Another Sunday Theology God Blog Post! This Post Contains Absolutely No Reason for Any Intelligent Atheist to Change His or Her Mind on That Issue.
I used to joke that citing names instead of stating arguments was the logician / philosopher's equivalent of dogmatic biblical literalism. "It is true on a higher authority than yours. I can't explain why - its truth rests on the authority of this name (or Name)."
Of course, that applies only in cases where the one doing the citing couldn't put the argument across based on their own understanding of it. In your case, I feel confident that you do have the points square, and could easily explain why. Your referral to well-known arguments of others is purely for the sake of brevity and convenience, and to avoid belaboring us with the specifics of arguments you'd expect us to already know. All of which is a good thing! A time-saver.
And in that spirit, I'll save the space & trouble of recapitulating the arguments you cite, and go directly to addressing them. Look closely: they are circular. Each of these arguments is based purely on one kind or another of an out-of-hand rejection of the theistic premise - rejection of the premise, without providing any sort of refutation of it.
Take suffering. The claim is that it is gratuitous? From the theistic perspective, I run it thus:
Given Physics and Free Will, suffering is the unavoidable consequence of mortality.
Within the theistic standpoint: we must have mortality, in order for God to gather us in. This world is not the self's final home, but is rather the place where we form who we are to be - through our own choices, as we navigate our given circumstances.
Further, to create a self freely, without the coercive presence of a God who we are not free to accept or deny, we must have a natural world (one wherein the hand of God is not coercively present).
To have a natural world requires that the observable universe be built on discoverable natural principles ("laws") that have fairly consistent applicability. Such laws cannot swerve to avoid hitting babies and old people.
Mortality itself requires pain, purely as a survival mechanism. Organisms that are mortal need the ability to sense damage.
And sadly, one consequence of free will is that some will choose evil - choosing deliberately to harm others.
But we're far better off with all of that, than without it.
Because: take it a step farther. If we are sincerely exploring the theistic premise from within, to demonstrate some logical conflict within it, then we must concede that an omnipotent God can do anything. Therefore, an omnipotent God can heal all damage in an instant. Pain, psychological, any and all damage no matter how severe: soothed and gone in an instant, leaving only a self built on the full memory of all experiences and choices made during life - in present and eternal bliss, with all pain wiped away, no damage, no scars. This self is the goal and the end result, within the theistic premise - the self is what God wants to gather back in (a gift freely given back, not coerced).
Since we can't dispute that an omnipotent God is capable of healing all damage, if we persist in calling God cruel for allowing suffering, we must be able to show that suffering is gratuitous. We must be able to at least suggest how the same ends could be achieved in a world without the possibility of suffering. Can we suggest a model for a natural world that would avoid suffering?
"But God is omnipotent!" - runs the protest: "God can do anything! God can create a world without suffering, even if I cannot conceive how."
Yes, certainly God can create a world without suffering - by voiding logic, free will, and physics. By creating an irrational world, where effects do not proceed from causes and where no universal, discoverable laws obtain. Or even in a world with natural laws, God could reduce suffering by creating an enslaved world, where no free actions are possible *except* for those actions God wills as "good."
A world along those lines is a far worse world than ours is. Far pettier, and crucially: far more cruel. God would be cruel indeed to take this wonder we have from us, and saddle us with a world like that. A world that would infinitely proscribe and diminish our chance to grow, thrive, feel, and become.
Those who pretend to demand that God give us a world without suffering are acting as petulant children, who want our majestic universe of infinite possibility to be exchanged for a padded playpen devoid of grandeur and risk and achievement, devoid of the possibility of advancement for the human race. But they're not children, not really. They are only pretending to be. I say "acting as" and "pretend to demand," because their demand is in no way sincere. Since they don't believe God exists, they have no real worry of having to live in the horrid, shallow, cramped world that would be the consequence of their pretend demand, if it were fulfilled.
