The 1755 Lisbon Earthquake is iconic in the philosophical and theological discussions of evil and suffering. The Hatian earthquake threatens to surpass Lisbon in death toll, perhaps rising into the top ten earthquakes in the category of human casualties. We are confronted once again with the age-old theodicy problem: How can we account for such incredible suffering in a universe purportedly created and governed by a God who is loving and good.It has been my contention that no world-view, whether theistic or non, can skate on this issue. No philosophy, no theology, has integrity if it ignores this elephant in the room, the problem posed by suffering and evil. Today, as I view dump trucks discharging their faceless, nameless loads into mass graves, I am sometimes amazed at the indifference of some believers who claim this huge affront to faith does not faze them. The comment threads on this site are littered with such cavalier dismissals. Many other believers are guilty of a greater atrocity, blaming the victims of tragic disasters for exciting the Posieden-like anger of a vindictive God. Still others take the easier hand-in-the-sand mentality: what I don’t think about can’t threaten me!
Lisa Miller, Religion Editor at Newsweek, commenting on the suffering in Haiti, has raised the question again in her column, Why God Hates Haiti, The frustrating theology of suffering. Read it. Ask the hard questions.
Some Christians react defensively when I call them to consider the problem of evil. They perceive me as attacking their faith. Of course, they are correct. A faith which does not take into account the horrors of evil and suffering ought to be attacked. But my purpose is never to destroy faith. Rather, I seek to build faith that is rational, robust, reality-based. Arriving at such a faith may involve a good deal of illusion dismantling. Is it worth the risk? For some, such an examination may result in the complete crumbling of faith, as it did for Bart Ehrman. It is my experience, however, that most Christians who engage is this perilous work of critical thinking, asking the hard questions, emerge on the other side with a faith that is more vibrant, more reliable, more defensible. For me, it is the only kind of faith worth possessing.
90 comments:
Cliff,
I think you are correct that this is a central aspect of faith. The book of Job is reputed to be the first book of the Old Testament written and its topic is faith and human suffering. Nevertheless, I find the book quite unsatisfying as it never really addresses any reason for suffering (except seemingly to test faith) and then God says we are too juvenile to understand or question these things anyway. In the end, we are simply to trust that there is a reason and that God is in control.
Haitians suffer because they are victims of and perpetuate a broken, corrupt system. The poor who live in dilapidated homes will fare much worse than those that can afford to live in better-constructed homes and are privileged to live in a country where building codes are more pronounced and commonly practiced. If God uses evolution, then he is showing the consequences of corruption and, contrastingly, the rewards of a system that constructs and enforces safer building codes and better engineering and design practices.
Pat Robertson can make his hate speech by blaming the victims for their sins, but if God is permitting or causing natural disasters to test or evolve human behavior, then I don't really see the discrepancy between Pat's views and the stance of other believers who trust God is at the helm.
"At the heart of Haiti's humanitarian crisis is an age old question for many religious people - how can God allow such terrible things to happen? Philosopher David Bain examines the arguments."
Why does God allow natural disasters?
Hi Cliff,
thanks for the post!
I am suprised more are not commenting on this, I guess it is hard right now . If this stuff does not bother someones faith at all I sometimes wonder if they spend anytime alone with their thoughts. I find the only way to escape the thoughts is to stay busy and distracted and hope they go away.mabye that is what people are doing. The more I think about this the more absurd it seems to be, but mabye thats where faith really starts? I dont know. mabye where it starts is trying to believe that somehow this will all work out in the long term. wishful thinking? mabye! mabye suffering is just random and meaningless, ya know, $h!t happens! But what could be more absurd than that? of all the absurdities to pick from, I would rather grab for one that mabye offers some hope.
Isaac, thanks for the link, he has the same questions I do but is better at expressing them.
MT
Hi Michael,
Good to hear from you again. Yes, the BBC article (Isaac's link) was clear and simple. The problem is real. And I contend that it is a problem for anyone who seeks meaning in life, whether they look to God or not. For God-seekers, it is a challenge which should be embraced, not run from.
I do believe that all things (all things) will be set right some day. I base that hope (which is the essence of faith) not only in Scriptures like Acts 3:21, but in a solid conviction that there must be meaning and purpose in this cosmos, despite appearances. You muse that "maybe suffering is just random and meaningless," but I would say maybe suffering is random, but not meaningless.
I look for meaning in all suffering precisely because we know that God created the cosmos in a state of entropy, thus predisposing creation to suffering of all kinds. And if we are to take the Scriptures at face value, no one suffers in this cosmic unfolding than God himself. Would he do all of this, set all of this in motion, jump into the midst of it himself if it were not necessary and of great value to do so? Tom objects to God implying, in Job, that suffering has meaning, but not telling us what that meaning is. I choose the tack of looking for possible meanings, meanings which the Creator may have concealed for now ... and that with purpose, too. It is the only way that I can make sense of, not only, God, but of our very existence.
Good morning. interesting, I was just thinking about how there must be something important about suffering, since God sent his only son to suffer and die too. (That is assuming the gospel accounts are accurate) thanks for your reply!
MT
Hi Cliff,
I am an evangelical Christian from Germany reading your blog for quite some time. Your blog, together with the books of Gordon Glover and Denis Lamoureux, did help me quite a bit to understand the issue of evolution from a Christian perspective. Since I did a study year abroad in the UK, I know that evolution vs. creation is a much bigger issue for evangelicals in the Anglo-Saxon world. I personally started as a young earth creationist and even helped to organize talks of such proponents at my local university. But during my time in the UK I came into touch with the findings of the human genome project, which finally convinced me of evolution being a fact.
