Ep. 101: The problem of suffering

[Dr Mundo]

To be clear-- atheists believe when our lives end, they end. That's it.

Here is my problem with the word Believe. I don't know when its appropriate to use it. Because while I normally agree with what you have to say, I don't agree with this. I don't believe that when my life ends that, that is all there is. How could I possibly begin to start believing that. I don't have any good reasons to believe otherwise, so I just won't believe in anything regarding post-death (life?). I would use the word assume, or perhaps I behave as though I don't get an other life after this, that is as far as I am willing to go with it. Also I think Buddhists are atheistic and believe in life after death. But Reasonists I don't think can believe in life after death. Nor should they believe there is just an end. Who knows. and really who cares? does it impact our lives in the here and now? If anyone believes so than state your case for it and I am more than happy to consider it.

[Keep The Reason]

To be clear-- atheists believe when our lives end, they end. That's it.

Here is my problem with the word Believe. I don't know when its appropriate to use it. Because while I normally agree with what you have to say, I don't agree with this. I don't believe that when my life ends that, that is all there is. How could I possibly begin to start believing that. I don't have any good reasons to believe otherwise, so I just won't believe in anything regarding post-death (life?). I would use the word assume, or perhaps I behave as though I don't get an other life after this, that is as far as I am willing to go with it. Also I think Buddhists are atheistic and believe in life after death. But Reasonists I don't think can believe in life after death. Nor should they believe there is just an end. Who knows. and really who cares? does it impact our lives in the here and now? If anyone believes so than state your case for it and I am more than happy to consider it.

Yeah, if analyzed the word "believe" might be so defined-- but it might be semantics. I've concluded it (that when you're dead, that's it at least consciousness-wise) so I also believe it. Perhaps it's better stated for me, it's all there is. I would imagine life goes on after I'm dead, as I see empirical evidence that such is the case when others die and things go on. So in that sense, and in the sense that our bodies decompose etc, something else continues. I think my experiencing these things though is terminated, as hard as it is to find much cheer in the thought (well, I supposed I can find solace in not experiencing decomposition). Still it's what it is, and I can't change it.

Buddhists are atheistic in that they don't have gods, but they have what can be called supernatural beliefs regardless; yes, Buddhists believe in reincarnated lives.

Until there's evidence otherwise, I am compelled tyo conclude there's nothing to the stories of an ongoing experiential existence post-mortem for the individual.

It does impact my life-- it makes me inclined to want to get more done. Time's short, and it's a-wasting. And we don't get another chance to make an impact.

[humanguy]

I've often wondered why salvation was not offered in the afterlife, with Jesus himself giving the actual pitch. It would be so much more convincing, and avoid a whole mountain of confusion.

Here we hit upon something that I always thought was quite vague. Jesus is the way for human beings to gain favor with God and the rest of the ruling commitee, and in doing so acquire a guaranteed reservation, an All-Area-Access pass to the heavenly hereafter.

There isn't much detail provided about what happens in heaven, but the idea seems to be that once there, you're clean, you're cool with Jesus and God and no problem, and this is how it will stay for eternity.

Imagine going to see a movie in heaven. "Aw, man. 'The Tree of Life' again?"

[yjoeyh]

It does impact my life-- it makes me inclined to want to get more done. Time's short, and it's a-wasting. And we don't get another chance to make an impact.

Why doesn't it make you inclined to get less done instead of more? Is making an impact a pass/fail proposition? If so, how much do you have to get done to make an impact? What difference does it make now if the impact happens after you cease to exist? You can't know whether or not, or even if you make an impact at all, so what do you see is the value in trying? I'm not saying I don't do the same. I'm just curious why you see it this way.

[Dr Mundo]

To be clear-- atheists believe when our lives end, they end. That's it.

Here is my problem with the word Believe. I don't know when its appropriate to use it. Because while I normally agree with what you have to say, I don't agree with this. I don't believe that when my life ends that, that is all there is. How could I possibly begin to start believing that. I don't have any good reasons to believe otherwise, so I just won't believe in anything regarding post-death (life?). I would use the word assume, or perhaps I behave as though I don't get an other life after this, that is as far as I am willing to go with it. Also I think Buddhists are atheistic and believe in life after death. But Reasonists I don't think can believe in life after death. Nor should they believe there is just an end. Who knows. and really who cares? does it impact our lives in the here and now? If anyone believes so than state your case for it and I am more than happy to consider it.

