On Orange Gods and the One Apple God

_{Barry Arrington

October 19, 2014

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This morning a friend said she had recently heard an atheist make the “I am atheistic about just one more god than you are” argument. Ricky Gervais makes the argument this way:

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

Like many things the new atheists say, the argument has a kind of first blush plausibility but does not hold up on even a moment’s reflection. As David Bentley Hart explains in The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, Gervais has made a glaring category error by lumping the God of the three great monotheistic faiths in with other “gods”:

according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all. He is pure being that is the source of all being. He is the necessary being, and by definition there can be only one necessary being. The necessary being cannot be compared to contingent beings. To lump the God of the monotheistic faiths in with Odin demonstrates that you understand neither God nor Odin.

Think of it this way. Gervais says in essense: “There are a bunch of oranges, and I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. You are little different from me because you admit that you also disbelieve in all of the oranges, except for that last little orange that you irrationally insist on clinging to.” No, Ricky, just like you I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. But I do believe in an apple. Why should I stop believing in an apple just because I don’t believe in oranges?

Comments

Aleta @ 188,
The good question that both Querius at #173 and heKS at#174 ask concerns a contradiction they think they see between my strongly disbelieving in any Gods and my also calling myself a strong agnostic. I think I can clarify this.
And you have. Please notice that I didn't accuse you but rather asked whether my proposed reconciliation might be correct. You explained why it wasn't. That's fine. As to your perceptions about God, I'd encourage you to try an experiment. A logical one. Your strong agnosticism shouldn't prevent you from making a temporary assumption to see where it leads. What if really and truly God existed---a distinct possibility in your belief system, perhaps unknowable, but a possibility. Right? 1. Would the existence of God that prevent religious beliefs and systems from being constructed? How about lots and lots of religions and religious institutions? And would there be any reason why people couldn't do terrible things in God's name? 2. Would there be anything that would prevent God from being sentient? After all, we're his creation and we are sentient. 3. Would anything prohibit God from interacting with what He originated? Notice that I'm not speculating whether He would do so or not. Just whether God could be prevented. 4. Would the Laws of Nature prohibit God from doing anything of His choosing? 5. If God chose to interact some way with a person, is it possible that other people would disbelieve that person and could come up with reasons why this was impossible? Finally, before you reanimate your disbelief, examine your arguments from the previous assumption. And if really and truly God actually wanted to interact with you, would you be willing or unwilling? My bet is on unwilling, but I could be all wet again. -QQuerius_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Axel and Andre I want to ask you something outside this forum. Can you write me an email? Here's my address: dshared@ymail.com Thank you. Let me know when you copy the address, so I can ask the moderator to delete this post.Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Axel What do you mean by "public schools (private in US)"? Public schools where? Thank you.Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

@ Andre #214 No, I didn't mean to even imply that you contradicted yourself. I was acknowledging that I was wrong and you were right. 'LOVE of money' is specifically stated, not just 'money', as I had thought and claimed.Axel_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

' dionisio #227 Very scholarly and interesting, Dionisio, though I'm familiar with some of it, of course. And yes, you're certainly preaching to the choir on this topic. Good point about the greater danger to the overly ambitious 'arriviste'. One nice thing that has emerged is that the public schools (private in US) have turned out to be one of the last bastions of the Christian faith. I believe they generally have their own chapels. Although their Christian ethos may have gone downhill in the last few decades, like so much else.Axel_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

229 William J Murray
Atheists and materialists often refuse to simply answer simple questions because if they answer one way, it leads to an intolerable conclusion, and if they answer another way, their foolishness is exposed.
Agree. :)Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

223 Alan Fox
In my universe...
This "In my universe..." reminds me of a nice tour guide lady my wife and I had in Dalian (China) a few years ago. As we visited different parts of the city, she was constantly explaining many interesting things associated with what we were looking at. In Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, the local tour guides referred to the cities by their names. However, the local tour guide in Dalian always said "in my city..." instead of Dalian. I forgot the nice lady's name, but still remember her stories always started with the phrase "in my city..." :)Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Because your question is related to moral acceptance, hence it implies certain scale or standard, doesn’t it? How else can one determine if something is acceptable or not?
I would expect Aleta or anyone else to use whatever they use to determine the morality of such a thing to answer the question. Atheists and materialists often refuse to simply answer simple questions because if they answer one way, it leads to an intolerable conclusion, and if they answer another way, their foolishness is exposed.
Apparently to the Nazi doctor it was acceptable to use children in the concentration camp for their experiments, but you and I abhor it.
Am I asking the Nazi doctor the question? It's a relatively simple question. Is there any imaginable world, universe or situation where you would find it morally acceptable to torture children for fun?
How come the same event is seen so different?
Eyewitnesses often describe events differently, down to wildly varying descriptions of people involved. People subjectively experience and interpret everything. Does a blind man have the same experience of an event as a deaf man? If a blind man doesn't see a wall, does it not exist? If the morally bankrupt cannot recognize evil, does evil simply not exist?William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