I guess that an evolutionary perspective might also help in understanding God’s relationship to suffering as being part of his creation more deeply. From my point of view, suffering didn’t enter the world through the fall of man. As you said, the cosmos is created as an entropic system. I believe this is a necessary condition for natural selection to play out as a means for creating complex life leading to humans. In the course of that process humans became conscience beings which I think is one of the main aspect of being created in God’s image. Cultural evolution did the rest to make us morally responsible social beings with the ability to love – the second big factor being created in the image of God.
Sin as a concept can only play out in a being having a moral conscience. To me, the genesis narratives are Holy Spirit inspired texts telling us today that we are morally responsible not only before other humans but before the creator God himself. We never fell out of a relationship with him because we never had one - you and me individually (there was no historical Adam and Eve, that’s just a narrative communicating that every person alive today being, as a conscience adult, responsible before God).
In this view, through evolution people are spiritual beings being able to look beyond the material world conceiving purpose, order, beauty etc. So God used evolution in order to create us in his image and make us search for him by realizing the mentioned characteristics of his creation. This is what happened to me when I was a teenager looking for the purpose of life, looking for the key to make sense of it. This is when Jesus came into my life and opened my eyes to the reality that truth can’t be found in philosophy but is him and be only found in a relationship with him. Living in truth means living in relationship with Jesus.
From an evolutionary perspective God used natural selection and cultural evolution to create beings being free in choosing or rejecting him as the supreme cause and purpose of life. Earth quakes and natural disasters are a natural condition for a creation from which God hides in order to allow evolution to create beings with free will. If God would stop the natural cause and effect relations in nature by interrupting the natural laws publicly (preventing earth quakes), we would all end in a theocracy and free will and love would be obsolete. In this view freedom and “freedom of disaster” is the price of love. You could put it like this: If you would want to exist you must tolerate disaster. But keep in mind that God became human in order to suffer with us and lead his creation to an eternal state of happiness for the ones willing to acknowledge him and his purposes.
From this perspective God chose to trade-off temporal suffering for the existence of conscience people being able to enjoy him eternally in a relationship chosen in freedom out of love. I think we will only finally understand his trade-off when we know him and his worth and glory face to face in eternity. Until then we can only do good to anyone who suffers and believe in his justice. And we, who know Christ, have more reason than anyone else to believe in his justice.
Excellent thoughts, Sebastian. Thank you for sharing them. You have obviously thought a good deal about this question, starting from what we know about the created order. It is so important (in my opinion) to start there, but so few Christians do.
I will keep digesting your comments, and may have more to say later.
Cliff > if we are to take the Scriptures at face value
Michael Thompson> assuming the gospel accounts are accurate
"... what is new in the Trobisch world is the idea that the forgeries are not isolated cases of individuals forging individual books, or individuals trying conscientiously to reformulate the teaching of their master and humbly assigning the master’s name to their compositions. Instead, the entire New Testament is seen as a concerted effort by a master of deception to win a theological battle by appropriating the authority of revered personages. To that end, this person may have had no qualms about actually misrepresenting the positions of those personages (by making Paul’s opponents out to be his allies). Put another way, the New Testament text deliberately attempts to conceal one aspect of the history of early Christianity, and only an examination of the manuscripts has revealed the deception."
David Trobisch and David Parker on the Origin of the New Testament, the
Historical Jesus, and How Manuscripts Can Reveal What Texts Conceal
That is one of the struggles I have in the faith. as a christian, I choose to believe they are accurate, but it really seems like a leap of faith. I cant escape the question of why three of the gospel writers picks almost the same efvents in Jesus life and recorded them so similiarly.
Michael Thompson > the gospel writers
And if we say the gospel writers (and editors) were inspired and guided - rather than acting out their own all too human agenda - does that suggest some loss of free will?
Isaac, mabye, It depends on what it means to be inspired.
Previously (January 13, 2010 5:52 AM) Mattress wrote "without the freedom to choose evil you are nothing more than a slave", following that line of thought - without the freedom to choose not to be inspired, to choose not to be guided, would the writers and editors be more than slaves?
If it must be that they have such freedom then it seems they may have exercised that freedom and the text is as reliable or as unreliable as any other text produced by the hand of man.
Michael,
I agree with Isaac here (perhaps you do, too?). Steve Douglas recently offered this post at his website, Undeception, which deals with this question quite masterfully, I think.
In that post Steve Douglas wrote "we have no reason to believe he’s lying to us".
Once more - "the New Testament text deliberately attempts to conceal one aspect of the history of early Christianity, and only an examination of the manuscripts has revealed the deception."
Isaac, mabye god could have chose the letters from those who freely chose to be inspired? I don't know if that is what happened, but I don't see anything internally contradictory in that view.
Cliff, it is possible that I agree with him completely, but I would have to see what his definitions of inspiration and free will are.
Michael,
Keep in mind that the concept of "inspiration" of Scripture comes from one N.T. verse (2 Timothy 3:16). And the Greek word (literally "God-breathed") may mean no more nor less than the Latin (and English) word "inspire", which is literally "in-breathed". It might then imply that God inspired men to write in a similar fashion to that which an artist or poet senses when they are inspired. God inspired them to write out of their own experience and knowledge, to journal for posterity the events of their time. The common ideas that God controlled their hands, and directly inspired every word, go far beyond the simple statements that the Bible makes about the process of the writing.
interesting, Cliff.
if that is all that is meant by inspiration, then what is the difference between scripture, and other writings?
Michael:
"if that is all that is meant by inspiration, then what is the difference between scripture, and other writings?"
I read further down Isaac's reference, and came across something like this: Is the N.T. a collection of authoritative books, or an authoritative collection of books. The first is the evangelical Protestant view, and the latter the Orthodox/Catholic view. One places the authority in the original writings, the other places it in the Church.
BTW, none of us read the Scriptures in a vacuum. We all bring our prejudices and combine them with the accepted doctrines handed down from earlier generations in order to understand and make personal application. So, is the inspiration in the collection, or in the individual writings? I'm not sure I can (or should) make a definitive choice.
Isaac's 'hand grenade across the floor', as I see it, seems to be: "is all of Christianity built upon an organized fraud"? Let's not dance around that one.
Rich G.
Rich G. > I read further down Isaac's reference...
My guess is that your comment is intended as an answer to Michael's question but your comment seems to be something of a non sequitur.
Rich G. > 'hand grenade across the floor'
Both Cliff and Michael noted their fundamental assumption.
Evidence for or against that assumption changes - should unfavorable evidence be ignored?
Cliff > ... God inspired men to write in a similar fashion to that which an artist or poet senses when they are inspired...
That doesn't seem to change the question of free will.
Michael,
if that is all that is meant by inspiration, then what is the difference between scripture, and other writings?
Good question. The difference would not lie in the manner of the writing, but in the subject: Jesus. Our faith is not about a book, but a person. The Bible is a record of Jesus, both before and after his life. To the degree that it renders an accurate portrayal of Jesus, to that degree it is useful to us and significant.
For me, that makes the Bible the most important book ever written.
Cliff > The difference would not lie in the manner of the writing...
That perspective allows, for example, comparison of NT letters with other collections of letters from antiquity.
And such comparison will lead to some understanding of whether NT letters have been edited, and the kind of agenda the edited manuscripts would support.
And such an understanding will stand against a simple view that somehow what was written was a neutral accurate portrayal.
Cliff:
Isaac wrote:
"That perspective allows, for example, comparison of NT letters with other collections of letters from antiquity.
And such comparison will lead to some understanding of whether NT letters have been edited, and the kind of agenda the edited manuscripts would support."
While I do not agree with Isaac as to his apparent goal, I think he raises an important point here. I think we need know upon what basis we place our trust in the NT scriptures. I don't think it is enough to say "The Bible is a record of Jesus". The Gnostic gospels are about Jesus, as is the Book of Mormon. We don't accept those, but we do accept Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We must have a sound basis to accept or reject any purported Scripture, not just our own prejudices or feelings.
Rich G.
Rich,
Piecing together who wrote or edited what when and where is a complex study. Textual criticism rarely resolves these questions with much certainty. The kinds of issues Isaac is raising have been around for decades, and will remain open questions. They don’t interest me much. Isaac suggests the NT manuscripts have been subject to editing. Everyone knows that. He further asserts that editors were, at times at least, agenda driven. I agree. He then claims that this mitigates against the “simple idea” that the N.T., as we have it, is a “neutral and accurate portrayal”. Since I do not subscribe to such a simple view, I have no argument with Isaac. I’ve never claimed an ounce of “neutrality” on the part of the N.T. authors and editors.
All writings from antiquity must be sorted through, and sifted some. This is the highly technical science of the textual critic. In my opinion, it is not an appropriate debate for this venue. If you wish to engage Isaac, be my guest. I’ll sit this one out.
For my part, I have studied textual criticism in the past. I am satisfied that the N.T. texts we now possess demonstrate a remarkable shared testimony that, while not perfect, render a substantially reliable history of Jesus and the growth and development of the early church.
Cliff:
This is the highly technical science of the textual critic. In my opinion, it is not an appropriate debate for this venue.
Point taken.
If you wish to engage Isaac, be my guest. I’ll sit this one out.
I don't. At least not at length, and not in this thread.
Rich G.
Cliff > The kinds of issues Isaac is raising have been around for decades...
"... what is new in the Trobisch world is the idea that the forgeries are not isolated cases..."
(If there were no new issues and if they will remain open questions how is that different from "the problem of evil"?)
Cliff > Isaac suggests...
Nope - scholars who study the manuscripts suggest...
Cliff > Since I do not subscribe to such a simple view, I have no argument with Isaac. I’ve never claimed an ounce of “neutrality” on the part of the N.T. authors and editors.
I think Michael could be forgiven for thinking that you might have mentioned that when you answered him with:
- "The Bible is a record of Jesus, both before and after his life. To the degree that it renders an accurate portrayal of Jesus, to that degree it is useful to us and significant."
Cliff > I am satisfied that the N.T. texts we now possess demonstrate a remarkable shared testimony...
And of course the reason the "texts we now possess demonstrate a remarkable shared testimony" may well be that demonstrating a remarkable shared testimony was the goal their author/editor was trying to achieve - and the manuscripts provide evidence (apart from the text) to support that suggestion.
Cliff:
Returning to the OP, I have little trouble with the question "Why is there suffering?" But for me the more immediate one is "Why are some delivered from calamity while others are not?" There have been miraculous interventions in the midst of momentous catastrophes and loss of life. There are both believers and nonbelievers that are fortunate enough to survive, or not - seemingly at random. One is rescued from a tsunami in Banda Aceh, while another perishes in Port-au-Prince when the hotel collapses. One gets cancer and is supernaturally healed, while another gets MS and Parkinson's and spends his days watching his life and vitality get sucked away.
This is for me the thornier problem.
Rich G.
Rich,
Yesterday, we attended a church in Lincoln City where they celebrated the remarkable survival of a young woman involved in what should have been a fatal automobile accident. They had "forgotten" to pray for her journey, but "God kept her safe anyway." I have no problem with thanking God for such things. It was a blessing. But I was left wondering, if God could keep her from dying, could he not as easily have prevented the accident in the first place? And is there a statistical difference between survival rates from such accidents for believers vs. non-believers? I don't think so.
Randomness seems to govern most such events. I believe God can (and does ... perhaps more rarely than Christians would like to think) intervene in our lives, but most everything that happens is subject to the same randomness that nonbelievers fall victim to, or are blessed by. What to make of it? I think God's pattern of general non-intervention and allowing randomness to play itself out is accomplishing his ends. But that is an opinion I might have a tough time validating from Scripture. What do you think?
Cliff:
That's the maddening thing... There is no statistical difference that I am aware of. And yet, when I talk to my friend who just last night returned from Haiti, I am struck by the number and kind of seemingly supernatural interventions that he has experienced (I have seen a few of them myself). From Honduras to Mozambique, to Banda Aceh, to Port-au-Prince, there are so many of these 'random' events that follow him around that it defies explanation. He's almost a walking Book of Acts. And yet his wife has had 13 cancer surgeries.
It seems that God wants to intervene, but only sparingly for reasons that are his own. But some seem to get more than others, and I am left wondering, like the writer of Job, "Where is He?"
Rich G. > Returning to the OP...
As Cliff so immediately showed with his "... I might have a tough time validating from Scripture ..." returning to the OP does not take us away from the "need to [sic] know upon what basis we place our trust in the NT scriptures".
Rich G. > I am struck by the number and kind of seemingly supernatural interventions that he has experienced...
"#62 Demystify Amazing Coincidences"
Rich,
It seems that God wants to intervene, but only sparingly for reasons that are his own.
So I believe. In my own personal quest for a reality-based faith, I am finding it increasingly difficult to sit in evangelical churches where the people credit God with a myriad of routine interventions. Most of it amounts to what I call "wishful-thinking theology".
Yet, there have been certain passages in my life in which events have stacked up in a most uncanny way if not explained by God specifically directing my thoughts, orchestrating circumstances, watching my backside, etc. Occurrences which defy any other explanation. Those times have not been the norm. They have been the unusual exception. Could they be mere coincidence? I am convinced otherwise.
Nevertheless, if we are to base our faith in reality, much of the fluffier evangelical theology will have to be abandoned, in my opinion.
Isaac:
You wrote:
"returning to the OP does not take us away from the "need to [sic] know upon what basis we place our trust in the NT scriptures"."
Granted. But is this the appropriate thread for this discussion?
""#62 Demystify Amazing Coincidences""
Uh,, OK. But the Skeptical Inquirer did a much better job addressing this than your reference did. I know that (for example) if I was to go to Disneyland right now, there is a statistical virtual certainty that I would meet one of my friends there. I would not know ahead of time who, when or where within the park I would meet that person, but statistically, I can be almost certain I would meet someone.
But what cannot be either explained or modeled is the confluence of fortuitous events that follows my friend around as he goes into disaster areas as a member of Medical Teams International. Any one event can be easily dismissed as luck, and within the realm of statistical variability. But if you could take the whole picture of how these random events (and mis-adventures, such as being taken to the wrong village outside Banda Aceh, then they forgot where they dropped him) became essential to the success of his mission, you may be astounded. Probably not convinced, but likely amazed.
Rich G.
Rich,
And these kind of genuinely inexplicable fortuitous happenings dot the lives of many believers who are on some vital mission.
Yes, I've had the very Disneyland experience you mentioned. And countless other strange, and at times almost unbelievable coincidences over my life. They were just that, coincidences. But I also have experiences, just at the time of need, that are astounding beyond coincidence.
Still, these are the exception to ordinary life, even the life of those rare believers like your friend. I'd rather we reserved the language of God's interventions for these highly unordinary experiences instead of spending such descriptions with the profligacy we do.
Rich G. > But is this the appropriate thread for this discussion?
If it isn't fundamental to this topic why did Cliff immediately speak of "... validating from Scripture ..."?
Rich G. > But the Skeptical Inquirer did a much better job addressing this than your reference did.
Perhaps you could provide a link to that Skeptical Inquirer article?
The similar example in the reference I gave was to a Kansas City Royals baseball game.
Rich G. > ... became essential to the success of his mission ...
You have some idea of what actually happened.
How do you know whether or not his mission would also have been "successful" if myriad other things had happened instead?
why did Cliff immediately speak of "... validating from Scripture ..."?
Isaac, you crack me up. Immediate?? What does that mean? You lifted this quote from the last sentence of the last paragraph of comment #29 (or so). It was an aside comment directed to Rich, to solicit his opinion as to whether a view I expressed could be supported by anything in the Bible? And it was based upon no assumptions re. the issues you raise.
I concur with Rich. This is not the appropriate place for a technical discussion of the ancient texts of the N.T. You've made your point, I have agreed that this is an open issue. There are hundreds of such "open issues". I'll choose which I care to discuss. This is not one that interests me, at least not at this time.
Cliff > the last paragraph of comment #29 (or so)
Your comment immediately followed Rich G.'s "Returning to the OP..." comment.
Cliff > This is not one that interests me, at least not at this time.
You already said "If you wish to engage Isaac, be my guest. I’ll sit this one out."
Cliff > There are hundreds of such "open issues".
For some such "open issues" nothing much has changed in centuries - the evidence underlying the assumptions is pretty much the same as it always was.
What new understanding will be brought to this discussion that wasn't brought to discussion of the Tsunami?
Without new understanding the answer will be as it was in the 14th century - "all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well."
I can think of a couple of "new understandings" that would make this discussion different from those following the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake - the sciences of Geology and Physics, and historical-critical study of scripture.
Isaac:
"Perhaps you could provide a link to that Skeptical Inquirer article?"
Wish I could. It was in a physical magazine I had, oh, about 10 years ago. The only other specific that I remember is that it was the cover story of that issue. Sorry I can't be more help on this.
Rich G.
Rich G. > But if you could take the whole picture of how these random events ... became essential to the success of his mission, you may be astounded.
I may think your friend tells a good story.
When Cliff writes - "They were just that, coincidences. But I also have experiences, just at the time of need, that are astounding beyond coincidence." - all that takes those experiences "beyond coincidence" is the heightened personal meaning he ascribes to them.
The chances of any specific poker hand are the same - about one in 2.6 million.
The vast majority of hands hold no particular interest for the players. The chance of a royal flush is just the same as the chance of those uninteresting hands, but we ascribe meaning to that particular outcome.
Isaac,
This may not be the right place for this question but I'm just curious. Are you an athiest, agnostic, other?
Mike
Isaac:
"I may think your friend tells a good story."
Yes, he does. But I was with him on one of his overseas trips, and know others who have been with him on his other trips. I have met a few of the people (foreign nationals) who have benefited from the unexpected, non-scheduled 'coincidences' in these trips.
I see no sense in recounting them because you can, and likely would, dismiss any, perhaps all, as simply natural events, like a winning streak at poker. As if even that were simply and statistically a random occurrence.
Rich G.
Mike > Are you ...
Why does it matter to you?
Rich G. > ... dismiss any, perhaps all, as simply natural events, like a winning streak at poker. As if even that were simply and statistically a random occurrence.
I did not dismiss, I did discuss and describe.
Please spell out what you are alluding to with "As if even that were simply and statistically a random occurrence."
Isaac,
You said, "what does it matter..."
It doesn’t matter. I was just curious where you were coming from. That’s all. Thanks for responding though.
Mike
Mike > I was just curious where you were coming from.
Take what I write at face value.
Isaac,
You said, "Take what I write at face value."
Ok, acknowledged.
Mike
Rich G. > ... dismiss any, perhaps all, as simply natural events, like a winning streak at poker. As if even that were simply and statistically a random occurrence.
Of course there's the non-theological sense in which that winning streak is not simply a random occurrence.
Just as the abstract fact that someone wins tens of millions of dollars in a state lottery every few weeks is transformed from a simple demonstration that extremely unlikely events do in fact occur into an event of enormous significance when you are holding the winning lottery ticket.
Just as the actuarial mortality rates for someone in my circumstances will take on a vastly different weight of meaning for me and mine when I become a data point in those statistics.
Is it strange that during the football game no one seems to give thanks for not scoring the touchdown?
Isaac:
"Please spell out what you are alluding to with "As if even that were simply and statistically a random occurrence.""
You brought up the statistical probability of a single memorable poker hand. I thought it would be pretty obvious that I was expanding upon your illustration...
So you weren't suggesting a cause for those random events?
Isaac:
"So you weren't suggesting a cause for those random events?"
No more than I would suggest that there is a difference between the odds of a single poker hand, and someone winning a long string of poker games.
Rich G.
Why are you having such difficulty giving a plain answer?
Hopefully no one reading this is so confused that they think there's no difference between the odds of a single poker hand, and the odds of someone winning a long string of poker games.
Hopefully no one reading this is so confused that they think there's no difference between the odds of a single poker hand, and the odds of someone winning a single poker game.
Hopefully no one reading this is so confused that they think there's no difference between the odds of a single poker hand, and the odds of someone winning a poker hand.
Isaac:
"Why are you having such difficulty giving a plain answer?"
Do I have to draw you a picture?
I was writing about the confluence of seemingly coincidental [and unplanned] events working to Larry's advantage, and you went to the statistics of a memorable poker hand. I expanded your point to an illustration using the confluence of a series of seemingly random events - an extended winning streak over a series of poker games. Just as a winning streak in poker involves more than simply getting an unlikely series of memorable hands, Larry's experiences exhibit something other than simple luck.
I had the parallel in mind the whole time. It seems you didn't follow it.
Rich G. > Do I have to draw you a picture?
When you are asked "Please spell out what you are alluding to..." - yes!
Rich G. > Just as a winning streak in poker involves more than simply getting an unlikely series of memorable hands, Larry's experiences exhibit something other than simple luck.
It really isn't clear whether you mean anything more than poker is not a game of chance it's a game of skill, so Larry's experiences exhibit something other than simple luck - they exhibit skill?
Here's a simpler example that might make your meaning clear - the chance not of being dealt one royal flush but the chance of being dealt a royal flush on each of ten consecutive hands, does that involve "more than simply getting an unlikely series of memorable hands"?
If someone was dealt a royal flush on each of ten consecutive hands, I'd have to wonder if someone was cheating!
Mike
The odds are long but if there's no cheating eventually it should happen.
The question is does that eventuality involve "more than simply getting an unlikely series of memorable hands"?
Oh, I get it (I think). The old “given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would type all of Shakespeare's plays.” Still, that doesn’t mean that there was no divine help involved in Cliff’s “experiences, just at the time of need, that are astounding beyond coincidence.” It doesn’t mean that there was, but it doesn’t mean that there wasn’t, either.
MIke
Mike > Oh, I get it (I think).
There is a theological point to the question Rich G. hasn't answered.
Did God cause a royal flush to be dealt? Did God cause a royal flush to be dealt on each of ten consecutive hands?
Did God cause a royal flush not to be dealt? Did God cause a royal flush not to be dealt on each of ten consecutive hands?
Does God cause everything - both the events we say are filled with meaning and the events we describe as random?
Mike > astounding beyond coincidence
We weren't given enough information to know whether those events were even unlikely let alone astounding.
Mike,
There is an aspect of "coincidences" in my experiences (and, I presume, in the experiences of Rich's friends) which we are not addressing here. It is that these uncanny experiences come at critical times of decision-making and/or ministry. The following analogy would fit better:
A Royal Flush is dealt only when the stakes are very high, a set of circumstances more remarkable than several such hands being dealt in a row.
Of course, anyone can say (as Isaac did in his deleted comment) that such occurrences prove nothing. True. But then again, the remarkable sets of data from the fossil record and DNA comparative studies prove nothing about evolution. All such data is, or course, subject to interpretation. How we interpret data might reveal something about our personal presuppositions.
Cliff > an aspect of "coincidences" in my experiences (and, I presume, in the experiences of Rich's friends) which we are not addressing here.
The aspect which is resolutely not being addressed is whether or not God causes everything - both events during "critical times of decision-making and/or ministry" and events which went unnoticed because they held no significance.
Cliff > A Royal Flush is dealt only when the stakes are very high, a set of circumstances more remarkable than several such hands being dealt in a row.
You've based your analogy on a falsehood - it's simply untrue that a royal flush is dealt only when the stakes are very high.
Cliff > anyone can say (as Isaac did in his deleted comment)
The reason I deleted the comment was that it wasn't what I meant to say (and I don't think it said what you claim).
Cliff > ...the remarkable sets of data from the fossil record and DNA comparative studies prove nothing about evolution.
Does science "prove"?
Isaac:
"It really isn't clear whether you mean anything more than poker is not a game of chance it's a game of skill...?"
I thought you would understand that it is neither pure luck, nor pure skill. There is some of both - and some intuition, too.
"Here's a simpler example that might make your meaning clear - the chance not of being dealt one royal flush but the chance of being dealt a royal flush on each of ten consecutive hands, does that involve "more than simply getting an unlikely series of memorable hands"?"
That's a ridiculous example. To win a series of hands requires not only getting some good hands, but also knowing whether (and how to) to play the poor ones. Like the walk through life, we are dealt fortunate, mediocre, and poor hands. But to be a winner, one must play them all.
I serve a God of paradox. One who can, and sometimes does, arrange statistically random events to advantage, without violating the laws of creation to do so. Impossible? Sure. But if it could be proven to be possible, then there would be no miracles.
Cliff,
When you say "a Royal Flush is dealt only when the stakes are very high, a set of circumstances more remarkable than several such hands being dealt in a row,” you are only meaning this example when it happens at an important juncture in your life, such as ” at critical times of decision-making and/or ministry.” I’m just trying to be clear. You're saying that this is an example of the Holy Spirit working in someone’s life, and not just coincidence. You’re not saying that, generally speaking, a royal flush is dealt only when the stakes are very high…”
Do I have that correct?
Mike
Mike > You're saying that this is an example of the Holy Spirit working in someone’s life, and not just coincidence. You’re not saying that, generally speaking, a royal flush is dealt only when the stakes are very high…”
The problem with Cliff choosing "a Royal Flush is dealt only when the stakes are very high" as his analogy is that it's obvious the only way we can come to that description is by ignoring the evidence that the Royal Flush is dealt in many other circumstances.
Using Cliff's chosen analogy we should wonder if the only way Cliff can come to the description "astounding beyond coincidence" is by ignoring the evidence.
Rich G. > That's a ridiculous example.
That's another way of not giving a plain answer.
Does God cause everything - both the events we say are filled with meaning and the events we describe as random?
Mike,
Yes, I think you got my point. I should have been more clear. Isaac clearly did not understand.
What I meant was that if we had a series of poker games, and play A was dealt 10 Royal Flushes in a row, that would be remarkable, but of course could be discounted as statistically possible. But if his Royal Flush hands came consistently when the stakes were very high, and only then, the notion of an intelligent "Arranger" is more compelling.
Yes, in my experience, those unusual "coincidental" events which look and taste like God's leading or special provision happen to line up with a moment of great need, or decision-making crises. I could discount each one individually as statistically improbable but possible events. But when they stack up, and when we throw in the factor of perfect timing ... that's when even the eyebrows of this skeptical Christian rise!
Cliff > Isaac clearly did not understand.
I look forward to your demonstration of that claim.
Cliff > ... if his Royal Flush hands came consistently when the stakes were very high, and only then, the notion of an intelligent "Arranger" is more compelling.
If those hands came only when the stakes were very low, or if those hands came only when the stakes were middling, or if those hands came only... obviously one specific event is less likely than one of a combination of events.
Cliff > But when they stack up, and when we throw in the factor of perfect timing ... that's when even the eyebrows of this skeptical Christian rise!
And that's when we have to say again that it isn't true that Royal Flush hands come consistently when the stakes are very high.
And that's when we ask do you take note of those unusual "coincidental" events when there is no great need or crisis?
And that's when we say that you're engaged in after-the-fact cherry picking.
Does God cause everything - both the events we say are filled with meaning and the events we describe as random?
Isaac,
I look forward to your demonstration of that claim.
You proceeded to demonstrate it yourself in the same comment!
And that's when we have to say again that it isn't true that Royal Flush hands come consistently when the stakes are very high.
Obviously!
I am making no claim to the contrary. I was making no claims about when Royal Flushes hands occur in actual fact. Instead ...
I was drawing a hypothetical in which a player experiences a string of Royal Flush Hands, perhaps over several consecutive poker games, and in which those Royal Flush hand come precisely and only when the stakes are high. My hypothetical. My right to define when the hands occur and don't occur!
It was clear enough to Mike, though I ought to have stated it more clearly.
Cliff > You proceeded to demonstrate it yourself...
Please do quote me.
Cliff > My right to define when the hands occur and don't occur!
The puzzle is that you actually wish to draw an analogy between what we agree is a false description of reality and your "astounding beyond coincidence".
If your chosen analogy really is a good one that suggests your "astounding beyond coincidence" is a false description of reality.
Following your approach would allow disheartened Colts fans to celebrate victory in the Super Bowl - simply by ignoring play which didn't involve the Colts offense.
Isaac,
We agree that my description is a "false description of reality" only if we both presume no supernatural intervention. I do not. You're begging the question.
Oh ... and by the way, I did quote you!
Are we clear on what it means to create a hypothetical?
Your response to "... it isn't true that Royal Flush hands come consistently when the stakes are very high" was unconditional - "Obviously!"
By all means presume supernatural intervention - how could that make it "true that Royal Flush hands come consistently when the stakes are very high" ?
How could that make it any less a "false description of reality" ?
Cliff > Oh ... and by the way, I did quote you!
Oh ... you quoted words you agreed with so much that your response to them was "Obviously!"
Where are the words which show "Isaac clearly did not understand." ?
Isaac,
You are quite obviously not catching on.
I was not trying to describe reality.
I was using a hypothetical-conjectural-suppositional-unreal circumstance which, if it ever were to occur, would give me pause to consider the possibility of the intervening hand of a supernatural being. I was comparing this hypothetical-conjectural-suppositional-unreal circumstance to the real life experiences I have had which give me pause to consider the possibility of the intervening hand of a supernatural being.
What are we missing here? I feel like I am trapped inside an Abbot and Costello routine!
Cliff > We agree that my description is a "false description of reality" only if we both presume no supernatural intervention.
No.
The analogy suggests a "false description of reality" because once again relevant information is excluded.
We need to know how frequently those unusual "coincidental" events take place when there is no great need or crisis.
Just as we need to know what happened during play which didn't involve the Colts offense.
Does God cause everything - both the events we say are filled with meaning and the events we describe as random?
Cliff > ... the real life experiences I have had which give me pause to consider the possibility of the intervening hand of a supernatural being ... What are we missing here?
The real life experiences which did not give you pause but were just as unlikely as the ones which did give you pause.
(You're only counting points for the Colts.)
Isaac:
"That's another way of not giving a plain answer."
The "plain answer" was in the sentences immediately following the snippet you extracted.
"Does God cause everything - both the events we say are filled with meaning and the events we describe as random?"
I would have to say yes, for he apparently took credit for doing that. Yet somehow this does not violate statistical causality or the quantum wierdness of the creation we inhabit.
I do not think I am qualified to differentiate between the "significant, important" and the "insignificant, meaningless" events, for I am one element within the created order, and cannot see the whole picture.
Rich G. > I would have to say yes ...
Thank you - that's a plain answer.
Rich G. > I do not think I am qualified to differentiate between the "significant, important" and the "insignificant, meaningless" events ...
Weren't you making that distinction when you wrote - "I am struck by the number and kind of seemingly supernatural interventions that he has experienced" ?
Wasn't Cliff making that distinction when he wrote - "God's leading or special provision happen to line up with a moment of great need, or decision-making crises" ?
Isaac:
"Weren't you making that distinction when you wrote - "I am struck by the number and kind of seemingly supernatural interventions that he has experienced" ?"
No. That's a different kind of distinction.
"Thank you - that's a plain answer."
Now, why won't you answer direct questions fairly put to you?
Rich G. > That's a different kind of distinction.
You refused to describe any of the events, so we're left to guess that they were events you thought were significant and important - in contrast to the myriad other events you thought "insignificant, meaningless".
Rich G. > why won't you answer direct questions fairly put to you?
why won't you stop beating your wife?
Cliff > What are we missing here?
Has the Colts analogy illustrated what is missing?
Another analogy would be doing the accounts for your business but only looking at the credits not the debits.
>> Does God cause everything...
Rich G. > I would have to say yes, for he apparently took credit for doing that.
As God causes everything what sense does it make to single out just some events as "seemingly supernatural interventions" ?
Isaac:
"As God causes everything what sense does it make to single out just some events as "seemingly supernatural interventions" ?"
Duh...
Some events are globally significant, some are personally significant. It is in the personal events where I have seen the "seemingly supernatural interventions".
And you don't need a royal flush to have a winning hand. All that you need is being dealt better cards than the other guys.
Rich G.
Rich G. > It is in the personal events where I have seen the "seemingly supernatural interventions".
As God causes everything (every personal event) what sense does it make to single out just some of those personal events as "seemingly supernatural interventions" ?
Rich G. > And you don't need a royal flush to have a winning hand. All that you need is being dealt better cards than the other guys.
a) Nobody said you did; b) being dealt better cards is not all that you need.
Isaac, regarding your responses > “We need to know how frequently those unusual "coincidental" events take place when there is no great need or crisis.”
And > “The real life experiences which did not give you pause but were just as unlikely as the ones which did give you pause.”
And Cliff saying, “What I meant was that if we had a series of poker games, and play A was dealt 10 Royal Flushes in a row, that would be remarkable, but of course could be discounted as statistically possible. But if his Royal Flush hands came consistently when the stakes were very high, and only then, the notion of an intelligent "Arranger" is more compelling.”
It seems to me that what Cliff said does defy chance. Are you saying that if you look at many, many more hands being dealt, that this example of Cliff’s becomes more probable? That it is not exceptional even if the hands line up the way he said in his example? To make an analogy, do you think it is like how the eye evolved? Apparently the things that had to line up in the right way and at the right time are astounding in the evolution of the eye (as you guys probably know).
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse. Maybe I don’t really understand “chance” and “odds” and all that. But when things line up just the right way at the right time, it does make me wonder what’s going on!
And I also don’t see how, even given an enormous amount of time, that chimpanzees could type all the great works of Shakespeare! But again, maybe I don’t really understand chance, odds, probability, and all that.
Mike
Mike > Maybe I don’t really understand “chance” and “odds” and all that.
Hardly any of us really understand “chance” and “odds” and all that - but what Cliff said has basic problems which don't require that understanding. Rather than confuse you with card tricks let's look at the basics -
1) Has Cliff has actually kept count of "coincidental" events ?
If not then we're like Colts fans saying we believe the Colts won the Super Bowl because ... well, because we didn't keep score.
2) Cliff says those unusual "coincidental" events which look and taste like God's leading or special provision happen to line up with a moment of great need, or decision-making crises
What is it about those "coincidental" events which makes them "unusual"?
What is it about those "coincidental" events which makes them "look and taste like God's leading or special provision"?
Is it that they "happen to line up with a moment of great need, or decision-making crises"?
If that's the case, all that Cliff has said is that "coincidental" events during "a moment of great need, or decision-making crises" "happen to line up with a moment of great need, or decision-making crises".
Well they would, wouldn't they - "coincidental" events during January happen to line up with January - we've assumed in the premise the very thing we wanted to conclude.
3) Maybe it's something else that makes those "coincidental" events "unusual" or "look and taste like God's leading or special provision" - but we haven't been told, it's left vague and can be changed after the fact.
Children know how this works - it's called making up the rules as you go along.
Ask again if you're troubled by comments #1 through #3.
Mike > ... do you think it is like how the eye evolved?
One thing to keep in mind when someone suggests the things that had to line up in the right way and at the right time are astounding in the evolution of the eye is that they might be doing the math wrong - maybe they just aren't good at math, or ...
Anyway, the story about the evolution of the eye has changed - "Formation of a vast range of eye types—the camera eyes of vertebrates and squids as well as the compound eyes of flies—is controlled by a single gene, called Pax-6" (page 3 of a 5 page article)
Issac,
First off, thanks for the link about the evolution of the eye. Apparently the story has changed about the eye’s evolution. Before the story changed (if I remember correctly from my reading) Darwin was astounded about the eye’s evolution as were many scientists and/or atheists. I don’t mean that they wondered if the hand of God was involved or anything like that. I mean they were just in awe of how nature could work given enough time and mutations and such. Sure, there were a lot of dead ends as mutations happened (the odds would have it!) but there were also a lot of progressions that “defied the odds” so to speak. Dawkins said it was like “climbing mount improbable.” Given enough time some things could evolve in an “incredible” way. If I’m misstating something, let me know. I’m just going from memory here and am not looking any of this up as I go along!
I think it is probably safe to say that anyone who believes in God does so by faith. Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove God doesn’t exist. Perhaps God has a hand in some of those occurrences that seem beyond coincidence. Perhaps there is no God at all and anything that seems beyond odds is just coincidence after all, or it is not even beyond odds because “you’re only counting points for the Colts” (your football analogy).
Anyway, I didn’t have faith in God for a lot of years. I couldn’t just make myself believe in God. Faith is a funny thing like that! Like Dawkins said about Pascal’s Wager (paraphrasing here) – it’s all fine and good, but you just can’t make yourself have faith so it doesn’t really help!
Well, now I do have faith. I think a big part of faith is taking a leap, taking a risk. As someone said to Jesus, “I believe; help my unbelief!” I think faith is very much like that (at least for me)! Sidenote: believing someone said that to Jesus and that Jesus actually existed is faith also! I realize there are people that contend that Jesus was not even an actual historic person.
I just wanted to let you (and anyone else) know where I was coming from. Please let me know you've at least read this if you don't mind.
Mike
Mike > Darwin was astounded about the eye’s evolution...
I just sat down at the computer to provide some more information - and here's a waiting comment from you! Coincidence? :-)
"Using a theoretical model... concluded that an eye may evolve in less than 400 000 generations. If each generation is completed within a year, it means that an eye can evolve in less than half a million years. This calculation would have been a good cure for the famous 'cold shudder' that Darwin felt when he thought about the refined form and function of the human eye: its evolution need not have been as problematic as he feared."
Hi Mike, I like what you said about faith, I am doing the same thing! cool!
Isaac,
Thanks for more info on the eye.
Michael,
Yes, seems we are similar (besides having the same first name)!
Mike
Post a Comment