Yeah, if analyzed the word "believe" might be so defined-- but it might be semantics. I've concluded it (that when you're dead, that's it at least consciousness-wise) so I also believe it. Perhaps it's better stated for me, it's all there is. I would imagine life goes on after I'm dead, as I see empirical evidence that such is the case when others die and things go on. So in that sense, and in the sense that our bodies decompose etc, something else continues. I think my experiencing these things though is terminated, as hard as it is to find much cheer in the thought (well, I supposed I can find solace in not experiencing decomposition). Still it's what it is, and I can't change it.

Buddhists are atheistic in that they don't have gods, but they have what can be called supernatural beliefs regardless; yes, Buddhists believe in reincarnated lives.

Until there's evidence otherwise, I am compelled tyo conclude there's nothing to the stories of an ongoing experiential existence post-mortem for the individual.

It does impact my life-- it makes me inclined to want to get more done. Time's short, and it's a-wasting. And we don't get another chance to make an impact.

Well its funny, the first thing almost instinctively out of someone's mouth when they find out I am an Atheist, is "what do you believe happens to you when you die?" I have always answered by saying, "nothing." I think some people may have some misconceptions as to what I mean by that. and I am only now analyzing it after reading what you wrote. My answer to me now means, I don't have evidence that hints at being able to survive in some form after I die, If anyone wants me to guess or assume, my best assumption would be that once my brain stops functioning then its a wrap for my individual personality. That is just a guess/assumption. There is no evidence that we can survive beyond having a functional brain, is there anyone that can provide any such evidence. I think not, but I will leave that up to you guys to find out. I'm not interested in that to be honest.

[Keep The Reason]

Why doesn't it make you inclined to get less done instead of more? Is making an impact a pass/fail proposition? If so, how much do you have to get done to make an impact? What difference does it make now if the impact happens after you cease to exist? You can't know whether or not, or even if you make an impact at all, so what do you see is the value in trying? I'm not saying I don't do the same. I'm just curious why you see it this way.

As a person who lives day to day under a series of deadlines, I've seen that human nature becomes energized by having a demarcation of "Must be done by... NOW." It's inbred that we want to accomplish things, and if given eternity, we would lazily take our time about it-- and never achieve it

As far as the deeper issue, I want to accomplish things because I value my fellow human beings. I do not consider them fallen angels, but risen apes, and I love us for it. I think we're worth having around, even if I personally will be but a blip on the screen. I want to have a safe and happy life for my kids, and their kids. And yours. and your kid's kids, etc. Because life is a short, rare event, the better the trip, the better for all of us (me included).

For me, it's about integrity, and authenticity. This is my authentic self, and I want to make positive impacts. As for integrity, for me integrity is doing the right thing even if no one is looking. Sure, I may have some impact after I'm dead and can't know about it, but that doesn't diminish it's value for me. It's doing the right thing even though no one is looking. I'm not in it for any external rewards, I'm in it because it's the right thing to do.

Theists are constantly saying we need god or else our lives have no purpose or meaning. Well, that's not true. I have purpose and meaning, and I'm perfectly fine with it being finite for me personally. That doesn't mean the fulfillment that comes with it doesn't have extraordinarily powerful resonance for me. I am not selfish. It needn't last forever. Like a great dessert, the experience is finite, and enjoyable. Then, it's over. That doesn't mean it wasn't sweet while it lasted.

[Keep The Reason]

Argh. Tony says, "god created this universe because he can see how it all comes out in the end"

But we have free will to choose.

Where's the "head explodes" smiley?



(that's my doppelganger on both the right and left)

[cleve]

... It's doing the right thing even though no one is looking. I'm not in it for any external rewards, I'm in it because it's the right thing to do.

No criticism intended, but wouldn't you be happier if others were happy along with you? Why or why not?

[Keep The Reason]

No criticism intended, but wouldn't you be happier if others were happy along with you? Why or why not?

So many people seem to want to ask me about my personal experiences, personal life, and so on. I've talked about a lot of private (or at least personal) stuff on this site. It's quite unique, and I don't see the same questions being asked of others.

What do you mean "happier"? I'm pretty damned happy. I have great friends, an amazing wife, amazing family -- a place in society, like-minded people in my immediate circle--- and plenty of happy people around me as well. That being said, there is a strong sense of wanting to change injustice, and my social work is filled with doing just that. So, I am not sure I get the question exactly, but, I'd be happier if there were no suffering anywhere, but that's not realistic. However, reducing pain and suffering is a responsibility that each of us has as long as we are part of the human species/family. It's in their interests, and it's in our own interests.

Good enough?

