Linked is a brief Newsweek article by Lisa Miller. Read it and then let's discuss. To warm you up, the writer is suggesting that the religious Right has shifted the focus from moral issues such as sexuality, divorce, etc. to patriotism in the form of anti-socialism, anti-big government, and anti-immigration. I'm wondering if some Christians feel disenfranchised by this shift, that is, that their religion is so political to begin with, especially on issues that are ambiguous in the Bible.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/09/one-nation-under-god.html
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Problem of Evil: An Argument Against the Existence of God
The Problem of Evil
Consider the following three claims:
a) God is omnipotent (i.e., all powerful), omniscient (i.e., all knowing), and omni-benevolent (i.e., wholly and perfectly good).
b) God exists.
c) There is unnecessary evil in the world.
Most theists who believe in the Judeo-Christian God accept these three statements, but they are logically contradictory (i.e., that can’t all be true) so one of them must be rejected. Statement c) looks pretty difficult to deny—just consider the recent earthquake in Haiti. The rejection of b) would be the atheistic (or perhaps some species of agnostic) response. Theists have tried to respond to this problem in several ways which I’ll discuss below.
The Apologists Response: The most straightforward tack is to claim that God allows evil in the world and we can't possibly know the reasons for which he allows such evil to exist. For instance, some claim that maybe the Holocaust was a necessary evil for some future reasons or future good that we're not aware of. This strategy claims that the three statements are only apparently contradictory but can be rendered consistent. But this doesn't work because God would be, nonetheless, allowing such evil and harm to persist when he doesn't have to. And this doesn't seem to be characteristic of an omni-benevolent God. In order to emphasize this point, it’s worth noting that we all seem to be able to conceive of a world with less evil in it; we all seem to be able to think of a possible world in which things go better than this one. And if this is the case, then it seems God has failed in some way (since he has perfect knowledge, is all powerful, and is wholly good) by allowing evil in this world when he need not.
The Theodicy Response: Some theorists have tried to give some sort of reason for why God would allow evil in the world in order to explain away the apparent contradiction in the above statements. There are many different reasons one could give but a popular response is that God values giving man free will over creating a world with less evil. (Alvin Plantiga—a contemporary philosopher at Notre Dame gives this response.) Therefore, the theodicy continues, it's the existence of free will that has led to such evil in the world. But again, it seems as though God is nonetheless allowing evil to persist in this world when he wouldn't have to. In addition, this doesn’t seem to explain the existence of evil and suffering brought on by natural disasters.
Rejection of a) Response: One might try to reject a) claiming that their idea of God isn't exactly the Christian God. But if this is the case, it doesn’t look like a God who lacks one of the three main features (omnipotence, omniscience, or omni-benevolence) is worthy of our praise. One would need to explain what the difference is between this God and the conception of God in statement a), then further argue that he is a God that is worthy of our praise.
I’m interested in hearing other responses to this argument against the existence (and the possibility!) of God.
Consider the following three claims:
a) God is omnipotent (i.e., all powerful), omniscient (i.e., all knowing), and omni-benevolent (i.e., wholly and perfectly good).
b) God exists.
c) There is unnecessary evil in the world.
Most theists who believe in the Judeo-Christian God accept these three statements, but they are logically contradictory (i.e., that can’t all be true) so one of them must be rejected. Statement c) looks pretty difficult to deny—just consider the recent earthquake in Haiti. The rejection of b) would be the atheistic (or perhaps some species of agnostic) response. Theists have tried to respond to this problem in several ways which I’ll discuss below.
The Apologists Response: The most straightforward tack is to claim that God allows evil in the world and we can't possibly know the reasons for which he allows such evil to exist. For instance, some claim that maybe the Holocaust was a necessary evil for some future reasons or future good that we're not aware of. This strategy claims that the three statements are only apparently contradictory but can be rendered consistent. But this doesn't work because God would be, nonetheless, allowing such evil and harm to persist when he doesn't have to. And this doesn't seem to be characteristic of an omni-benevolent God. In order to emphasize this point, it’s worth noting that we all seem to be able to conceive of a world with less evil in it; we all seem to be able to think of a possible world in which things go better than this one. And if this is the case, then it seems God has failed in some way (since he has perfect knowledge, is all powerful, and is wholly good) by allowing evil in this world when he need not.
The Theodicy Response: Some theorists have tried to give some sort of reason for why God would allow evil in the world in order to explain away the apparent contradiction in the above statements. There are many different reasons one could give but a popular response is that God values giving man free will over creating a world with less evil. (Alvin Plantiga—a contemporary philosopher at Notre Dame gives this response.) Therefore, the theodicy continues, it's the existence of free will that has led to such evil in the world. But again, it seems as though God is nonetheless allowing evil to persist in this world when he wouldn't have to. In addition, this doesn’t seem to explain the existence of evil and suffering brought on by natural disasters.
Rejection of a) Response: One might try to reject a) claiming that their idea of God isn't exactly the Christian God. But if this is the case, it doesn’t look like a God who lacks one of the three main features (omnipotence, omniscience, or omni-benevolence) is worthy of our praise. One would need to explain what the difference is between this God and the conception of God in statement a), then further argue that he is a God that is worthy of our praise.
I’m interested in hearing other responses to this argument against the existence (and the possibility!) of God.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Edward Kennedy: Selected Quotes from Speeches
If you search the annals for moving/timely speeches you will find many of them spoken by Edward Kennedy. This post is for anyone to post one or more of their favorite lines from a speech he gave.
I particularly like this one he gave in 1980. He succinctly draws a line between faith and facts when debating public policy.
“…in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.
In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.”
I particularly like this one he gave in 1980. He succinctly draws a line between faith and facts when debating public policy.
“…in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.
In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.”
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
I'd like to discuss Memetics. Of all the things presented in God Delusion, this was the most original to me (but apparently has been a field of study for 30+ yrs now). It's very easy to understand if you think of brains as computers. Some information is easily programmable and thus easily passed on while other information is more difficult to code and thus less likely to evolve on any wide scale. There are broad and important implications to this work in my opinion. I need to read more books by more modern memeticists. But let's discuss this.
I'd like to discuss Memetics. Of all the things presented in God Delusion, this was the most original to me (but apparently has been a field of study for 30+ yrs now). It's very easy to understand if you think of brains as computers. Some information is easily programmable and thus easily passed on while other information is more difficult to code and thus less likely to evolve on any wide scale. There are broad and important implications to this work in my opinion. I need to read more books by more modern memeticists. But let's discuss this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
