Gary's Corner

[Gary Childress]

Well, Prom was saying...

I agree with you. There aren't any such reasons. Atheism's not about reason, but about presupposition or wish.

Yes, we are all caught up in something much bigger than we are. And we sometimes fool ourselves that the collective will solve this; but of course, you and I are still just individuals, with a fixed lifespan, only one pair of hands, living in a particular locale...

We're actually very small, you and I. It's wisdom that we see it, and take realistic stock of our own situation. That can grant us both realism and humility. Both the Tanakh, the OT, and the NT say this: "...what are mere mortals that You [God] should think about them, human beings that You should care for them?" Psalm 8:4, Hebrews 2:6. And yet, the implication and the explanation there are that God Himself does care for us, and very much, too. Why He should take notice of such small creatures as we are is a miracle of kindness of the first order.

But we are not insignificant. We are not valueless. We are not trivial, small and weak as we each may be. We are particular individuals, created by God Himself, with the intention we should adorn His eternity, if only we will accept His hand as it is extended to us in Jesus Christ. God has not left us to struggle alone; He has come to us and acted for us, and offered to us a hope we could otherwise never discover from the bare facts of our smallness and weakness.

And since God has spoken on this subject Himself, we need not merely "hope" in a vague way, but can have a secure hope in that God will care for us...and even if we have hitherto been adversaries to Him. For the Word says, "But God commends His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." How much more, then, being saved by His death shall we be raised by His life?

So we matter. We all matter. Even those who don't know they matter, matter. And we matter to God.

Of course, we all want a benevolent God running the world. The question is whether or not it is the case that a benevolent God is running the world.

Right. "Wishes" have nothing to do with it.

Few "wish" to be an atheist if it isn't a true state of affairs...

Actually, a lot do. And it's because if there's no God, then neither is there any objective moral authority.

As you say, nobody becomes an Atheist by way of "reason" or "evidence," which is precisely why they can produce none. They become that way through resentment or rebellion. And anybody can do that.

Resentment and rebellion often come from some kind of traumatic situation. It often involves being unable to reconcile what happened with the idea of a benevolent God. I don't blame atheists, given the world we live in. But I can't blame the religious for hoping that everything will be fine or work out in the end either.

[Fairy]

I guess it just sucks to be some of the victims of the more horrendous ways to die.

But by your own admission no one chooses to be victims of the most horrendous ways to die.

Because No one chose life.

[phyllo]

But I can't blame the religious for hoping that everything will be fine or work out in the end either.

Do you blame the religious for putting the responsibility for all the problems in the world on humans? And leaving God faultless?

[Gary Childress]

I guess it just sucks to be some of the victims of the more horrendous ways to die.

But by your own admission no one chooses to be victims of the most horrendous ways to die.

Because No one chose life.

Of course, probably no one chooses to be a victim of the most horrendous ways to die. I would be surprised if there is any rhyme or reason to who suffers most and who doesn't. Seems like a crap shoot to me.

[Gary Childress]

But I can't blame the religious for hoping that everything will be fine or work out in the end either.

Do you blame the religious for putting the responsibility for all the problems in the world on humans? And leaving God faultless?

I suppose I shouldn't. I don't think it's true, though.

[phyllo]

They're gaslighting when they blame humans.

[Gary Childress]

They're gaslighting when they blame humans.

I don't think it's necessarily always "gaslighting" to blame others for something. I just think God also shares responsibility for the world s/he created. Holding people responsible for EVERYTHING is, to me, almost like holding a soldier responsible for the unjust war his leader initiates. I can't blame a person for doing something that I might do in their shoes, but I feel I can blame God for allowing the situation to arise. To me it's a bit like holding an architect accountable for a building that collapses.

[phyllo]

Well, physical and mental diseases can be attributed to God.

Yeah, I know that someone is going to say ... that guy got cancer from smoking and it's his own fault. But when a little kid gets cancer, or smallpox or diphtheria, etc ... that's not some human's fault.

[Gary Childress]

Well, physical and mental diseases can be attributed to God.

Yeah, I know that someone is going to say ... that guy got cancer from smoking and it's his own fault. But when a little kid gets cancer, or smallpox or diphtheria, etc ... that's not some human's fault.

I agree. Some things cannot be blamed on a human. Some things can. But in the end the buck stops with God, if one believes there's a God. God chose not to intervene if a serial killer kills someone. That doesn't make the serial killer innocent, but if one believes God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then I don't see how God doesn't also bear culpability since God could have, as a last resort, intervened.

An architect is not to blame if an unforseen earthquake topples his building, but if the architect also knowingly created the Earthquake, then we would hold the architect responsible. That's God, sentient designer of all that is, all evil that happens in the world is ultimately permitted or made possible by a creator of all that is.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, we all want a benevolent God running the world. The question is whether or not it is the case that a benevolent God is running the world.

Right. "Wishes" have nothing to do with it.

Few "wish" to be an atheist if it isn't a true state of affairs...

Actually, a lot do. And it's because if there's no God, then neither is there any objective moral authority.

As you say, nobody becomes an Atheist by way of "reason" or "evidence," which is precisely why they can produce none. They become that way through resentment or rebellion. And anybody can do that.

Resentment and rebellion often come from some kind of traumatic situation. It often involves being unable to reconcile what happened with the idea of a benevolent God.

That is often the case.

I don't blame atheists, given the world we live in.

Well, I wouldn't blame a child for having a child's level of understanding. If "Atheist" meant "child," I'd agree with you, because children can have simplistic ideas like, "If the world is bad, it must have been made that way by somebody who hates me." But I would blame an adult for failing to think more deeply, and for refusing to entertain the realization that the world could also be the way a good God did not wish it to become. If the Atheist simply refuses to entertain that thought, then it's decidedly his own fault, for weak thinking. We all need to grow up sometime.

But I can't blame the religious for hoping that everything will be fine or work out in the end either.

Well, hope comes in degrees. One can say, "I hope to win the lottery." That's one kind of hope. Then there's the kind of hope one means when one says, "I hope to be in Boston on Sunday." That's quite different, because the latter is based on reasonable expectation, and the former only on wild speculation. It's the latter that is the kind of hope that a person ought to have, if God has already spoken on the matter. And that hope is also called "faith."

[Immanuel Can]

They're gaslighting when they blame humans.

At least half of the bad things that happen -- and plausibly more -- one cannot help but recognize as human-caused. But people have a harder time understanding what has been called "natural evils," like earthquakes or plagues, because there, there might not be any human to blame.

However, in a world of free beings, what kind of world allows them to have free choice? It must be one in which consequence and the moral status of the experiencer are not inextricably bound -- in other words, it must be a place in which "good" things can happen to "bad" people, and "bad" things can happen to "good" people, and all without any evident cause-effect relation.

Otherwise, the world itself would be like a reward/punishment conditioner that would force people always to do what is good, out of fear of the inevitable consequences, or out of being paid-off for it immediately. And that isn't a world for free chosers. So we have to have exactly the kind of environment in which we find ourselves, because we are the kind of beings (free agents) who can only be volitionally free in such a world...for now.

So no, it's not "gaslighting." There's actually a necessary relation between fallen, free human beings and a fallen and morally-ambiguous world.

[Gary Childress]

Right. "Wishes" have nothing to do with it.


Actually, a lot do. And it's because if there's no God, then neither is there any objective moral authority.

As you say, nobody becomes an Atheist by way of "reason" or "evidence," which is precisely why they can produce none. They become that way through resentment or rebellion. And anybody can do that.

Resentment and rebellion often come from some kind of traumatic situation. It often involves being unable to reconcile what happened with the idea of a benevolent God.

That is often the case.

I don't blame atheists, given the world we live in.

Well, I wouldn't blame a child for having a child's level of understanding. If "Atheist" meant "child," I'd agree with you, because children can have simplistic ideas like, "If the world is bad, it must have been made that way by somebody who hates me." But I would blame an adult for failing to think more deeply, and for refusing to entertain the realization that the world could also be the way a good God did not wish it to become. If the Atheist simply refuses to entertain that thought, then it's decidedly his own fault, for weak thinking. We all need to grow up sometime.

But I can't blame the religious for hoping that everything will be fine or work out in the end either.

Well, hope comes in degrees. One can say, "I hope to win the lottery." That's one kind of hope. Then there's the kind of hope one means when one says, "I hope to be in Boston on Sunday." That's quite different, because the latter is based on reasonable expectation, and the former only on wild speculation. It's the latter that is the kind of hope that a person ought to have, if God has already spoken on the matter. And that hope is also called "faith."

Maybe an atheist doesn't believe in God because he can't reconcile a tragic event that happened to him. That could be seen as a credit to God, a refusal to think a supreme being would design such a world or allow such to happen. God is ultimately responsible for everything if God created all that is. At the very least, s/he/it could have also prevented it unless perhaps God isn't omnipotent and omniscient. Or maybe God had to design the universe in a particular way because somehow God is limited to what God can do. But that begs the question of who or what then created those limitations.

[Gary Childress]

They're gaslighting when they blame humans.

At least half of the bad things that happen -- and plausibly more -- one cannot help but recognize as human-caused. But people have a harder time understanding what has been called "natural evils," like earthquakes or plagues, because there, there might not be any human to blame.

However, in a world of free beings, what kind of world allows them to have free choice? It must be one in which consequence and the moral status of the experiencer are not inextricably bound -- in other words, it must be a place in which "good" things can happen to "bad" people, and "bad" things can happen to "good" people, and all without any evident cause-effect relation.

Otherwise, the world itself would be like a reward/punishment conditioner that would force people always to do what is good, out of fear of the inevitable consequences, or out of being paid-off for it immediately. And that isn't a world for free chosers.

If God chooses not to reward or punish people for what we do, then that is God's choice. If God does not intervene to prevent something (anything) terrible from happening, that is also God's choice. It doesn't make humans innocent of those events that are human caused but God also bears responsibility for allowing the victims to be victims when God could have intervened. And in the case of unforeseeable disasters, that's all in God's domain entirely.

But that's if there is a God. An atheist maybe would rather think that if there were a God, then God wouldn't allow tragedy so there must be no God. However, if someone believes in a God and something horrible happens to them, they may find little recourse but to hold God accountable by virtue of having created all that is.

[Gary Childress]

They're gaslighting when they blame humans.

At least half of the bad things that happen -- and plausibly more -- one cannot help but recognize as human-caused. But people have a harder time understanding what has been called "natural evils," like earthquakes or plagues, because there, there might not be any human to blame.

However, in a world of free beings, what kind of world allows them to have free choice? It must be one in which consequence and the moral status of the experiencer are not inextricably bound -- in other words, it must be a place in which "good" things can happen to "bad" people, and "bad" things can happen to "good" people, and all without any evident cause-effect relation.

Otherwise, the world itself would be like a reward/punishment conditioner that would force people always to do what is good, out of fear of the inevitable consequences, or out of being paid-off for it immediately. And that isn't a world for free chosers. So we have to have exactly the kind of environment in which we find ourselves, because we are the kind of beings (free agents) who can only be volitionally free in such a world...for now.

So no, it's not "gaslighting." There's actually a necessary relation between fallen, free human beings and a fallen and morally-ambiguous world.

Also, if God is going to wait to give a person eternal punishment instead of an immediate shock to jolt them out of committing a crime in real time, why bother giving them free choice? What's the point? So that God can play judge and condemn a being s/he/it created for what it did after s/he/it created it? Is this some kind of game for God? God is a being that created a world so that it could harshly judge some of his/her creations, knowing full well ahead of time what they were going to do. Doesn't add up except to demonstrate that God is not a benevolent being. So why do it?

[Gary Childress]

If God created all that is, and some of all that is is horrible or terrible, then God created some horrible and terrible stuff. Therefore, God is not benevolent. Nor is God necessarily malevolent. Unless you happen to be someone who suffered greatly in his/her world. Then you can say that God is malevolent. And if some suffer greatly and others do not, then thanking God for not being one of the sufferers is little more than a potential victim saying to his or her potential perpetrator that s/he is thankful to be spared the fate that another victim received, just as a person may thank a murderer for sparing him or her.

That's the way I see things. Saying God is benevolent and agreeing that there is horrible suffering for some in the world God created don't mix. Unless of course, we posit that each and every person who suffers horribly deserved it and each and every person who did not suffer horribly did not deserve suffering. And each and every person who lived joyously deserved it and each and every person who did not live joyously did not deserve joy. I suppose that's possible. Whenever a flood hits, only the bad people drown and whenever an earthquake hits, only bad people are crushed. Doesn't seem likely, but if someone wants that badly to spare God from any criticism, then I suppose it's possible. Of course, that basically means that the person who believes only the bad suffer is always, by default, blaming victims for what happens to them.