278 thoughts on “Open Conversation Part 4”

  1. Brandon,

    Me saying this should go to show you how sympathetic I am to naturalism and how I prefer to stay away from magical narratives when I can. I try to stick with natural and minimalist narratives when I can, obviously I can’t with something like the resurrection.

    So really the only “magic” you believe in is a creator deity programming the big bang and Jesus coming back to life? I’m sure you don’t want to limit yourself, but would these two cover your main supernatural beliefs?

    I would be very impressed by a god that had the ability to create everything by only pre-programming the big bang. It would require an incredible amount of foreknowledge. Like knowing an almost infinite number of chess moves before starting the game. That’s pretty cool.

    Dave wrote: What will we do once we have entered eternity?

    Brandon wrote: Play video games, have cat farms, space travel, all the fun things and none of the boring things. No waiting in lines or paying bills.

    Nan wrote: Brandon, I think perhaps you were being facetious in your response to Dave’s question about what we will do in eternity.

    He was, but I was also being facetious when I asked it. I am interested in Nan’s more serious questions though too.

    Like

  2. Hey Howie,

    One of the problems in discussing this I’m finding is that there are different fine tuning arguments. I agree with Sean Carroll’s and Halvorson’s criticism. They are criticizing arguments put forth by apologists like Hugh Ross. There are two other fine tuning arguments and one fine tuning problem. The fine tuning arguments are 1) Deductive logical argument used by William Lane Craig’s and 2) a weaker argument that I am suggesting. Then, the fine tuning problem is just how physicists and philosophers see fine-tuning as frustrating, clunky, not elegant, and possibly suggesting intention which leads them to propose the multiverse as a solution. Back to what I’m suggesting, or at least if I haven’t been throughout this blog, what I am now! To me, a weaker argument is that arbitrary physical constants are more consistent with intentional design compared to a lack of arbitrary physical constants.

    Now, this weaker argument would lose clout if we proved a TOE, but so far this has eluded us.

    And if neither multiverse nor God leave hard evidence then I have a hard time claiming belief in either one.

    I respect your epistemology. I think maybe one of our core differences is I’m more open to interpret reality in a subjective way.

    Also some cosmologists say that if inflationary cosmology is correct (and it does have strong support) then that would make the existence of multi-verses even more likely.

    The way I understand it is that inflationary cosmology may suggest the universe is much larger than what we can observe, that beyond our event horizon lies vastly more spacetime and matter. But, whether these other inflationary bubble universes (within the total universe aka multiverse) actually have different physical constants does not depend on proving inflationary cosmology. It’s a separate issue.

    I really like your method of eliminating these religions based on people using them for personal gain.

    I think almost any idea can be exploited for personal gain. And, you could hypothesize this about ancient Israel. Certainly religions including Christianity have been guilty of using ideas to exploit others. I’m thinking of televangelists who get rich, etc.

    What really interests me about Paul is that whether or not he was a conman is important for the credibility of Christianity. I don’t think we can positively establish this credibility by examining Paul’s life. But, I think we can at least not discredit Christianity because of Paul. That’s what I think makes Paul different from Muhammad and Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. They all stood to gain enormously from their religious claims which raises suspicion of con artistry at the very origins of these religions and the foundations of their belief come into question.

    Like

  3. Hi Nan,

    Maybe one important distinction is that the final state is not heaven, rather it is a new physical creation. Why is this an important distinction? Maybe it’s not, but NT Wright argues that belief in an ethereal, distant heaven has effects on us in the present such as leading to disengagement of the world. Realistically, I am sympathetic to the Critical Theorists and sociologists who say religion helps us cope with suffering. But, I am also sympathetic to Wright’s view and see religion as challenging us to be ethical and stewards of our abilities for the sake of the present world.

    From here I’ll just refer to the final state – the new creation. One significant feature is its design will lack suffering, decay, and death. These are parameters that God does not have to use in designing a new creation. This also means that there will be no temptation or evil. However, this is very important: A loss of moral agency does not mean a loss of freedom to act. A loss of moral agency just means that there will be no actions which can meaningfully harm.

    Take all the fleeting joy that we experience here and all the good: like at weddings and births, true love, companionship, justice, beauty, learning, satisfaction, contentment, peace, and more. This will be the norm in the new creation. God will no longer seem distant, but his glorious presence will be obvious.

    We will not be a uniform crowd doing repetitive motions. We will be doing some kind of work that brings us joy and means a great deal to the new creation. There will be other creatures like animals. They may in fact be animals of the old creation, redeemed. The scenery will be absolutely breathtaking and interesting and we can explore and have curiosity without fear.

    We will build things and worship God and work together in harmony without fear, without suffering. We will have no memory of evil. We may remember that we came from an old creation, and have a few select memories, but I don’t think it will be anything that will be painful. There will be no painful memories of the past.

    I think Jesus will be there and we will know him and honor him for his accomplishment.

    I hope this represents a serious answer to you questions.

    Like

  5. Hey Brandon,

    I was going to respond to your other stuff, but your recent response to Nan hit on a significant reason the Christian message is a no-go for me.

    God will no longer seem distant, but his glorious presence will be obvious.

    That’s how I understand the Christian concept of heaven as well – and judgment day is the same – that there will be no question of God’s existence. This concept concedes that it is definitely possible for God’s existence to be obvious, and we are told that God wants a relationship with all of us here while we are on earth yet he has “his reasons” for not making his existence obvious. Free will is usually the answer, and then there are other answers, but somehow in heaven those reasons aren’t an issue any longer. The concept of a God who is fully capable of having his existence be obvious, wants a relationship with all of us, but also remains so hidden is very problematic for me.

    (oh and by the way, I definitely preferred the whole video games response 😉 )

    Like

  7. I like your view of the “new earth” Brandon. While I don’t believe in it, I can say that is sounds like a truly awesome place. I’ve got my fingers crossed! 🙂

    But one of the problems I have with it is the idea that God can create people so that they have free will without the ability to sin or cause damage. If he can do that, why didn’t he do it in the first place? I know this is something you’ve thought about too, so I suppose the problem of evil is a big sticking point for you?

    To me, while it sounds great, it also sounds like the sort of thing a person would make up. It’s “super-earth.” It takes all the good things we like about life, pushes them to extremes, and eliminates all the bad things in life. Of course it’s appealing, but it’s the perfect example of “too good to be true.”

    Like

  8. Dave,

    So really the only “magic” you believe in is a creator deity programming the big bang and Jesus coming back to life? I’m sure you don’t want to limit yourself, but would these two cover your main supernatural beliefs?

    Yeah, those are the two that I’m most confident in, and then there’re things like Jesus’ miracles, some of which could be providential and not metaphysical. Everything else, all the miracle claims throughout history, I’m less convinced by. Theologian Craig Keener has compiled a book on miracle reports and sorted them by level of evidence. Some of them do sound plausible to me. Keener also develops a theology of miracles in which he suggests that God usually uses miracles for very specific purposes like spreading faith into new areas. This is a double edge sword though because many “new areas” tend to be less developed and less scientific thus more suspicious for legends and exaggerations. There is a handful of reports I find plausible like this Indian patriarch went to protest the Christian faith who had a limp arm. He was angry and he raised his arm to say something and suddenly it worked. He was stunned! His entire clan converted to Christianity afterwards.

    We know that randomized controlled trials of prayer do not show difference. To me this makes sense because it doesn’t fit with the theology of miracles in the NT and if it did, it might make God look like pagan deities who would bless their worshippers if they prayed and sacrificed. Jesus is clear that God gives good gifts to those who ask and have faith, but the caveat is that God’s plan may not align with our plans. We are only observing a few pixels in a gigantic painting. Of course, this kind of response makes God elusive and it is quite unsatisfying to our rational skeptical minds, but I think that’s the conclusion of Christian theology.

    BTW, I love your chess analogy.

    Like

  9. Howie,

    The concept of a God who is fully capable of having his existence be obvious, wants a relationship with all of us, but also remains so hidden is very problematic for me.

    I agree with you, this is troubling. Not only this, but the freewill solution isn’t very convincing. Just thinking out loud. . .

    Let’s take a case of someone who has a strong faith and does not think God is hidden. Even for this person I do not think God is literally speaking to them. So, the kind of relationship God wants is not the same as a human relationship. It’s different. Considering these individuals, the hiddenness problem might better be thought as a question of why would God selectively reveal his presence? It’s a question of divine election.

    This is something I’ve been troubled by because it could be seen as God showing favoritism. But the more I think about it, there could be reasons for it. At least I don’t think it is clearly unfair. I think anyone who is elected has more responsibility, as in the Parable of the Talents where the servant given more is expected to do more. So, I think election is not about loving the elect, rather it is about loving the world through the elect, i.e., for God so loved the world. . . And, Paul says the elect are like God’s hands and feet on earth and expected to do good works in love. I should say this doesn’t mean God does not expect the non-elect to do good. We are all endowed with conscience and mind. But, I think the church itself is supposed to be a sign that God is love. It’s very disappointing to me that it doesn’t always do this.

    Another thing is that questioning God’s election choice is in some ways bringing up a version of the problem of evil, because would not it be a good thing for everyone to know God? If it’s a good thing, then why won’t a powerful and good God do this? In these terms, any answer we try to give will be a theodicy. When is the last time you heard a convincing theodicy, Howie? Theology tends to converge at theodicy which might be why the oldest Hebrew myth pretty much is a theodicy!

    Another way we could frame the hiddenness problem is in terms of epistemology. Like, why would God not be accessible by hard evidence? To me this is a question of design. Why design things this way? Again, this seems to converge on the a version of the problem of evil as well, because we could say that a design in which God gave us hard evidence would be better than a design without it. So, it’s kind of questioning God’s moral character.

    I could talk about theodicies, but instead let me just suggest something I’ve come to believe. I think the essence of faith is not believing that God exists, rather it is trusting in God’s goodness and holiness. Because the real problem we face when we consider if God exists is whether he could be good and truly worthy of worship. The prototype of this faith is Abraham. He trusted that God would follow through with his promise to give him an heir despite Sarah’s advanced age and the couple’s infertility. Then, he trusted that God would provide an animal to sacrifice before he took Isaac on the mountain and bound him. It was all trust in God’s character.

    I definitely preferred the whole video games response

    🙂 can I just add one more: no traffic.

    Like

  10. “He trusted that God would follow through with his promise to give him an heir despite Sarah’s advanced age and the couple’s infertility. Then, he trusted that God would provide an animal to sacrifice before he took Isaac on the mountain and bound him. It was all trust in God’s character.”

    Aren’t you glad you weren’t Isaac looking up at this father as his father raised the knife? Abraham was planning on killing his son. So much so that an angle had to stop him.

    What a horrible nightmare to put a child through. As I read your child-like description of trust, my instincts to be naturally repulsed kicked in. Why is it that so many believers never look at this through the eyes of this child? Knowing what we know now about the negative impact of adverse childhood experiences, this should never be promoted as something to admire.

    Like

  11. Nate,

    If he can [create people so that they have free will without the ability to sin or cause damage], why didn’t he do it in the first place? I know this is something you’ve thought about too, so I suppose the problem of evil is a big sticking point for you?

    I remember this was our first conversation on the blogosphere and it was really thought-provoking!

    Yes, this is still a problem for me. It is questioning whether this is a good design which questions whether God is good. As much as I dislike going down the theodicy pathway, maybe I can offer an insight. One thing that might be important to consider is the sequence of creating – from this world to a new creation. A sequence like this suggests that there is some objective that this world can achieve which the new creation cannot achieve. For philosophical reasons, we both agree it is not freewill. Here is a consideration: if we are willing to say God is limited by logical possibilities, then it may be that the objective achieved by this world logically requires moral agency. In other words, God may be logically constrained to first make a world with moral agents to achieve his goal and then make a new creation.

    Some criticism of this theodicy is: can omnipotence really be constrained by logic? If God is not constrained by logic, then I think the only route left is to appeal to mystery by saying that we just don’t know God’s reason.

    There’s give and take here. The Hebrew creation myth gives us a theodicy then the story of Job gives us an anti-theodicy and they are held at tension. This tension requires believers to trust in God’s character.

    To me, while it sounds great, it also sounds like the sort of thing a person would make up. It’s “super-earth.” It takes all the good things we like about life, pushes them to extremes, and eliminates all the bad things in life.

    I totally agree with you! I mean there’s certainly no hard evidence for this I can think of, so maybe that really is how it came about. Maybe God even intended it to be this way. From the Christian perspective, it comes largely from a vision of John of Patmos found in Revelation 21.

    Like

  14. I’ve been following along here. Much of what is being said is way over my pay grade but, Brandon, you said this:

    God may be logically constrained to first make a world with moral agents to achieve his goal and then make a new creation.

    Logically constrained by what or whom? If nothing is impossible with God how can he be constrained logically or otherwise?

    Like

  15. Victoria, I can see that you view the binding of Isaac as child abuse and this invokes moral outrage in you. I don’t view the binding of Isaac as child abuse, however. There’s nothing intrinsic to binding that fits the definition of abuse. We hold kids down to give them medicine or to stop them from fighting each other. Also, the story is not clear as to whether Isaac resisted. Some commentators think that Isaac was perfectly willing to be bound and this represents his faith. Plus, Isaac was never harmed. Abraham had faith that God would provide a lamb and this is evident by him telling his traveling companions that he and Isaac would both be back after worshiping and he even told Isaac that God would provide before going up the mountain. Finally, we should take note that Isaac remained faithful to God which suggests that whatever happened on the mountain could not have been so horrifying that it made him hate his father or his religion. In all, I see no good reason to think this is child abuse.

    Like

  16. Brandon, your followup answer doesn’t surprise me. Many Christians are often desensitized to antisocial behaviors condoned and commanded by their god. Had Abraham tried to pull this stunt today, he be sitting in a high security mental health facility or prison.

    Like

  17. Ruth,

    Logically constrained by what or whom?

    Great question! One answer is that God created certain laws (logic, morality) and then chooses to uphold these which is a self-imposed limiting of power. This relates to the Euthyphro dilemma: is an action good because God commanded it, or does God command it because it is good? Well, if God created moral law, then there is no dilemma, both are true in a sense. I think the more fundamental question is your second one:

    If nothing is impossible with God how can he be constrained logically or otherwise?

    Some philosophers think God is constrained by logic. They would say: God cannot make evil be good and God cannot make falsity be truth. Other philosophers think that omnipotence really means anything is possible. I’m still not entirely sure which camp I am in. It’s complicated to think of all the consequences of holding either position as a theist.

    Like

  18. Brandon, your words, “I see no good reason to think it’s child abuse” remind me, starkly, of the stories on Homeschoolers Anonymous. Those parents – who spanked their children repeatedly (because of what they read in my least favourite fiction) and believing it was for their children’s own good – thought it wasn’t child abuse either.

    It really is quite chilling that you would write such a thing.

    Like

  19. Carmen, I would be interested to know if you have a convincing case that the binding of Isaac meets criteria for child abuse. It would also be helpful for you to make a case assuming atheism is true, and also make a case assuming theism is true. I’m hoping that by trying to understand the story in this way you won’t have a chilling reaction any longer.

    Like

  20. Brandon, we don’t need to think like lawyers here. Common sense will do nicely. Common sense tells me that the story of simulated child sacrifice is morbid, cruel and yes, ABUSIVE.
    Please do use yours.

    Like

  21. From Carol Delaney, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor of Cultural and Social Anthropology,
    Stanford University

    Was Abraham Ethical? Should We Admire His Willingness to Sacrifice His Son?

    Excerpts:

    “”And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him: ‘Abraham.’ And he said: ‘Behold, here I am.’ And [God] said, ‘Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.””

    When I first heard this story as a child, I was outraged. What kind of God would ask such a thing? And what kind of father would be willing to do it? It is certainly enough to strike the fear of god into you—and also fear of the father. (Perhaps that was part of its intention.)

    Even as a child I was very suspicious of the various interpretations given to me—especially those that tried to convince me it was really a story about love. (Quite a strange way of showing it.) I always felt they were trying to pull the wool over my eyes—the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing—and I no longer trusted them.

    Only much later did I realize that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael the firstborn and then Isaac. But he had banished one into the wilderness and here he is ready to sacrifice the other. When God referred to his “only” son, why didn’t Abraham retort, “But I have two sons”? When God said “whom thou lovest,” why didn’t Abraham say, “But I love both”? He argued with God to try to save a few good men in Sodom and Gomorrah. Why then didn’t he do anything to try to save his son?