Personally, I do believe God exists. And I know God can create a world without physics and free will, and with no suffering. A universe that functions as a stifling security blanket; our wills and actions constrained by safety belts for our "own good." But you know what? I'll take the bracing thrill. I'll take the infinite sprawl of possibility, that stretches out and breathes steam into the grandeur of this cold, rational reality that is ours to inhabit, to explore, and to make our own. I'll take the wonder of whether and why. I'll take that instead. Thanks!
But! Final desperate and outraged protest! How can any amount of fulfillment, prospective thrill or achievement be worth the [ insert breathlessly horrific laundry list description of things that happen every day ]? Well, rephrase the question yourself. Finish the question. How can WHAT be worth it? Can you really be asking: is it worth suffering and the risk of suffering, for all of us to be able to live in THIS, THE REAL WORLD? Well, I say to you fuck yes. Yes, it is! And if you say you think otherwise, well why haven't you killed yourself, then? Could it be that you're a hypocrite? Ask yourself whether it's worth the risk of suffering, to be alive in this world and to have this world to live in. Is it worth it or isn't it?
For me, I'd say yes, it is fucking-A worth it, to be alive, and to have this world to live in. It would be worth it if God doesn't exist. I'd say that to put it mildly, it's at least as worth it, if God does.
So if you state "God does not exist" - well, there's no burden of proof on you, to prove a negative! If I wished to attack your premise, the burden of proof would be on me. Just as: if you wish to attack the premise "God does exist," the burden falls on you to demonstrate either conflict between the proposition and observable reality, or a violation of internal logic within the proposition's tenets. And best of luck to you, with that - I want to see!
The fact is, I'm fine with the atheist premise. The real universe, as typically viewed by an atheist, is a place of spectacular wonder and beauty - well worth living in. I live in that universe myself, I just happen to thank God for it. But the atheist's premise: "There is no God" - cannot be demonstrated to conflict with observable reality, any more than the premise "There is a God" can. I find the atheist's premise persuasive, natural, easy to believe in, and very comforting. I just don't buy it.
But that's the point. Not buying something is not a refutation.
Of course, that applies only in cases where the one doing the citing couldn't put the argument across based on their own understanding of it. In your case, I feel confident that you do have the points square, and could easily explain why. Your referral to well-known arguments of others is purely for the sake of brevity and convenience, and to avoid belaboring us with the specifics of arguments you'd expect us to already know. All of which is a good thing! A time-saver.
And in that spirit, I'll save the space & trouble of recapitulating the arguments you cite, and go directly to addressing them. Look closely: they are circular. Each of these arguments is based purely on one kind or another of an out-of-hand rejection of the theistic premise - rejection of the premise, without providing any sort of refutation of it.
Take suffering. The claim is that it is gratuitous? From the theistic perspective, I run it thus:
Given Physics and Free Will, suffering is the unavoidable consequence of mortality.
Within the theistic standpoint: we must have mortality, in order for God to gather us in. This world is not the self's final home, but is rather the place where we form who we are to be - through our own choices, as we navigate our given circumstances.
Further, to create a self freely, without the coercive presence of a God who we are not free to accept or deny, we must have a natural world (one wherein the hand of God is not coercively present).
To have a natural world requires that the observable universe be built on discoverable natural principles ("laws") that have fairly consistent applicability. Such laws cannot swerve to avoid hitting babies and old people.
Mortality itself requires pain, purely as a survival mechanism. Organisms that are mortal need the ability to sense damage.
And sadly, one consequence of free will is that some will choose evil - choosing deliberately to harm others.
But we're far better off with all of that, than without it.
Because: take it a step farther. If we are sincerely exploring the theistic premise from within, to demonstrate some logical conflict within it, then we must concede that an omnipotent God can do anything. Therefore, an omnipotent God can heal all damage in an instant. Pain, psychological, any and all damage no matter how severe: soothed and gone in an instant, leaving only a self built on the full memory of all experiences and choices made during life - in present and eternal bliss, with all pain wiped away, no damage, no scars. This self is the goal and the end result, within the theistic premise - the self is what God wants to gather back in (a gift freely given back, not coerced).
Since we can't dispute that an omnipotent God is capable of healing all damage, if we persist in calling God cruel for allowing suffering, we must be able to show that suffering is gratuitous. We must be able to at least suggest how the same ends could be achieved in a world without the possibility of suffering. Can we suggest a model for a natural world that would avoid suffering?
"But God is omnipotent!" - runs the protest: "God can do anything! God can create a world without suffering, even if I cannot conceive how."
Yes, certainly God can create a world without suffering - by voiding logic, free will, and physics. By creating an irrational world, where effects do not proceed from causes and where no universal, discoverable laws obtain. Or even in a world with natural laws, God could reduce suffering by creating an enslaved world, where no free actions are possible *except* for those actions God wills as "good."
A world along those lines is a far worse world than ours is. Far pettier, and crucially: far more cruel. God would be cruel indeed to take this wonder we have from us, and saddle us with a world like that. A world that would infinitely proscribe and diminish our chance to grow, thrive, feel, and become.
Those who pretend to demand that God give us a world without suffering are acting as petulant children, who want our majestic universe of infinite possibility to be exchanged for a padded playpen devoid of grandeur and risk and achievement, devoid of the possibility of advancement for the human race. But they're not children, not really. They are only pretending to be. I say "acting as" and "pretend to demand," because their demand is in no way sincere. Since they don't believe God exists, they have no real worry of having to live in the horrid, shallow, cramped world that would be the consequence of their pretend demand, if it were fulfilled.
Personally, I do believe God exists. And I know God can create a world without physics and free will, and with no suffering. A universe that functions as a stifling security blanket; our wills and actions constrained by safety belts for our "own good." But you know what? I'll take the bracing thrill. I'll take the infinite sprawl of possibility, that stretches out and breathes steam into the grandeur of this cold, rational reality that is ours to inhabit, to explore, and to make our own. I'll take the wonder of whether and why. I'll take that instead. Thanks!
But! Final desperate and outraged protest! How can any amount of fulfillment, prospective thrill or achievement be worth the [ insert breathlessly horrific laundry list description of things that happen every day ]? Well, rephrase the question yourself. Finish the question. How can WHAT be worth it? Can you really be asking: is it worth suffering and the risk of suffering, for all of us to be able to live in THIS, THE REAL WORLD? Well, I say to you fuck yes. Yes, it is! And if you say you think otherwise, well why haven't you killed yourself, then? Could it be that you're a hypocrite? Ask yourself whether it's worth the risk of suffering, to be alive in this world and to have this world to live in. Is it worth it or isn't it?
For me, I'd say yes, it is fucking-A worth it, to be alive, and to have this world to live in. It would be worth it if God doesn't exist. I'd say that to put it mildly, it's at least as worth it, if God does.
So if you state "God does not exist" - well, there's no burden of proof on you, to prove a negative! If I wished to attack your premise, the burden of proof would be on me. Just as: if you wish to attack the premise "God does exist," the burden falls on you to demonstrate either conflict between the proposition and observable reality, or a violation of internal logic within the proposition's tenets. And best of luck to you, with that - I want to see!
The fact is, I'm fine with the atheist premise. The real universe, as typically viewed by an atheist, is a place of spectacular wonder and beauty - well worth living in. I live in that universe myself, I just happen to thank God for it. But the atheist's premise: "There is no God" - cannot be demonstrated to conflict with observable reality, any more than the premise "There is a God" can. I find the atheist's premise persuasive, natural, easy to believe in, and very comforting. I just don't buy it.
But that's the point. Not buying something is not a refutation.
Comments
People don't often comment on these Sunday God Blog Theology posts!