221 Axel 214 Andre Maybe I'm preaching to the choir? :) But remember the lurkers. :)Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

221 Axel 214 Andre
But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. 1 Timothy 6:6-10 (ESV)
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries
contentment. Christians can be content because their needs are met by Christ (2 Cor. 12:9, 10; Phil. 4:11, 13).
Matthew Henry's Commentary:
the apostle Paul, I. Takes occasion to show the excellency of contentment and the evil of covetousness. 1. The excellency of contentment, 1 Tim. 6:6-8. Some account Christianity an advantageous profession for this world. In the sense they mean this is false; yet it is undoubtedly true that, though Christianity is the worst trade, it is the best calling in the world. Those that make a trade of it, merely to serve their turn for this world, will be disappointed, and find it a sorry trade; but those that mind it as their calling, and make a business of it, will find it a gainful calling, for it has the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come. (1.) The truth he lays down is that godliness with contentment is great gain. Some read it, godliness with a competency; that is, if a man have but a little in this world, yet, if he have but enough to carry him through it, he needs desire no more, his godliness with that will be his great gain. For a little which a righteous man has is better than the riches of many wicked, Ps. 37:16. We read it, godliness with contentment; godliness is itself great gain, it is profitable to all things; and, wherever there is true godliness, there will be contentment; but those have arrived at the highest pitch of contentment with their godliness are certainly the easiest happiest people in this world. Godliness with contentment, that is, Christian contentment (content must come from principles of godliness) is great gain; it is all the wealth in the world. He that is godly is sure to be happy in another world; and if withal he do by contentment accommodate himself to his condition in this world he has enough. Here we have, [1.] A Christian’s gain; it is godliness with contentment, this is the true way to gain, yea, it is gain itself. [2.] A Christian’s gain is great: it is not like the little gain of worldlings, who are so fond of a little worldly advantage. [3.] Godliness is ever accompanied with contentment in a great or less degree; all truly godly people have learned with Paul, in whatever state they are, to be therewith content, Phil. 4:11. They are content with what God allots for them, well knowing that this is best for them. Let us all then endeavour after godliness with contentment. (2.) The reason he gives for it is, For we brought nothing with us into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out, 1 Tim. 6:7. This is a reason why we should be content with a little. [1.] Because we can challenge nothing as a debt that is due to us, for we came naked into the world. Whatever we have had since, we are obliged to the providence of God for it; but he that gave may take what and when he pleases. We had our beings, our bodies, our lives (which are more than meat, and which are more than raiment), when we came into the world, though we came naked, and brought nothing with us; may we not then be content while our beings and lives are continued to us, though we have not every thing we would have? We brought nothing with us into this world, and yet God provided for us, care was taken of us, we have been fed all our lives long unto this day; and therefore, when we are reduced to the greatest straits, we cannot be poorer than when we came into this world, and yet then we were provided for; therefore let us trust in God for the remaining part of our pilgrimage. [2.] We shall carry nothing with us out of this world. A shroud, a coffin, and a grave, are all that the richest man in the world can have from his thousands. Therefore why should we covet much? Why should we not be content with a little, because, how much soever we have, we must leave it behind us? Eccl. 5:15, 16. (3.) Hence he infers, having food and raiment, let us be therewith content, 1 Tim. 6:8. Food and a covering, including habitation as well as raiment. Observe, If God give us the necessary supports of life, we ought to be content therewith, though we have not the ornaments and delights of it. If nature should be content with a little, grace should be content with less; though we have not dainty food, though we have not costly raiment, if we have but food and raiment convenient for us we ought to be content. This was Agur’s prayer: Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me, Prov. 30:8. Here we see, [1.] The folly of placing our happiness in these things, when we did not bring any thing into this world with us, and we can carry nothing out. What will worldlings do when death shall strip them of their happiness and portion, and they must take an everlasting farewell of all these things, on which they have so much doted? They may say with poor Micah, You have taken away my gods; and what have I more? Jdg. 18:24. [2.] The necessaries of life are the hounds of a true Christian’s desire, and with these he will endeavour to be content; his desires are not insatiable; no, a little, a few comforts of this life, will serve him, and these may hope to enjoy: Having food and raiment. 2. The evil of covetousness. Those that will be rich (that set their hearts upon the wealth of this world, and are resolved right or wrong, they will have it), fall into temptation and a snare, 1 Tim. 6:9. It is not said, those that are rich, but those that will be rich, that is, that place their happiness in worldly wealth, that covet it inordinately, and are eager and violent in the pursuit of it. Those that are such fall into temptation and a snare, unavoidably; for, when the devil sees which way their lusts carry them, he will soon bait his hook accordingly. He knew how fond Achan would be of a wedge of gold, and therefore laid that before him. They fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts. Observe, (1.) The apostle supposes that, [1.] Some will be rich; that is, they are resolved upon it, nothing short of a great abundance will satisfy. [2.] Such will not be safe nor innocent, for they will be in danger of ruining themselves for ever; they fall into temptation, and a snare, etc. [3.] Worldly lusts are foolish and hurtful, for they drown men in destruction and perdition. [4.] It is good for us to consider the mischievousness of worldly fleshly lusts. They are foolish, and therefore we should be ashamed of them, hurtful, and therefore we should be afraid of them, especially considering to what degree they are hurtful, for they drown men in destruction and perdition.
Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