    Abraham is revered not for putting an end to the practice (child sacrifice) but precisely for his willingness to go through with it. That is what makes him the father of faith, the foundation of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—albeit interpreted in mutually exclusive worldviews.

    But why is the willingness to sacrifice rather than the protection of the child the model of faith in these traditions?

    Why should such an act be pleasing to God? What kind of God would find that pleasing? Why is faith not demonstrated by the love, care and protection of the child (and other people)? Why should faith first require allegiance to God and only secondarily to fellow humans?

    The outrage I felt as a child and the punishment I received when I expressed it no doubt etched the story on my brain or soul. But it went underground until I had a child. What could ever motivate someone to sacrifice their child?

    Today, people who hear voices—even those who claim they hear God speaking to them—are labeled as insane.

    ————————————-

    Brandon: “I think the essence of faith is not believing that God exists, rather it is trusting in God’s goodness and holiness. Because the real problem we face when we consider if God exists is whether he could be good and truly worthy of worship.”

    God: “Kill to prove your love for me.”

    Brandon: “IF THE CREATOR TELLS YOU TO DO SOMETHING YOU BETTER DO IT.”

    Like

  23. Brandon, I was following along with all of your comments until you got to the story of Abraham and Isaac. Wouldn’t it be better to give your creator deity the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe it was not involved in that narrative? What if the story was written by someone long after the lifetimes of Abraham and Isaac who used their names in an illustration to show that child sacrifice was not desirable?

    I really think you’ve given your worldview much more consideration than the majority of believers. I wonder if you would consider expanding on this:

    One thing that might be important to consider is the sequence of creating – from this world to a new creation. A sequence like this suggests that there is some objective that this world can achieve which the new creation cannot achieve. For philosophical reasons, we both agree it is not freewill. Here is a consideration: if we are willing to say God is limited by logical possibilities, then it may be that the objective achieved by this world logically requires moral agency. In other words, God may be logically constrained to first make a world with moral agents to achieve his goal and then make a new creation.

    Do you have any theories on what the objective or goal would be for a “first world” coming before a “new world”? Also, do you have any theories on the creation method of this new world? Will it be instantaneous or will it involve another pre-programmed evolutionary process? I am not making any points right now, just curious.

    Like

  24. Brandon,

    I know you were talking to carmen and Victoria, but I’m fairly certain a legal case could be made that what the Biblical character Abraham allegedly did to the Biblical character Isaac would constitute child abuse by today’s standards. I realize child sacrifice was fairly common among the so-called Pagan religions so perhaps Abraham wouldn’t have thought it odd for his God to make such a request. And perhaps since children were considered property such terms as abuse didn’t apply to them. For instance, a child that dishonored his/her parents could be stoned to death. We, with our evolved sense of morality would scream out at the top of our lungs that this is child abuse. Surely none of us would condone that as a punishment.

    The CDC’s definition of child abuse is as follows:

    Child Maltreatment: Definitions

    Any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver (e.g., clergy, coach, teacher) that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child.
    Acts of Commission (Child Abuse)

    Words or overt actions that cause harm, potential harm, or threat of harm to a child. Acts of commission are deliberate and intentional; however, harm to a child may or may not be the intended consequence. Intentionality only applies to the caregivers’ acts-not the consequences of those acts. For example, a caregiver may intend to hit a child as punishment (i.e., hitting the child is not accidental or unintentional) but not intend to cause the child to have a concussion. The following types of maltreatment involve acts of commission:

    Physical abuse
    Sexual abuse
    Psychological abuse

    I’m interested to know your personal view, Brandon. I don’t know if you have children. Let’s assume for the sake of argument you do. Do you think that binding your children and laying them on an alter would not in some way scar them? Would you do that to your child?

    Like

  25. Brandon,

    can I just add one more: no traffic.

    Now I’m definitely in. 😉

    Another way we could frame the hiddenness problem is in terms of epistemology. Like, why would God not be accessible by hard evidence?

    Actually I see the hiddenness problem as a very simple epistemology problem – when things can’t be found that have more of a likelihood to be found given the way they are described then it makes more sense to conclude that they aren’t there at all. I’ve always used this same logic toward many other religions and I don’t see a reason to make Christianity an exception to that.

    Like

Leave a comment