Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[RCSaunders]

For "faith" always takes an object; and as such, it always is based on something.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so!" --Samuel Clemens

To call anything else one believes for some good reason, "faith," is only to obfuscate the actual meaning of religious faith. It is only, "faith," when there is no good or even plausible reason for believing it.

[Immanuel Can]

God

So, your supposition would be that God "does not resist evil"? What makes you think that?

Suffering exists.

Okay, I grant that it does.

If God is all powerful and all good He will not allow suffering ,

Is that reasonable to assert? I see you realize that's uncertain, and take it back a bit with the next phrase...

...perhaps a little suffering so we know what is the nature of good.

Ah. You can see that some suffering would be necessary in order to establish what 'good' was? So a universe with no suffering in it would not actually be as ultimately a "good" place as one in which people experienced some suffering, but with it had knowledge of the Good? Just asking.

How much suffering would be reasonable?

But an all powerful and all good Being would not allow the degree of suffering we poor men know about.

So you believe the present level of suffering is more than the advantage above requires? And it's unreasonably more?

How did you arrive at that assessment?

(The rest of the previous response is a summary, as I may take it?)

[Immanuel Can]

For "faith" always takes an object; and as such, it always is based on something.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so!" --Samuel Clemens

Yeah, I know he said this. Of course he did: he was an Atheist. He is parroting the false definition, the one that cannot be said to represent the Biblical idea of faith, the one that is so terribly convenient for the Atheist. But I don't doubt his sincerity; I'm sure he believed it.

I'm certain he doesn't believe it now.

It is only, "faith," when there is no good or even plausible reason for believing it.

If you say so, and if we accept that stipulation, then you must now also believe that the Bible never mentions faith. For the faith it talks about is not that kind at all. Check it out.

[uwot]

...the Biblical idea of faith...

Well yeah, there's the 'move any mountain' kind of faith, which has a charmingly naive optimism and is probably a good thing.

I'm certain he doesn't believe it now.

And then there's the 'I believe it, but I have bugger all evidence' kind of faith, which is just stupid.

[Belinda]

So, your supposition would be that God "does not resist evil"? What makes you think that?

Suffering exists.

Okay, I grant that it does.

If God is all powerful and all good He will not allow suffering ,

Is that reasonable to assert? I see you realize that's uncertain, and take it back a bit with the next phrase...

...perhaps a little suffering so we know what is the nature of good.

Ah. You can see that some suffering would be necessary in order to establish what 'good' was? So a universe with no suffering in it would not actually be as ultimately a "good" place as one in which people experienced some suffering, but with it had knowledge of the Good? Just asking.

How much suffering would be reasonable?

But an all powerful and all good Being would not allow the degree of suffering we poor men know about.

So you believe the present level of suffering is more than the advantage above requires? And it's unreasonably more?

How did you arrive at that assessment?

(The rest of the previous response is a summary, as I may take it?)

"How much suffering would be reasonable?" asked Immanuel Can. How much do you think, Mannie? I need not remind you of atrocities in the newspapers every day. If you or I were a good and all powerful god we would not allow those to happen. You nor anyone else can you justify your god's permitting the sheer unadulterated evil in the world.

Your god needs a makeover.

[Scott Mayers]

I agree.

I'm just saying this: just as it's not realistic to group all "people" into one category and generalize about anything that is actually NOT generally true, it's not realistic for us to group all "ideologies" or all "religions" into one thing, then complain that they're all guilty of the same things the worst of them are. It's not merely that it's unfair to do so, though it is, of course; it's that it fails to respect any real data, or to reflect any reality.

In other words, generalizations about "religion" are frequently just untrue.

What word (or symbol) is permitted to describe completely, exhaustively, definitively all those sets of beliefs, customs or institutions that refer to apriori claims of consistent truth based on mere faith in the persons or groups asserting them that speak about life beyond this life, about absolute fixed morals, or about phenomena that cannot be ruled out as illusions or delusions where they exist AND include beliefs about evangelizing (spreading the belief) that lacks scientific scrutiny or philosophical integrity?

One of the biggest rhetorical device's that gets used to avoid constructive debate is to prevent the term one wants to describe from having a simple word or symbol permitted to summarize what one means. There is no universal term in common use to cover the idea of all things 'believed irrationally' without leading one to be distracted away from the possibility of defining because the arguer can then force one to use words that are left predefined and able to defeat better. The one common simple example that many athiest might use, like, "faith", get at attempted turntable challenge based upon other coinciding meanings of the same term. So when someone says, "faith is the problem", then you attempt to challenge them to a different common meaning that happens to demonstrate hypocrisy where it wouldn't with better word choices. There is no allowed term that you would accept unless the arguer is required to create their own symbol to refer to something like that underlined definition above, which would be a bit awkward to have to say for each and every time one wants to reference it.

I've never heard of "religionist" until here but it seems sufficient to use to describe what is meant, without literal complications. Anyone who believes in some particular claims that expect OTHERS to agree to requires a set of common-ground experiences they share, especially where not impossible to demonstrate at the time of the argument, or an agreed to POSTULATE (pretense of acceptance for the sake of validating a closed argument). It is not important to challenge each and every religion if we are discussing the collective set of beliefs of all religions and/or their component essential properties that exist in other beliefs in kind elsewhere. If I am proposing a debate about whether GAMES in general have the property of being 'inventions for the purpose of entertainment and pleasure', you can certainly point to some particular game that you found unpleasant and unentertaining. But this misses the point that someone created them to be as such in the first place for such intent and that they and/or others have at least agreed to these properties by definition. Also, there can be second or more definitions using the same term that relates but differs in context that are not intended. So, for instance, if someone says to someone they are pissed off at, "stop playing games with me, man," they are using a distinct definition using the same symbol (the word) to describe "manipulative tactics or superficial etiquette".

That is just an example that I'm sure you'd agree to. I use the term, "religion" to refer to any set of beliefs that refer to specific histories and beliefs about gods, undetectible or uncomfirmABLE forces, or guarantees of universal consequences for NOT gambling that those who assert these things are real prior to proof. I'm sure this definition is leaving something out and may be able to use some other description. But I think you get the point. All those formal sets of 'common religions' or classes of them you mentioned have at least something in common they share even if they specifically differ. That quality is understood to be that those favoring them in argument want the doubter to look away from the general for the specific cases, such as you wanting to point to the good that some religions have contributed to society, for instance. That this is true is irrelevant if the goal of the opponent is to argue why it is disfunctional to allow any particular religion to be credited as the sufficient justification to make laws that others are expected to abide by, willingly or not.

[Immanuel Can]

Suffering exists.

Okay, I grant that it does.

If God is all powerful and all good He will not allow suffering ,

Is that reasonable to assert? I see you realize that's uncertain, and take it back a bit with the next phrase...

...perhaps a little suffering so we know what is the nature of good.

Ah. You can see that some suffering would be necessary in order to establish what 'good' was? So a universe with no suffering in it would not actually be as ultimately a "good" place as one in which people experienced some suffering, but with it had knowledge of the Good? Just asking.

How much suffering would be reasonable?

But an all powerful and all good Being would not allow the degree of suffering we poor men know about.

So you believe the present level of suffering is more than the advantage above requires? And it's unreasonably more?

How did you arrive at that assessment?

(The rest of the previous response is a summary, as I may take it?)

"How much suffering would be reasonable?" asked Immanuel Can. How much do you think, Mannie?

I don't think about it that way, B. I'm simply trying to trace your own argument to find out where it leads...I can't lead off on that one myself.

I need not remind you of atrocities in the newspapers every day.

No, of course not. But I already conceded to you as a starting point that suffering exists. The question has to be, "How much suffering is justified," then...that is, assuming you're committed to your claim that some measure of it is reasonable so that people can grasp "good" as well.

Before we go saying, "This is too much suffering," we must have some idea of what the tipping point is, so as to say definitively that the present level of suffering in the world exceeds it. Otherwise, how do we know that the world does not have exactly the right proportions of good and evil in it?

Does that not seem reasonable?

If you or I were a good and all powerful god we would not allow those to happen.

But I am thankful, and I'm sure you are too, that neither of us IS God. So what we think we "would" do or "would not" do is surely a suspect measure of what a God with comprehensive knowledge of both the universe and history and with a definite teleological direction in view would do. Our dismay at evil may be perfectly normal, perfectly human; but is it correct to suppose we understand enough of the big picture to say how and why the balance is off, and what it really ought to be?

You nor anyone else can you justify your god's permitting the sheer unadulterated evil in the world.

I'm not trying to do so. I'm merely inviting you to develop your justification of your concern at evil. After all, if there's no God, then there's no such thing as "evil" either. For then, what IS simply IS; and then one cannot justify any claim that anything at all is objectively evil...only subjectively, and what is human subjectivity when posited against the existing order of the universe? Why should your voice or my voice prevail, when we indict the existing order of things as "evil"? The universe, then, would neither know nor care for our objection. And why should it?

And that seems too little to say about the kinds of evils you want to object to, does it not?

But let us flesh that out better: what evidence do you propose that the level of evil in the world, or the level of suffering, has gone beyond the level at which it is even possible for an omniscient God to have reason to allow it?

[uwot]

Before we go saying, "This is too much suffering," we must have some idea of what the tipping point is, so as to say definitively that the present level of suffering in the world exceeds it. Otherwise, how do we know that the world does not have exactly the right proportions of good and evil in it?

Well Mr Can, we all know that you believe that at any time, the contemporary level of suffering is commensurate with precisely 'the right proportions of good and evil', because that is the only amount that a supreme being would countenance. How marvellous that your god allows others to be raped, tortured and murdered so that you have a sound grip on evil.

[Immanuel Can]

I use the term, "religion" to refer to any set of beliefs that refer to specific histories and beliefs about gods, undetectible or uncomfirmABLE forces, or guarantees of universal consequences for NOT gambling that those who assert these things are real prior to proof. I'm sure this definition is leaving something out and may be able to use some other description. But I think you get the point.

You're running into the problem all scholars of "religion" face first, Scott...the question of defining the subject matter. There's a whole literature on this subject, but it's failed to generate any definition that satisfies everyone...or even nearly everyone.

The definition you float here will satisfy an Atheist. That's the only person it will satisfy, unfortunately. No person of faith will recognize themselves in a definition that is already so cynical. They'll all recognize it as "cooking the books" in favour of Atheism, and say, "No, sorry: leave me out of that one."

But I don't blame you for finding it a struggle. The best scholars in the discipline have tried and failed to solidify any single definition. And maybe that tells us all we need to know about the word "religion": namely, that it's not particularly accurate or useful. It only seems to "work" selectively and arbitrarily, and only in a cynical, secular framework. It's too vague a collective to do any justice to how human belief actually exists and works in the real world.

[RCSaunders]

For "faith" always takes an object; and as such, it always is based on something.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so!" --Samuel Clemens

Yeah, I know he said this. Of course he did: he was an Atheist. He is parroting the false definition, the one that cannot be said to represent the Biblical idea of faith, the one that is so terribly convenient for the Atheist. But I don't doubt his sincerity; I'm sure he believed it.

I'm certain he doesn't believe it now.

It is only, "faith," when there is no good or even plausible reason for believing it.

If you say so, and if we accept that stipulation, then you must now also believe that the Bible never mentions faith. For the faith it talks about is not that kind at all. Check it out.

It doesn't matter what the Bible says, or you say, or anyone else says, when most people claim they cannot explain what they believe but accept it on faith, they mean faith exactly as I have described it. It does not mean your beliefs fall into that category. If you are going to call what you believe, "faith," you must understand everyone without your private definition of faith will rightly assume you mean, "faith," in the Twainian sense. Then, when you argue with them, you are not arguing about the same thing.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't matter what the Bible says,

In defining what "Biblical faith" means? That's the ONLY thing that matters, in that case, of course.

On the other hand, we are all free to have whatever additional definition of superstitious "faith" we may happen to desire. There is no authoritative source for that.

If you are going to call what you believe, "faith," you must understand everyone without your private definition of faith will rightly assume you mean, "faith," in the Twainian sense. Then, when you argue with them, you are not arguing about the same thing.

You are absolutely right. Twain was a believer in superstitious "faith." I am not, nor is the Bible. And that is my point: we are talking about different things.

So all that Atheists say about Christian faith being "superstitious," or "believing what you know ain't true," or "belief contrary to/ absent of any evidence" is, essentially, just Atheists talking the "party line" to other Atheists, or to superstitious "religionists". Christian faith is factually a very different thing from what they recognize.

[Belinda]

Okay, I grant that it does.


Is that reasonable to assert? I see you realize that's uncertain, and take it back a bit with the next phrase...


Ah. You can see that some suffering would be necessary in order to establish what 'good' was? So a universe with no suffering in it would not actually be as ultimately a "good" place as one in which people experienced some suffering, but with it had knowledge of the Good? Just asking.

How much suffering would be reasonable?


So you believe the present level of suffering is more than the advantage above requires? And it's unreasonably more?

How did you arrive at that assessment?

(The rest of the previous response is a summary, as I may take it?)

"How much suffering would be reasonable?" asked Immanuel Can. How much do you think, Mannie?

I don't think about it that way, B. I'm simply trying to trace your own argument to find out where it leads...I can't lead off on that one myself.

I need not remind you of atrocities in the newspapers every day.

No, of course not. But I already conceded to you as a starting point that suffering exists. The question has to be, "How much suffering is justified," then...that is, assuming you're committed to your claim that some measure of it is reasonable so that people can grasp "good" as well.

Before we go saying, "This is too much suffering," we must have some idea of what the tipping point is, so as to say definitively that the present level of suffering in the world exceeds it. Otherwise, how do we know that the world does not have exactly the right proportions of good and evil in it?

Does that not seem reasonable?

If you or I were a good and all powerful god we would not allow those to happen.

But I am thankful, and I'm sure you are too, that neither of us IS God. So what we think we "would" do or "would not" do is surely a suspect measure of what a God with comprehensive knowledge of both the universe and history and with a definite teleological direction in view would do. Our dismay at evil may be perfectly normal, perfectly human; but is it correct to suppose we understand enough of the big picture to say how and why the balance is off, and what it really ought to be?

You nor anyone else can you justify your god's permitting the sheer unadulterated evil in the world.

I'm not trying to do so. I'm merely inviting you to develop your justification of your concern at evil. After all, if there's no God, then there's no such thing as "evil" either. For then, what IS simply IS; and then one cannot justify any claim that anything at all is objectively evil...only subjectively, and what is human subjectivity when posited against the existing order of the universe? Why should your voice or my voice prevail, when we indict the existing order of things as "evil"? The universe, then, would neither know nor care for our objection. And why should it?

And that seems too little to say about the kinds of evils you want to object to, does it not?

But let us flesh that out better: what evidence do you propose that the level of evil in the world, or the level of suffering, has gone beyond the level at which it is even possible for an omniscient God to have reason to allow it?

[Belinda]

"How much suffering would be reasonable?" asked Immanuel Can. How much do you think, Mannie?

I don't think about it that way, B. I'm simply trying to trace your own argument to find out where it leads...I can't lead off on that one myself.

I need not remind you of atrocities in the newspapers every day.

No, of course not. But I already conceded to you as a starting point that suffering exists. The question has to be, "How much suffering is justified," then...that is, assuming you're committed to your claim that some measure of it is reasonable so that people can grasp "good" as well.

Before we go saying, "This is too much suffering," we must have some idea of what the tipping point is, so as to say definitively that the present level of suffering in the world exceeds it. Otherwise, how do we know that the world does not have exactly the right proportions of good and evil in it?

Does that not seem reasonable?

If you or I were a good and all powerful god we would not allow those to happen.

But I am thankful, and I'm sure you are too, that neither of us IS God. So what we think we "would" do or "would not" do is surely a suspect measure of what a God with comprehensive knowledge of both the universe and history and with a definite teleological direction in view would do. Our dismay at evil may be perfectly normal, perfectly human; but is it correct to suppose we understand enough of the big picture to say how and why the balance is off, and what it really ought to be?

You nor anyone else can you justify your god's permitting the sheer unadulterated evil in the world.

I'm not trying to do so. I'm merely inviting you to develop your justification of your concern at evil. After all, if there's no God, then there's no such thing as "evil" either. For then, what IS simply IS; and then one cannot justify any claim that anything at all is objectively evil...only subjectively, and what is human subjectivity when posited against the existing order of the universe? Why should your voice or my voice prevail, when we indict the existing order of things as "evil"? The universe, then, would neither know nor care for our objection. And why should it?

And that seems too little to say about the kinds of evils you want to object to, does it not?

But let us flesh that out better: what evidence do you propose that the level of evil in the world, or the level of suffering, has gone beyond the level at which it is even possible for an omniscient God to have reason to allow it?

It is a fearsome responsibility for us to decide how much suffering we should tolerate, or believe to be justified. We can do so only on a case by case basis. For instance the pain of childbirth is easier when the mother's pelvis is wide enough. The pain of a collision is sufficient when the subject can learn to take care not to collide in future. Generally some pain and grief is productive and some is so bad it causes life- long fear and loathing. Clearly some individuals more than others can tolerate grief and pain, and that is another reason to decide on a case by case basis.

In these days of global communications pain and grief levels are better standardised by better historiography and better reportage.But even just after the War before communications were less sophisticated most people were revolted by Nazi atrocities. Your all powerful god did not prevent the atrocities, therefore He was either ignorant, weak, or callous. Your god would be credible if one of the three attributes is omitted. I believe omitting the all -powerful attribute would leave a credible god with the attributes of omniscience and benevolence.

[Immanuel Can]

Before we go saying, "This is too much suffering," we must have some idea of what the tipping point is, so as to say definitively that the present level of suffering in the world exceeds it. Otherwise, how do we know that the world does not have exactly the right proportions of good and evil in it?

It is a fearsome responsibility for us to decide how much suffering we should tolerate, or believe to be justified.

But you've already declared it, B. You've said that God allows too much suffering. So you must know how much is too much. I'm just asking what that amount is.

Fearsome or not, you're already doing it, and on more than a case-by-case basis.

I'm just asking you to define YOUR terms.

Your all powerful god did not prevent the atrocities, therefore He was either ignorant, weak, or callous.

Wait, though: you said that some suffering was justified. You're going to need to say how you have determined that this particular amount is so great that it exceeds the justifiable, even by God...that there could not even possibly BE conditions under which that amount of suffering could be justified.

Go ahead. I really want to know what led you to that position.

After that, there's a second problem. You indict God, but then list tragedies that are definitely caused by humans. The upshot of that is that you curse God for giving us moral freedom, the ability to choose between good and evil, because we turned around and used our freedom for evil purposes.

Do you want freedom or not?

[Belinda]

Before we go saying, "This is too much suffering," we must have some idea of what the tipping point is, so as to say definitively that the present level of suffering in the world exceeds it. Otherwise, how do we know that the world does not have exactly the right proportions of good and evil in it?

It is a fearsome responsibility for us to decide how much suffering we should tolerate, or believe to be justified.

But you've already declared it, B. You've said that God allows too much suffering. So you must know how much is too much. I'm just asking what that amount is.

Fearsome or not, you're already doing it, and on more than a case-by-case basis.

I'm just asking you to define YOUR terms.

Your all powerful god did not prevent the atrocities, therefore He was either ignorant, weak, or callous.

Wait, though: you said that some suffering was justified. You're going to need to say how you have determined that this particular amount is so great that it exceeds the justifiable, even by God...that there could not even possibly BE conditions under which that amount of suffering could be justified.

Go ahead. I really want to know what led you to that position.

After that, there's a second problem. You indict God, but then list tragedies that are definitely caused by humans. The upshot of that is that you curse God for giving us moral freedom, the ability to choose between good and evil, because we turned around and used our freedom for evil purposes.

Do you want freedom or not?

How I personally make such decisions is by way of the traditions I was taught by significant others during my childhood and youth, and thereafter. I have been taught some judgement skills but not as much as, say, an expert in medical ethics, or a high court judge.

So you must know how much is too much. I'm just asking what that amount is.

(IC)No, I do not 'know', and moreover nobody 'knows'. It is your responsibility , Mannie, not that of the editor of your sacred book to decide good or evil.

I have been taught by responsible teachers that some pain is laudable.My experience is fairly normal and not unusual. For instance I was taught that when pain sensation is lacking as can happen to the knee joint in tertiary syphilis the joint become deformed due to strains put upon it. Most people know doctors' business is preserving life and alleviating suffering. It is stressful to defer immediate comfort so as to get future benefit. Nobody can know absolute parameters of laudable or permissible suffering or grief, but have some common sense, Mannie !

You don't support your argument by failing to differentiate between natural and moral evils.

After that, there's a second problem. You indict God, but then list tragedies that are definitely caused by humans. The upshot of that is that you curse God for giving us moral freedom, the ability to choose between good and evil, because we turned around and used our freedom for evil purposes.

As our scientific and psychological knowledge increases we learn that what were once believed to be moral evils are in fact natural evils. Your all-powerful god, Mannie , is in charge of natural evils that men have no hand in.