And exactly how does Mr. Fox help you Aleta? i.e. how does moral law derive from mechanical causality instead from agent causality? Does a machine care if it kills you?bornagain77_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Alan, for your response to William.Aleta_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

221 Axel I see your point too. :) Thanks.Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

In any universe, is it morally acceptable to torture children for personal pleasure?
Do you never tire of asking this, William? As far as we know, there may be no other universe than the one we live in. In my universe it is unacceptable to toture anyone, child or adult, whether pleasure is involved or not. Is it acceptable for you as an interrogator to torture a terrorist who you suspect knows where a large bomb with a delay fuse is hidden? I'm sure you would not derive pleasure from the process, but would you do it?Alan Fox_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

217 logically_speaking
Bornagain77, As funny as that video is, I was hoping for a serious answer.
That was a serious answer. The video is funny because it touches a very serious issue. Actually, extremely serious issue. Do you understand what it is about?Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Dionisio, and my apologies on that score, Andre. I've made that mistake in the past, and got away with it. Now I can avoid that mistake in future. However, I'm not being churlish when I say that my general point still holds. Francis Bacon commented that prosperity was the blessing of the Old Testament and adversity the blessing of the New, but, while one can see the point, even as a generalization, it's 'sailing close to the wind'. The patriarchs were blessed with wealth, the Judges would surely have been well provided for, but the prophets seem unanimous in denouncing the rich of their respective times, and expressing indignation at the oppression of the poor. So things seemed to be getting worse with the passage of time. Sound familiar? Christ seemed quite vehemently censorious of the farmer who built bigger barns to house his bumper harvest; surely, no more than plain common-sense, according to normal canons of human affairs, never mind our depraved business culture. Two key quotes: Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19–21) I don't think there can be much doubt that the life-style of asceticism of Jesus and John the Baptist could reasonably be classified as being located at the extreme end of the spectrum. Monastery, convents and perhaps hermitages today, would be luxurious in comparison. Detachment and concern for justice are what matters more than anything, THEN followed by charity where the need still exists. However, none of any of this alters the truths abut the burden of Scripture that I was indicating. Riches are less propitious to a pious life than poverty. Even perhaps extreme poverty, which seems to us an absolutely unmitigated disaster, but God has eyes for the oppressed. The heart of the (good) destitute, homeless people, after all, can hardly be thought to have been focused on material treasure. Incidentally, note how easily Jezabel was able to suborn the worthies of Naboth's town to set Naboth up to be killed. How could they have refused without losing their own life? One of the penalties of enjoying the patronage of the powerful and unprincipled. Isn't the history of the world largely a chronicle of the ministrations of psychopaths - in modern times, perhaps, with more of a leavening of sociopaths.Axel_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

ls that was a serious answer and thank you Andrebornagain77_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

207 William J Murray In your post #194 you asked this interesting question:
In any universe, is it morally acceptable to torture children for personal pleasure?
In post #202 I asked:
According to the Nazi Mengele’s standards or to WJM’s standards?
Because your question is related to moral acceptance, hence it implies certain scale or standard, doesn't it? How else can one determine if something is acceptable or not? Apparently to the Nazi doctor it was acceptable to use children in the concentration camp for their experiments, but you and I abhor it. How come the same event is seen so different? Please, correct me if I got this wrong. Thank you.Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Logically BA can speak for himself but I would like to answer, If It was just God and he is known as the God of love, who would he have loved before the creation of angels or men? Himself? Jesus is God's First love, for him and through him all things were made.Andre_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, As funny as that video is, I was hoping for a serious answer.logically_speaking_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

214 Andre 2 Timothy 3:2 (ESV)
For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

209 Axel The apostle affirms that the love of money is the root of all evil, 1 Tim. 6:10. What sins will not men be drawn to by the love of money? Particularly this was at the bottom of the apostasy of many from the faith of Christ; while they coveted money, they erred from the faith, they quitted their Christianity, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. Observe, [1.] What is the root of all evil; the love of money: people may have money, and yet not love it; but, if they love it inordinately, it will push them on to all evil. [2.] Covetous persons will quit the faith, if that be the way to get money: Which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith. Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, 2 Tim. 4:10. For the world was dearer to him than Christianity. Observe, Those that err from the faith pierce themselves with many sorrows; those that depart from God do but treasure up sorrows for themselves. [Matthew Henry's Commentary]Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Don't know where I ever contadited myself Axel..... 1 Timothy 6:10 is clear, And what you have pointed out is exactly what I was saying...... The love of money is the root of All evil. Job was a wealthy man, blessed by God, and after Job's character and obedience was tested he was blessed by God with even more wealth. But yes when times are good we do often forget that what was given can be taken away.Andre_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

209 Axel 1 Timothy 6:10 (ESV)
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

189 Chalciss You hit the nail right on its head and very strongly. Your post is a game changer. Better yet, a discussion stopper. By referring to that biblical passage, you have finished the discussion. Nothing else can be added to answer the given question. This says it all: John 8:58 (ESV) Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” :) REV 22:21Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Aleta, I asked you three questions. All three are about whether or not we can have knowledge about anything assumedly outside of our universe. Are you saying that you don't know if 2+2 would equal 4 outside of our universe? Are you saying that you don't know if A=A outside of our universe? Are you saying that you don't know if torturing children for fun would be immoral outside of our universe?William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Here is an interesting article on Justice and Charity and their mutual relationship, Andre: http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/article/the-redistribution-of-wealth-is-justice-not-charity-5811866496401408?Axel_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

@Andre #172: 'Axel Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is. I hold that every cent ever made belongs to the creator of our universe, There are many wealthy people in the Bible and they certainly carried God’s blessing. The minute money becomes more important than God the trouble starts.' Why are you contradicting scripture in your first sentence? You must know that 'the words of scripture are binding', as Jesus pointed out to someone. I haven't managed to Google it, and usually I believe different expressions from 'binding' are used in other translations. Remembering the context would have helped! 'There are many wealthy people in the Bible and they certainly carried God’s blessing.' You are contradicting Scripture again. Do you deny that, apart from in the Magnificat, where it is so unequivocal, the rich are referred to, throughout most of the Old Testament, and constantly by the Prophets, in apposition to the wicked, man, the violent, the deceitful; while the poor man is spoken of in apposition to the virtuous man, the true Israel. To make sense of the world, a degree of generalization was unavoidable even by Jesus. In the Gospels, Jesus doesn't mince his words. Likewise, in the epistles, the rich are referred to by Paul and James as a kind of menace to the Church. And I'm surprised people see fit to correct the Holy Spirit, who could easily have inspired Paul to write that the love of money is the root of all evil. Of course, there were good rich men, very good rich men, rich men with a noble and generous heart, such as Joseph of Arimathea, in Jesus' time, and have been ever since, right up to today. God does not have favourites. But that is neither here no there, in this context. And just as the rich are denounced by Jesus for setting their heart on this world's goods, (you don't get rich by accident (unless inheriting), the poor are praised by him as being blessed - where you claim it was the 'many rich men' in scripture who were 'certainly blessed'. You should familiarize yourself more with the Psalms; the disparagement of the rich is really emphatic: '... In his riches, man lacks wisdom. He is like the beasts that are destroyed,' is one of a number of such disparaging passages. If you look at the world today, you can see that it is. We pillage the third world countries mercilessly causing innumerable deaths; our banking sectors in the West are literally headed by mega criminals, the poor (increasingly the public) are pillaged and oppressed as never before. Progressive politicians who sought to stand in the way of the machinations of the 'deep state' have been routinely murdered. And beneath that 1%, are the people tainted by collusion. It's just the way the world is and generally always has been. To an extent, most of the 99% don't have a lot of choice; increasingly at the lower end, no choice.Axel_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

To WJM: The topic I am discussing (one of a couple) is that we can't investigate whatever metaphysical "reality" is behind/beyond/the cause of, etc our universe, and that our metaphysical speculations, while perhaps created so as to be internally consistent, can't actually know anything about what's beyond our universe. Your question is, to use a current phrase, an "irrelevent tangent" that I don't want to chase.Aleta_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Dionisio asks:
According to the Nazi Mengele’s standards or to WJM’s standards?
I didn't qualify the question by imposing any standards. I was asking Aleta a rather simple question.William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply