Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s one bad reason for rejecting ID …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

… theistic evolution/Christian Darwinism.

I rarely write about religion on Tuesdays, but this got shoved in my (news writer Denyse O’Leary’s) face recently, and makes a nice illustration of a bad reason for opposing ID, for Sal’s files of bad arguments against ID.

A scientist contacted me about a technical matter related to writing (no surprise, I write for a living).

He, a religious man, had been thinking about science in relation to his faith for some years. I asked him what he thought about the ID theorists. He said that they demeaned God by making God responsible for bad designs, of which—he says—there are a great many in the world.

I pointed out that in an imperfect world, even the best designs can only be optimal, not perfect. But never mind, for now let’s assume there are lots of suboptimal designs.

So then God isn’t responsible for them? Who is?

Evolution, he said. Of course, he means Darwinian evolution. (Natural selection acting on random mutation produces the whole world of life, as it were, by accident.)

And God isn’t responsible for that? Well, he admitted I had him there. Then he started blathering about how nature could somehow be inside God and …

I was tempted to just hang up. If he wants to be a pantheist, he had better go join a religion that takes pantheism seriously. But professional courtesy required me to answer the technical questions asked of me.

Before that, however, I asked him this question:

Have you ever encountered a passage in the Bible, where Moses is arguing with God on Mt. Horeb? Moses is (understandably) trying to get out of returning to Egypt to confront Pharaoh. He offers the fact that he isn’t much of an orator (or, depending on your interpretation, has a speech impediment). God replies,

Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

Now, can we all please just take our “Bible” glasses off for a minute and look at what is being said here?

Here at the heart of one of the most significant encounters in the Torah, God explicitly and unequivocally takes complete responsibility for causing some to be blind and others to see. It is not an accident. He causes it.

Are you listening, Christian Darwinist? There is no religious argument against ID based on imperfection if your starting point is the Jewish or Christian religion. God says he both invented the eye, before which Darwin trembled, and deprives some of sight. So isn’t it just a little bit, well, arrogant of you to misrepresent information theory-based critiques of Darwinism in order to defend God from an accusation he admits to?

Look, I don’t think the ID controversy is about religion as such at all. But if some insist on dragging religion into it, I wish they had the moral decency to represent God as he says he is.

Of course, some people might respond by saying they wouldn’t worship a God like that. It is entirely up to them if they take it upon themselves to be wiser than God, and refuse to worship. I thank God if they live some place where they have the religious freedom to choose that.

I also think that they are closer to the heart of things than the theistic evolutionists/Christian Darwinists. They are at least listening to what the Bible actually, unambiguously, represents God as saying about imperfections in life forms.

That is better than writing their own theistic evolutionist/Christian Darwinist Bible and using it to bash critiques of Darwin that they don’t understand, don’t want to understand, and feel compelled to misrepresent.

Sal, file under: If you are an observant Christian or Jew, note that God takes responsibility for designs that didn’t work (Ex 4:11). Such flops are not a religious argument against design in nature if you adhere to either of those religions.

Comments
Whenever atheists complain about God's allowing pain and suffering, sometimes long-drawn out agony, in the world, I don't recall ever hearing an acknowledgement that, in that very matter, in his acceptance of his own crucifixion, the historical, flesh-and-blood Christ 'led from the front'. 'Take up your cross daily and follow me', sounds the most unlikely of PR slogans, yet it has had some success. A great deal more than atheism.Axel
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
With regard to the question of theodicy, seeing things 'sub specie aeternitatis' is everything.Axel
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Phineas
In any case, my theology doesn’t believe that the 2004 tsunami was an act of evil on God’s part, and apparently your theology doesn’t believe that God exists, so whose theology is it that we are actually discussing? Some theology that you insist I ought to hold even though you do not?
All I dispute in this thread is statements to the effect that we are unable to judge whether the tsunami was a bad thing (which is not the same as saying it was an evil act) because we don't have the knowledge or ability to judge as God does. If that is not part of your theology, and you think we are able to assess whether the tsunami was a bad thing then we are in agreement.Mark Frank
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
@ TheScrub Sorry not to respond earlier. The threads churn over so rapidly here that I find it hard to keep track. We obviously disagree about religion but, thankfully, for the most part, this no longer generally considered an excuse for violence, war and oppression.
I believe the answer to why doesn’t God eliminate suffering is that He will. He has promised as such. But that for now He tolerates it because the world is fallen and fragile, I don’t think He directly causes natural evil, but I do believe the death of each individual works within His ultimate plan.
I do wonder why God doesn't just cut to the chase and dispense with the real world altogether! There have been alternative dogmas. The Cathar heresy, so efficiently put down by the Catholic church, proposed that the real world is too evil to have been created by God and is instead the creation of Satan. God's creation was the next world and getting there involved a kind of abstention from worldly pleasures - the consolamentum. One of my difficulties with religious dogmas is that there are so many to choose from and only one or none can be correct.Alan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
You didn't make any point.Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Joe:
My point is morality is moot if darwinain evolution brought us here.
And my point is that it isn't.Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Elizabeth:
There is just plain morality – the way we behave towards each other.
That can mean anything. Some people kill other people. Some people steal from other people. Some people abuse other people. Some people help other people. My point is morality is moot if darwinain evolution brought us here.Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Joe:
There isn’t any darwinian morality.
No, and there isn't any newtonian morality either, or quantum morality, or biochemical morality, or relativistic morality. There is just plain morality - the way we behave towards each other.Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Yes indeed, Phinehas, hence the Hippocratic injunction: First do no Harm. I'm not saying ethical questions are easy. But I am distinguishing between evil, which, I suggest, must involve intent, and harm itself, which may or may not be a result of evil (and can even be a result of good intent).Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Liz:
An evil act is one done by a moral agent with the intent to cause harm. Harm is damage to a perons’s hopes, dreams, capacities, happiness, comfort.
I think you have to be careful here. The surgeon will not refrain from causing harm to tissue and harm to temporary comfort. Her intent will be to harm in the short term for the sake of an increase in long-term health. This is the mindset demonstrated by early church leaders. You have to remember that their lives were pretty rough even before you throw in being persecuted for their faith. If anyone has had a reason to question God's intentions, surely they would have a decent claim. Yet we see the Apostle Paul saying things like, "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."Phinehas
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
@Mark Frank
Thank you for your comments. Both of you make the point that apparently horrendous events such as the 2004 Tsunami (or the malaria plasmodium which kills about a million people a year – the a large proportion of them children) may not be bad things because only God can understand the full implications.
I watched the Caught on Camera series on the 2004 tsunami. It was heartbreaking. While the numbers were staggering, it was the individual stories that really got to me. I believe that God is involved at the individual story level. I believe that God cares about each one more than I ever can. The Bible presents suffering and death in a very different light. Death is more about separation than the sort of finality that is typical in more secular perspectives. And believers are encouraged to rejoice in suffering. These ideas can be twisted (and have been), but if you want to engage what the Bible says with an open mind, I think you will find that the ideas hang together very well. In any case, my theology doesn't believe that the 2004 tsunami was an act of evil on God's part, and apparently your theology doesn't believe that God exists, so whose theology is it that we are actually discussing? Some theology that you insist I ought to hold even though you do not?
Suppose science advances to the point where it can stop such a tsunami or eliminate malaria at a low cost and you are responsible for deciding to implement it. Would you hesitate on the grounds that only God can understand whether it is really a bad thing?
No.Phinehas
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Elizabeth:
But as moral agents, we ourselves are responsible for the intentional evil we inflict on others.
We are only moral agents if we were designed that way. There isn't any darwinian morality.Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
We are humans and it is our nature to care about such things.
That is only if we were designed that way. Under darwinism we wouldn't expect that. Save lives so they can use up valuable resources? That is not the darwinian wayJoe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
For what it's worth, TheScrub, here is my old theodicy - it's still serviceable, even if I don't need the theo part any more :) I'd say that we need to distinguish between evil and harm. An evil act is one done by a moral agent with the intent to cause harm. Harm is damage to a perons's hopes, dreams, capacities, happiness, comfort. Not all evil acts succeed in causing harm. A few inadvertently do good. Not all harm is caused by evil acts. Not all harmful effects do no good as well. Harm is a direct result of the way the world works. We die because life would be impossible without death. We hurt because pain is how we know to avoid harm. We are drowned because the rain falls and the winds blow and the tides rise. We are crushed because gravity pulls things on top of us. We are diseased because pathogens thrive, and DNA is delicate. DNA is delicate because of the properties that allow us to exist. A harm-free physical world would be a square circle, a one-handed clap, a koan. Harm is the flipside of physical existence. Existence is what we may attribute to God. But as moral agents, we ourselves are responsible for the intentional evil we inflict on others. And we shouldn't. That's why we call it a "sin", or, in secular terms, a "crime". But only if we think that God has intentionally inflicted harm on us is there a "problem of evil" in the natural world. If we don't - if we consider that harmful, but unintended, events are simply the working of the physical universe that gives us our physical existence we need not attribute evil intent to God, but simply accept them as the price of physical existence. But of course, you then have to ignore large chunks of the Old Testament to make that work.Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
TheScrub I certainly don't want to challenge your religion and the comfort it gives you. You seem like a thoroughly nice person who deserves the comfort. I will pick up on just one point because so many people here seem to thing a materialist life lacks meaning.
The question I have for you is if there is no meaning to life why do we bother expending so much energy trying to keep people alive? Why should it even make us sad when total strangers pass away?
The answer is so simple. We are humans and it is our nature to care about such things. I believe that nature is the result of genetics and culture. But that is not a justification. It is a cause. Preventing suffering and saving life need no justification. They are ends in themselves just like a mother's desire to protect her offspring. If someone offers a justification (whether it be the communist manifesto or the Bible) then that opens up the question - so if that justification were proven wrong then would you say suffering and death were not bad things?Mark Frank
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
I am kept up at night by such thoughts. I have wrestled with them for most of my life. I really do sympathize with your position on suffering. I am comforted when I read the Psalms, the very human authors struggled with the very same concepts. I am comforted further by the words of Christ "In this world you will have trouble; but take heart, for I have overcome the world" Alan, I am truly sorry for your loss. My cousin passed away last year after just three days of life. The pain is immeasurable. You console yourself by accepting there is no purpose to any of it and perhaps you are correct. I (and his parents as well) console myself in the hope that his life was not meaningless and that he now resides with his creator. It doesn't stop the earthly pain for sure, but the hope is that He has wiped the tears from my cousin's eyes, and that someday he will wipe mine away as well. Life is fragile. I absolutely do believe in spending money on eliminating disease. I believe we don't spend nearly enough. There is no christian law against charity, or against relieving suffering, in fact the opposite is true. There is no reason for anyone to go hungry or for anyone to die of malaria for that matter. We have the resources to eliminate world hunger, but greed prevents it from happening. Think of the parable of Lazarus, sitting outside the rich man's gate. He went hungry, and eventually died. God could have fed him, but didn't because the resources for that man to eat had already been provided, but were being horded by the rich man. It was the greed of the rich man that led to suffering, and as such Lazarus' hunger stood in judgement of the rich man. At the end of the story of course, the poor man is provided for and cared for by God (for eternity at that) and the rich man is led to judgement. The question I have for you is if there is no meaning to life why do we bother expending so much energy trying to keep people alive? Why should it even make us sad when total strangers pass away? Mark's question about the tsunami stopping machine. If it existed, I would use it. I have never believed that God directly causes natural disasters. Again, there are no christian laws against mitigating suffering. My position is that we live in a broken world, a world where decay and destruction exist. A world ruled by sin and ultimately by death. Whether or not you believe in God you cannot deny that death is a fact of life, there is no escaping it. That doesn't mean there is no hope, but rather that our hope lies in what comes next. Consider the words of the apostle Paul "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain". I believe the answer to why doesn't God eliminate suffering is that He will. He has promised as such. But that for now He tolerates it because the world is fallen and fragile, I don't think He directly causes natural evil, but I do believe the death of each individual works within His ultimate plan. When Jesus is asked directly whose sin is responsible for a man's blindness, He responds not by blaming the man, or even by blaming God, but instead He heals him (as He will eventually heal all) and declares that the man's blindness did have a purpose, even though it was previously known only to God. He IS after all; and I am not. Thanks for indulging me. I understand these are difficult questions that deserve thoughtful responses. I also don't believe we will fully have the answers until after this life. "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully..." 1Cor 13:12 Have a good day!TheScrub
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Suppose science advances to the point where it can stop such a tsunami or eliminate malaria at a low cost and you are responsible for deciding to implement it.
That would be great because it would mean we finally accepted Intellignet Design.
Would you hesitate on the grounds that only God can understand whether it is really a bad thing?
Umm we have to take care of ourselves. We are responsible for our lives, not God nor any designer.Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
My niece died on 1st April this year after a long fight against cancer and despite having undergone surgery, radiation and chemotherapy and all the support modern medicine could offer. Despite, too, the support and prayers of her family and friends. She was 35 and leaves her partner alone with their five year old son. The only way I can reconcile myself to such tragedy is accept that such events are random and without malice. I'm glad I don't have to torture myself having to reconcile some creator God allowing suffering because of some "greater" plan. Good question Mark. Why spend money on ways to eliminate disease when it's all part of God's plan. Do those who believe this sleep at night?Alan Fox
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Phinehas, TheScrub Thank you for your comments. Both of you make the point that apparently horrendous events such as the 2004 Tsunami (or the malaria plasmodium which kills about a million people a year - the a large proportion of them children) may not be bad things because only God can understand the full implications. Suppose science advances to the point where it can stop such a tsunami or eliminate malaria at a low cost and you are responsible for deciding to implement it. Would you hesitate on the grounds that only God can understand whether it is really a bad thing?Mark Frank
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
I have never before commented on an article on this site (and probably never will again). Although I generally enjoy reading the discussions, I really have never had much to add. That being said...this topic hits near and dear to my heart and I thought for once I might join the conversation. It is safe to say that I am nowhere near as intelligent as most (from both sides) on this forum, but what I do know I have come by honestly. I have written far more than intended; for which I do apologize. Some on this forum have asked a valid question that I think everyone asks him/herself when seeing a disaster on the news. "Why?" Not just "why them?" or "why me?" or "why now?" but just why in general? Why should humanity be subjected to such evil? Mark has chosen as an example the 2004 tsunami which claimed the lives of 250,000 individuals. He claims that the "premature death" of these people is "a bad thing" because they suffered and because they lost the opportunity to live meaningful lives. I believe these points have been addressed by other contributors in part, but I would like to frame the discussion in a different way. First he needs to define what he means by "premature". Premature by whose standard? Is there some sort of unwritten rule that defines when a life has been fully lived? Is that rule defined further by age alone or is the content of the life important? Is 80 years a long enough life? What about 90? The above question is of course unanswerable from a human perspective. However, if God exists, then He just might be the right entity to decide such questions. If God exists then by nature of his existence, He is sovereign. If He is sovereign, then He has the authority to create and destroy at will. Just as governments are empowered to create an enact laws (and even in areas of justice or defense take lives)so too is He empowered by his very nature to act as He sees fit on His creation. This is the reason behind the commandments surrounding murder. Humans do not have the authority to make such decisions, God does. But all of this begs another, more important, question: Why do we think it is bad for people to die (specifically "innocents" who die unexpectedly or violently)? There really isn't anything in a materialist worldview that demands such a position. You can point to a Darwinian explanation of preservation of species and what not...and you may be on to something...but if that is the case, the materialist should recognize that it isn't really wrong for people to die, it is just evolution producing in them the emotion that will most likely lead to the survival of the species. And if that is all it is then why bother asking the question at all? It doesn't matter, nothing does. Back to the point at hand, why is it wrong for innocents to die? The Christian will point to the idea that humans are created in the image of God, and as such have a certain intrinsic worth, they were created so it seems, with eternity in mind. I don't see anyone crying over all the chickens that died in the tsunami, but why not? Why are we more valuable? Another issue is the idea of "bad" or "good" which Mark brings up. I feel like other contributors have done a good job of addressing the fallacy of holding to a materialist worldview and calling something good or bad so I won't bother rehashing old arguments that from what I have seen have never been refuted. However, this does bring up a valid point about God's character. How can a god who is supposedly good sit back and watch things like this happen. Doesn't the suffering prove He isn't so good after all? This is a very common objection, and on the surface it is a valid concern. I think when you dig deeper you see the true Character of God shine through. I am going to lay out some points as I see them, I may not be correct on all points, I am certainly not perfect.... God is good- He is good because without Him there would be nothing to call "good" and it is merely the absence of His characteristics that we refer to as "evil". Because God is good he allows choice, and because of choice evil is possible. God, because He is good cannot tolerate evil, but also will not limit choice. Therefore, we live in a world where choice, evil, and subsequently justice are present. Man is not good- I am not saying that everyone you meet is on the same level of evil as, say, Pol-Pot. However, it can be easily observed that people at their most basic levels are all a mix a of good and evil. Everyone has fallen short of Gods standards and for that matter they often fall short of their own standards as well. That puts us in a funny predicament, because God cannot tolerate even a little evil, so we are removed from His presence. Spiritual death is therefore the direct result of sin, and physical death a necessary prerequisite for continued reproduction of humanity as well as population and resource management. God is patient-The old testament portrays God as being incredibly patient with the transgressions of mankind. God gives the Amekilites four hundred years to repent before finally "driving them out" in judgment (read "Is God a Moral Monster for a full treatment). God gives Pharaoh multiple attempts to repent(and successively harsh punishments) before He had enough. God gave Israel time to repent from their sins (sacrificing children and what not) before sending them in to exile. And finally, God has given the entire world time ( Aprox. 2000 years and counting) to accept His forgiveness before sending a final judgement. Now, in a world where God is patient and free will exists you must expect a certain level of evil behaviour. That is why arguments against God from the existence of man made evil fall short. The alternative is judgement, and interestingly enough, when God does step in to stop evil behaviour (usually only in extreme instances), critics are quick to complain that God is being a bully and how dare He yada-yada-yada... So why the need for natural evil? Some have postulated that it is a natural mechanism to keep the evil of humanity in check. A few scientists have suggested that the natural evil is necessary for life even to exist on Earth (earthquakes perform a vital role, etc). Some have suggested that it was sin itself that caused "all of creation to groan". C.S. Lewis seemed at least to imply in "The Problem of Pain", that perhaps Satan's fall was responsible. My suggestion is that natural evil exists because the world wasn't meant to be free from pain, but was meant to carry out God's purpose, which is to ultimately bring redemption to humanity. I think most Christians agree that at the very least man is subjected to the natural evil because of the fall, natural evil just doesn't seem present in the garden, though IMHO it probably is already present in the rest of the world. Jesus warns that natural disasters, disease and famine must occur, and furthermore, that we shouldn't let our hearts be troubled by such things. He doesn't say that they are "good" or that God caused them as such, but that like birth pains they must take place before the culmination of His plan. That is the key point that I am trying to make. Not that we shouldn't feel upset when we see suffering (Jesus himself wept over the coming destruction of Jerusalem), or that we shouldn't feel that somehow it just isn't right. It isn't right. But there may be more at work then we understand. This brings us back to the Goodness of God. Now, if God were good you would expect a solution, a remedy for the predicament we find ourselves in. After all, everyone is in the same boat. Everyone dies. Every single person you will ever meet or have ever met or has ever lived will die. Does it really matter if it is in a tsunami or in a hospital bed? What is 80 years of life versus an eternity of nothingness?Does it matter if we experience pain (especially if there is nothing after death, there would be no memories of the pain, so why does it matter)? ...and that of course brings us to the person of Jesus. Jesus, who knew what it meant to be human, who wasn't some distant god showering down thunderbolts on humanity. Jesus, who wept at the death of his friends, who was tempted in every way, who endured pain and suffering, who died all alone while his mother and his best friends watched. They could no more have imagined how God would use such an event for good as you and I could understand how God could use an event like the tsunami for good. But He did. That is how I choose to frame my understanding of the world, and I hope it at least helps to articulate in your mind how Christians make sense of such events. I have closed my eyes and imagined what was going on in the mind of a young girl as she is being swept away by the 2004 Tsunami. Terror is too kind a word for what she must have experienced: thrashing, violence, screams all engulfed the last few minutes of her life. It was terrible. But what if after all the pain and suffering there was morning? What if she awoke to see her Creator? What if He wiped her tears and held her close? What if he explained to her why the tsunami had to happen? What if she really did gain her life by losing it? Well, then it seems that it really was only a tragedy from our very limited perspective. In the end there are really only two possible worldviews as I see it. There is the worldview that sees death as the often brutal end to an otherwise pointless life. And then there is the worldview in which death is just the beginning, a doorway, if you will, to the real existence which has been locked away in our soul, just out of reach until one day the door is opened and the invitation to enter granted. I chose the second view, and I believe the evidence validates such a view...I could be wrong of course...but I am well aware of the fact that if I am wrong I will never know, and furthermore, that it will have all been meaningless anyway.TheScrub
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
@Mark Frank There is none good but God. His is the only standard that matters when judging good and bad. We have neither the qualifications nor credentials to judge Him. Therefore, only God can say whether what happened to those 250,000 was a good thing or a bad thing.Phinehas
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
@Jon Garvey Thank you for #36. When questioned about his choices or actions, God's typical response is something along the lines of, "Um, perhaps we should revisit once again who you are and who I AM." Nowadays, we don't tend to create anthropomorphized images of God with our hands. Instead, we create laughably limited constructs of God in our minds every time we say something like, "Well, the God I believe in would never..." God never comes across as codependent in Scripture when revealing who He really is. He doesn't appear to struggle with self-doubt or demonstrate any interest in our approval. We would do well to engage with Him as He presents Himself instead of trying to refashion Him into some smaller shape that we find more user-friendly. He accepts us for who we are. Can we not at least attempt to return the favor?Phinehas
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Andre It was presented to the reader that creation was from Gods mind and it was perfect. No death no ugly etc. It is only the rebellion that brought destruction and a groaning creation. The bible clear on this point. We only survive because Of gods love to give us a second chance. Hes going out of his way with evil mankind. Babies are evil too according to the bible. Its innate. Anyone who lives, gets food, gets married has been givin a extra kindness while also being given time to prepare for eternity. What really matters. Satan is trying to destroy everything and we deserve destruction but God largely helps us for to keep us around long enough to get saved and have some taste of his love. However stuff happens. Defining god by the stuff is a absurdity if the equation is understood.Robert Byers
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
Five words: William Lane Craig, John Lennox.Axel
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Is God really responsible for the disasters that bring so much human suffering and loss around the world? Is he to blame? When we speak of natural disasters, we are not simply speaking of dramatic displays of natural forces. Every year there are thousands of earthquakes, large and small, and dozens of storms, cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, volcanic eruptions, and other violent phenomena that do nothing more than become statistics in some record book. However, when such events cause great destruction of life and property and the disruption of the normal way of life, they become disasters. The Bible identifies Jehovah God as the Grand Creator of all things, including the natural forces of this earth. (Genesis 1:1; Nehemiah 9:6; Hebrews 3:4; Revelation 4:11) This does not mean that he causes every movement of wind or every rain shower. Rather, he has set in motion certain laws that govern the earth and its environment. For example, at Ecclesiastes 1:5-7, we read about three of the fundamental operations that make life on earth possible—the daily rising and setting of the sun, the unchanging pattern of winds, and the water cycle. Whether mankind is aware of them or not, for thousands of years these natural systems, and others like them, involving the climate, geology, and ecology of the earth have operated. In fact, the writer of Ecclesiastes was calling attention to the great contrast between the unchanging and endless ways of creation and the transitory and temporary nature of human life. Note what the book Natural Disasters—Acts of God or Acts of Man? has to say: “There is no evidence that the climatological mechanisms associated with droughts, floods and cyclones are changing. And no geologist is claiming that the earth movements associated with earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami (earthquake waves) are becoming more violent.” Similarly, the book Earthshock observes: “The rocks of every continent contain a record of innumerable major and minor geological events, every one of which would be a catastrophic disaster to mankind if they occurred today—and it is scientifically certain that such events will occur again and again in the future.” In other words, the earth and its dynamic forces have more or less remained the same throughout the ages. Hence, whether or not some statistics indicate an increase of some forms of geologic or other activity, the earth has not become uncontrollably violent in recent times. Authorities have recognized that human activities have made our environment both more prone to natural disasters and more vulnerable to them. In the developing nations, a growing need for food forces farmers to overcultivate what land they have or to reclaim land by clearing away vital forest covering. This leads to serious soil erosion. Expanding population also hastens the growth of slums and shantytowns haphazardly built in unsafe areas. Studies have shown that the poorer nations suffer disproportionately higher death rates from natural disasters than do the richer nations of the world. Natural forces may have provided the triggers, but it is human activity—social, economic, political—that must bear the responsibility for the large difference in the loss of life and destruction of property that resulted.Barb
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
William Not sure what a conceptual context is or why I have to provide it. The real context is of course the tsunami of 2004 . I believe the premature death of 250,000 people in that tsunami to be a bad thing because many of them will have suffered, because many of them will have lost the opportunity to live fruitful lives, and because life is valuable in itself. Now - do you think it was a bad thing or not?Mark Frank
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
'And if you want to talk about “premature violent death” just look at abortions.' Spot on! As ever, brutally to the point, Joe!!! You bring us all back to reality, again and again. No blandishments, no periphrases. Pity you're a Buddhist. You and Christ would have got on like a house on fire, I reckon. Just Googled, 'periphrasis', to check I'd got it right. The Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following hilarious example. I suppose, 'at this moment in time', distinguishes it from 'at this moment in momentousness', however superfluously. Loved that 'orgy of periphrasis'! The Latins love to use ten or more clauses where two or three would suffice, and there's a lot more of the Continental in you Yanks than I'd realised. The French and Italians would take Hemingway to have been a semi-illiterate person, unless you told them his economical style was deliberate, and might even have its merits.Axel
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
William do you agree that the premature violent death of 250,000 people is a bad thing?
By what standard do you judge such deaths "premature"? I don't consider death a bad thing at all. I don't consider violence necessarily bad. You have to provide some conceptual context for the words you are using, Mark. "Bad" by what standard? Why do you keep refusing to provide the standards by which you have made all these value judgement? You expressed a view, I challenged you to back it up. The questions you are asking me have nothing to do with providing a source or a context for the value judgements in your statements.William J Murray
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
You sound a bit like a moral relativist.
Now, you're trying to characterize me instead of responding to the point I made and the question I asked you.
I could set about justifying why the death of 250,000 people is wrong but that is potentially a lengthy discussion. If you agree it is wrong then we don’t even need to have that debate.
You either have a standard for making such a judgement, or you do not. What is your standard?
Do you agree it is wrong or not?
I'm not sure how "wrongness" works into the issue of whether or not the "universe" is a "better" place with or without the earthquake. Is it "wrong" if the universe is made a worse place? By what standard? You are now trying to deflect; you expressed your view, and I asked you to support your view. Whether or not I agree with you has nothing to do with whether or not you can support your view. What is the basis for your judgements about what is "better" for the universe, and what is right or wrong about such loss of life?William J Murray
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
And if you want to talk about "premature violent death" just look at abortions.Joe
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply