tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post5409420788498384782..comments2023-03-24T05:41:17.603-07:00Comments on OutsideTheBox: The Problem of Evil: I. God’s Modus OperandiCliff Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-177689331956586902008-12-24T00:40:00.000-08:002008-12-24T00:40:00.000-08:00Hi All,Does anyone want to address why this all lo...Hi All,<BR/><BR/>Does anyone want to address why this all loving all knowing and all powerful god allows earthquakes and tsunamis to kill kids,sometimes quickly , but often very slowly and painfully?<BR/><BR/>Also how does an infant child suffering from a debilitating disease for years fit with this kind of god existing?<BR/><BR/>Why does science and rational thinking seem to give us hope we might reduce this apparently utterly unnecessary suffering whilst prayer has no effect that anyone has been able to measure?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks & Happy Newtonmass to all for tomorrow ;-)<BR/><BR/>PsiPsiloiordinaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235629211359287564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-51375026679660630212008-12-05T16:06:00.000-08:002008-12-05T16:06:00.000-08:00tom > My reading of Job is that he knew God was...tom <EM>> My reading of Job is that he knew God was not punishing him for sin, which was the common view. ... God presents himself as Mother Nature...</EM><BR/><BR/>'Wisdom's advocates posited an utterly just world, in which the righteous were ultimately rewarded and the wicked punished. ... The way of wisdom was thus one of waiting for God's inevitable justice to work itself out.<BR/>...<BR/>The heart of the book thus consists of a series of learned exchanges between these exponents of orthodox wisdom and Job, who, in "refusing to be comforted," ultimately calls into question the most hallowed doctrines of the wisdom outlook.' <BR/><A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=NwWBBUeePTQC&pg=PA635&dq=how+to+read+the+bible+job+and+postexilic+wisdom" REL="nofollow">How to Read the Bible</A><BR/><BR/><BR/>"It is not a parable of divine justice. It is a parable of resignation to a world-making force that has no justice as we understand justice. God comes off sounding like a metaphor for the universe: violent and chaotic yet bountiful and marvelous. ... If justice exists, the Book of Job concludes, it does so in a way inconceivable to humanity." <BR/><A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=QJb16_AAePkC&pg=PA73&dq=doubt+if+justice+exists" REL="nofollow">Doubt</A>Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-20871798864076052142008-12-02T20:56:00.000-08:002008-12-02T20:56:00.000-08:00Isaac,This discussion is pointless. Please wait un...Isaac,<BR/><BR/>This discussion is pointless. Please wait until I have finished these posts. I think your questions will all be answered. I assure you, there is nothing inconsistent in my acceptance of Denton's logic about the universe, and my view that God has a higher purpose for creation, a purpose in which man plays a significant role ... and thus benefits from all the design features Denton cites. <BR/><BR/>I do not agree with anyone 100%. I'll bet you don't either. Please, please Isaac, give me space to agree substantially with Denton's findings, but to disagree with the exact way he states his conclusion. <BR/><BR/>Denton's findings do not support my conclusions directly. They support his conclusions, and mine equally well. I agree with him in substance. But I factor in additional concepts which alter my conclusions slightly. They do not change his findings, and my substantial agreement with them, one iota.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-31137479740988849812008-12-02T12:17:00.000-08:002008-12-02T12:17:00.000-08:00cliff > ... this universe was absolutely design...cliff <EM>> ... this universe was absolutely designed with man in mind ...</EM><BR/><BR/>I wonder what that means to you - does it mean that the universe was designed with man in mind <EM>more</EM> than any other living or extinct organism in mind?<BR/><BR/><BR/>cliff <EM>> As I said earlier, I agree with Denton's findings, but I would state the conclusion in slightly different terms.</EM><BR/><BR/>When "slightly different terms" means Denton concludes - life and mankind <EM>is</EM> the fundamental goal and purpose - and you conclude - life and mankind <EM>is not</EM> the fundamental goal and purpose - you are not stating Denton's conclusion in slightly different terms, you are stating your own quite different conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you just accept "Denton's findings" and argue that there's more reason to think they support your conclusion than Denton's?Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-6007263054598019792008-12-01T14:37:00.000-08:002008-12-01T14:37:00.000-08:00Isaac,I think I've made my point clear enough. If ...Isaac,<BR/><BR/>I think I've made my point clear enough. If it is not clear to you, or if you think I am being inconsistent, you are free to your opinion. For my part, I have no trouble citing Denton, because I believe that this universe was absolutely designed with man in mind. That is not the same as saying that man was the primary purpose. As I said earlier, I agree with Denton's findings, but I would state the conclusion in slightly different terms. This all seems quite elementary to me.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-71634388457508749202008-12-01T13:50:00.000-08:002008-12-01T13:50:00.000-08:00cliff > But it does seem that you are merely in...cliff <EM>> But it does seem that you are merely intent upon your efforts (unsuccessful!) to trap me in my words.</EM><BR/><BR/>I took your words seriously - if you've misspoken just correct your words. <BR/><BR/>cliff <EM>> What is your purpose, exactly?</EM><BR/><BR/>As I've said before - Presume I am trying to understand and make sense of your comment.<BR/><BR/><BR/>cliff <EM>> I do not disagree with Michael Denton in principle... That is not to say the man's existence was the end-all of creation.</EM><BR/><BR/>Michael Denton's words are not ambiguous: <BR/>- he says he's talking about "the core proposition of traditional natural theology"<BR/>- he says that means "the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its <EM>fundamental goal</EM> and purpose"<BR/><BR/>If you wish to say that mankind is not "the end-all of creation", that mankind is not the <EM>raison d'être</EM> of the cosmos, that mankind is not the primary reason for all Creation - not the <EM>fundamental goal</EM> of the cosmos - then what you wish to say does disagree in principle with Michael Denton's claim.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-87367553064982199602008-11-30T16:28:00.000-08:002008-11-30T16:28:00.000-08:00I do not disagree with Michael Denton in principle...I do not disagree with Michael Denton in principle, though I would state the conclusion differently. The cosmos contains evidence suggesting it was created with highly complex and intelligent life in mind. That is not to say the man's existence was the end-all of creation. Man might be (as I suppose) an integral part of a larger, more encompassing plan and purpose. <BR/><BR/>Isaac, I'm happy to carry on constructive discussions with anyone on these topics. But it does seem that you are merely intent upon your efforts (unsuccessful!) to trap me in my words. What is your purpose, exactly?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-44659341656823666222008-11-30T13:36:00.000-08:002008-11-30T13:36:00.000-08:00isaac > > Do you intend your "challenge...isaac <EM>> > Do you intend your "challenges" to be consistent with the "lines of evidence" you have put forth in "Why I believe"?</EM><BR/><BR/>cliff <EM>> Of course.</EM> <BR/><BR/>Previously you quoted Michael Denton seemingly with approval - <BR/><BR/><EM>... the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose ...</EM><BR/>["the finely-tuned cosmos" para 4]<BR/><BR/>- yet now you talk of challenging the view that "that man is the raison d'être of the cosmos".<BR/><BR/><BR/>Are you simply going accept that view when it's <EM>convenient</EM> to do so ("the finely tuned cosmos") and now reject that view because it's <EM>convenient</EM> to do so?Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-57471350071332009782008-11-29T12:46:00.000-08:002008-11-29T12:46:00.000-08:00Tom,Thank you for the comments which are quite hel...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the comments which are quite helpful. <BR/><BR/>I do not pretend to understand the mechanism whereby our suffering, and the sufferings of Jesus, and of the "suffering servant" of Isaiah (which at times is clearly the nation of Israel) undoes the power of evil. It is a mystery to me, though I doubt that ransom paying is involved. There are some strong indications in Revelation (I'll get to them in time in a post) of some established "thresholds" that trigger the final judgment of evil. There appear to be thresholds in the accumulating prayers offered in faith, in worship, and in suffering. <BR/><BR/>The sufferings of Jesus are multi-faceted. There may be ransom paying in regard to the personal redemption of believers. But Jesus came primarily not to save individuals, but to destroy evil (1 John 3:8). Paul tells us that the sufferings of Jesus were, in some sense, incomplete ... that our sufferings combine with his to accomplish some intended purpose.<BR/><BR/>I will have more to say on all these interrelated topics in coming posts. But I will say that the writing of these posts is likely to be a slow process. My work is very busy and stressful at the moment, and we are remodeling our house. But I will keep working on this series.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-70756111754234945782008-11-29T12:25:00.000-08:002008-11-29T12:25:00.000-08:00After reading this post on the paying of ransoms, ...After reading <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/11/piracy-and-paying-of-ransoms.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A> on the paying of ransoms, I got to wondering about the implications of God dealing with evil through the paying of a ransom. It would be interesting to hear your perspective on this in this series -- how God dealt with evil already through the payment of a ransom in the sacrifice of his son. What the link above indicates is that payment of a ransom only serves to <I>enable</I> evil. Perhaps the mantra of Jesus as sacrificial lamb to pay our ransom is in error, or was there something to it that really made this deal with evil a permanent solution?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-13294949929668809632008-11-28T15:31:00.000-08:002008-11-28T15:31:00.000-08:00The book of Job is a piece of art -- not only in i...The book of Job is a piece of art -- not only in its poetry and story, but also in its ability to be interpreted from several vantage points.<BR/><BR/>My reading of Job is that he knew God was not punishing him for sin, which was the common view. (Which is still a common view if you believe Hulk Hogan, as I recently described on <A HREF="http://recoveringyoungearthers.blogspot.com/2008/11/hulk-theology.html" REL="nofollow">my blog</A>). He still could not get a handle on why horrible things were happening to him. Or rather, I should say, he did not know why God was either doing these things to him or allowing them to happen. The sad thing for Job and us readers is that he never does understand the reason -- only that there <I>is</I> a reason behind it all. He was frustrated, hurt, angry, and confused by God's actions (not passive responses), but he never sinned throughout the process. He exercised pacifism.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting in chapters 38-41 that God presents himself as Mother Nature, and nothing more. As we understand nature, we see that it has no particular purpose for us in mind.<BR/><BR/>Job's refusal to ask for forgiveness from Mother Nature is spot on in the sense that he was not doing anything to warrant bad things to befall him, but for him to still assume a glorious purpose seems to only distort the pain.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of pain is to try and avoid it. If one is to accept pain as "God's way" then it seems to be throwing up our hands at the problem. If God is giving us pain so that we figure out ways to avoid it, then we certainly have to ask how this is better than the alternatives. (In my lab, we do rat and mouse behavior studies. We are bound by ethics to employ positive reinforcement pretty much at all times. It is extraordinarily difficult to get funding if you want to give a light zap to a critter on occasion, even though that technique tends to give faster results than positive reinforcement. The point is, there seems to be alternatives to pain if the desired effect is behavioral.) Perhaps this will be part of the future posts.<BR/><BR/>It just seems Job, like all of us, was up against Ma Nature. And yes, we have to cope with that. There is no reason to ask the gods to forgive us for the evil that we must have done when bad stuff happens. Does the book of Job present another God besides Mother Nature?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-45729857123537977762008-11-26T12:12:00.000-08:002008-11-26T12:12:00.000-08:00... the power of the oppressor would be more effec...<EM>... the power of the oppressor would be more effectively broken by nonresistance than by open battle.</EM><BR/><BR/>Do you intend that to stand as a claim without exception?<BR/><BR/>Surely the effectiveness of nonresistance depends very much on the intentions of the oppressor. <BR/><BR/>When the intention of the oppressor is to annihilate the oppressed, nonresistance simply allows annihilation to proceed.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00226627985460018169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-71072195284844076212008-11-26T08:41:00.000-08:002008-11-26T08:41:00.000-08:00isaac > So the sufferings of Job weren't th...isaac <EM>> So the sufferings of Job weren't the result ...</EM><BR/>cliff <EM>> You are correct.</EM><BR/><BR/>I look forward to your explanation of why you read Job in the way you do - by all means quote chapter and verse.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-69658656905813812202008-11-25T15:31:00.000-08:002008-11-25T15:31:00.000-08:00Isaac,Do you intend your "challenges" to be consis...Isaac,<BR/><BR/><I>Do you intend your "challenges" to be consistent with ...</I><BR/><BR/>Of course. <BR/><BR/><I>So the sufferings of Job weren't the result ... </I><BR/><BR/>You are correct.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-33716997359786905902008-11-25T14:36:00.000-08:002008-11-25T14:36:00.000-08:00I will, in this series, challenge a number of thes...<EM>I will, in this series, challenge a number of these assumptions...</EM><BR/><BR/>Do you intend your "challenges" to be consistent with the "lines of evidence" you have put forth in "Why I believe"?<BR/><BR/><BR/><EM>The sufferings of Job were not the result of some isolated randomness, void of meaning. Rather, they were played out in the context of a much larger, ages-old battle between a good God and an evil Adversary.</EM><BR/><BR/>So the sufferings of Job weren't the result of a braggart God having an idle boast challenged by His minion Satan, who God explicitly empowers to cause Job to suffer?Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.com