencing love. That is why their ultimate fantasy is a place where one can simply feel love WITHOUT these tests and threats to our loved one's well-fare. So, I find your reasoning about love fails on virtually every count. It fails, by making unjustified additional conditions, in terms of being consistent with how the word is normally understood. It fails in being inconsistent with principles of moral reasoning as we apply them in real life. It fails as a psychological understanding of love. And it fails in being inconsistent with the concept of Heaven which acts as a counter example to your claims. Hence…I reject your claim. Cheers,Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Here's more from Michael Grosso's article:
It is impossible to suppose that all the stories about levitation were part of a Church plot to use miracles to control the mind of the masses. It wasn’t like that at all. The only way to make sense of the Church’s treatment of Joseph is to assume that he possessed these strange abilities in such abundance that there was talk of a new messiah arising. Joseph’s response to his Inquisitor’s was humble and honest. He had to explain that he enjoyed these “consolations” but that he was not proud or pleased with himself for having them. Nevertheless, the Church progressively tried to make him retreat to the most obscure corners of the Adriatic coast, ending finally under virtual house arrest in a small monastic community at Osimo. There was no decline effect in Joseph’s strange aerial behaviors; during his last six years in Osimo he was left alone to plunge into his interior life; the records are unanimous in saying that the ratti (raptures) were in abundance right up until his dying days. The cleric in charge of the community swore that he witnessed Joseph levitate to the ceiling of his cell thousands of times. The surgeon Pierpaolo was cauterizing Joseph’s leg shortly before his death when he realized the friar was insensible and floating in the air. He and his assistant both deposed that they bent down and looked beneath Joseph’s horizontal body, to be sure they weren’t dreaming. To repudiate the evidence for Joseph’s levitations would be to repudiate thirty-five years of history because the records of his life are quite detailed and entangled with other lives and documented historical events. We would have to assume colossal mendacity and unbelievable stupidity on the part of thousands of people, if we chose to reject this evidence. We would be forced to believe that when the duchess of Parma wrote in a letter that Joseph was the “prodigy of the century”, she was romancing or totally deluded.
Definitely worth checking out.vjtorley
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Continued... Finally, regarding miracles: none of the quoted testimonies on Sai Baba relate to levitations performed over a period of hours, under normal lighting conditions, with Sai Baba floating several meters above the ground, in the presence of dozens or even hundreds of witnesses. To compare the levitations of St. Joseph of Cupertino with those of Sai Baba is intellectually lazy. I cannot fathom why atheists like yourselves are not in the least curious about checking out the evidence for these miracles. As I said, the testimonies, which were collected from persons of unimpeachable integrity who were testifying under oath during the inquiry into 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. Why aren't you sending someone to the Vatican to check out the manuscripts? I would be, if I were in your shoes. I'd like to quote from a blog article titled, Why Levitation? by Michael Grosso (October 8, 2013), who has done extensive research on the saint:
By chance, on a trip to Italy some years ago I acquired a 1722 biography of St. Joseph of Copertino. I had read accounts of St. Joseph’s levitations in a scholarly essay by Eric Dingwall and also in Herbert Thurston’s book, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism. Eventually I began to read Domenico Bernini’s biography of Joseph, which Dingwall had cited as being rich in sworn eyewitness testimonies of the saint’s phenomena, which included more than levitation. I delved into the critical literature and assembled my own thoughts on the subject in a forthcoming book, The Strange Case of St. Joseph of Copertino: Ecstasy and the Mind-Body Problem (Oxford University Press). Joseph’s performances were never dubious sightings; they were show-stoppers, and his reputation as miracle mystic man spread all over Italy and then Europe…. The records show at least 150 sworn depositions of witnesses of high credentials: cardinals, bishops, surgeons, craftsmen, princes and princesses who personally lived by his word, popes, inquisitors, and countless variety of ordinary citizens and pilgrims. There are letters, diaries and biographies written by his superiors while living with him. Arcangelo di Rosmi recorded 70 incidents of levitation; and then decided it was enough. Streams of inexplicable events surrounded the black-bearded friar. Driven by malicious curiosity, even Joseph’s inquisitors observed him in ecstatic levitation during Mass. Their objection to him was not the fact that he levitated; they were concerned with where the power was coming from, God or the Devil?
vjtorley
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Vaal and Ben Goren, A couple of quick responses re God, Hell, Heaven and miracles. Re finding God, I strongly urge you both to read these two excellent articles by ex-atheist Jennifer Fulwiler, who writes far more eloquently on the subject than I do: http://jenniferfulwiler.com/2007/04/suppressing-soul/ http://jenniferfulwiler.com/2009/04/finding-rest/ Believing in God is a matter of the heart as well as the head. Vaal, you argued that the Bible supports the view that Hell is a place of torture. I suggest that you take a look at the following article by Christian apologist Glenn Miller, which is highly informative: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part2.html In a nutshell, Miller argues that C.S. Lewis's view of Hell has better Biblical support than Dante's view of Hell as a place of torture. Instead, the dominant Biblical image is one of everlasting shame, bitter regret, and "weeping and gnashing of teeth." C.S. Lewis held that God ultimately honors our decisions. In The Problem of Pain, Lewis writes: "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of Hell are locked on the inside." I might add that Pope Francis himself has said that even atheists may be saved, if they follow their consciences. Hell is for people who willfully refuse to believe, as opposed to people who want to believe, but cannot. The Bible nowhere says that people in the latter group go to Hell. Re Heaven and the meaning of life: St. Augustine summed it up best when he wrote, "You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless, until they can find rest in you." Heaven is a place of everlasting and unconditional love. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would not want that. I don't think atheism offers people a meaningful view of life. To be sure, many atheists are loving people who are deeply devoted to their families, but at the back of their heads, they continually have to keep away the thought that ultimately, life is absurd. In Bertrand Russell's words:
"That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. "Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built."
Jennifer Fulwiler's article at http://jenniferfulwiler.com/2009/04/finding-rest/ illustrates how atheism can harm people's mental health. (Jennifer Fulwiler grew up in an atheist family.) To be continued...vjtorley
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 13

Leave a Reply