[tonyenglish7]

Keep the Reason,

Argh. Tony says, "god created this universe because he can see how it all comes out in the end"

But we have free will to choose.

Where's the "head explodes" smiley?

Yes, this is not a contradiction. God knows what every free will being will do in any situation. He cannot control what they will freely choose but he can decide before hand which universe out of all the potential universes to actuate. He can decide to actuate one with free will beings and one that contains those he wants to exist. But in any event, it is not a contradiction and in fact, an all knowing creator cannot not know what is going to happen. But that doesn't take away from that actual free will of the being that is created.

[tonyenglish7]

Keep the reason,

I find it ironic that theists accuse atheists of "thinking we are our own gods" or being "arrogant" -- when out of tony's own mouth, he admits that believers are compelled into this belief because they want to "be god-like" (Mormons really drive this one-- they become kings and queens of the world (no blacks need apply, thank you)).

Yea, it is not arrogant but just a report of the offer from God to those who are humble enough to be broken, repent and trust the gospel. This is very different from being arrogant. In fact, the project of the believer to invite others to forsake this life and place their bet on the next. So, it is not like Christians are saying they are better then anyone, they are saying they are vile sinners and are in need of grace and forgiveness as does everyone. I agree that Mormon view is based in arrogance, especially in that they believe they were braver spirits in the so called pre world. So, I think the Christian point of view is humble, and lowly and it gives God all the credit.

[yjoeyh]

Keep the Reason,

Argh. Tony says, "god created this universe because he can see how it all comes out in the end"

But we have free will to choose.

Where's the "head explodes" smiley?

Yes, this is not a contradiction. God knows what every free will being will do in any situation. He cannot control what they will freely choose but he can decide before hand which universe out of all the potential universes to actuate. He can decide to actuate one with free will beings and one that contains those he wants to exist. But in any event, it is not a contradiction and in fact, an all knowing creator cannot not know what is going to happen. But that doesn't take away from that actual free will of the being that is created.

I agree Tony.
I really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. You don't even need God or any kind of omnipotence to reconcile foreknowledge with free will. We all operate on a daily basis with the assumptions of foreknowledge and free will. I know my car will run out of gas after a few days if I don't fill it up, so I freely choose to pull into the Shell station and buy fuel. How does my knowing that in any way limit the scope or liberty of my will?
The only thing I can figure is that a lot of people like to put God's foreknowledge in a different kind of category than human foreknowledge, and I don't see much a justifiable reason for doing that. I get that God may have more of it than we do... but that's not the same as saying it's a different kind of 'thing.' I see no reason to think it functions in a differnt way or places any more of a limit on the liberty of our will.

[Keep The Reason]

Keep the Reason,

Argh. Tony says, "god created this universe because he can see how it all comes out in the end"

But we have free will to choose.

Where's the "head explodes" smiley?

Yes, this is not a contradiction. God knows what every free will being will do in any situation. He cannot control what they will freely choose but he can decide before hand which universe out of all the potential universes to actuate. He can decide to actuate one with free will beings and one that contains those he wants to exist. But in any event, it is not a contradiction and in fact, an all knowing creator cannot not know what is going to happen. But that doesn't take away from that actual free will of the being that is created.

I agree Tony.
I really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. You don't even need God or any kind of omnipotence to reconcile foreknowledge with free will. We all operate on a daily basis with the assumptions of foreknowledge and free will. I know my car will run out of gas after a few days if I don't fill it up, so I freely choose to pull into the Shell station and buy fuel. How does my knowing that in any way limit the scope or liberty of my will?
The only thing I can figure is that a lot of people like to put God's foreknowledge in a different kind of category than human foreknowledge, and I don't see much a justifiable reason for doing that. I get that God may have more of it than we do... but that's not the same as saying it's a different kind of 'thing.' I see no reason to think it functions in a differnt way or places any more of a limit on the liberty of our will.

You answer your own confusion, but limit god in it, ironically. And you buried it so I highlighted it. But you do god a disservice. God doesn't have "more of it" than we do, he has infinitely more of it than we do, and therein lies the problem.

Because said foreknowledge is infinite in scope, and the idea of a god playing out this scenario is a farce by definition. It has no meaning or purpose, nor did it have any infinitely long ago. All conclusions in the game were known before even the existence of existence was in place to even have the game begin.

The race is run. My choice is an illusion at best. It was run, decided, and ended infinitely before the first atom of matter was created. According to the worldview you promote, I am merely a rat in a maze unable to realize I'm a rat in a maze, making every choice it was long ago known I would make. I just think I'm making choices to go left or right.

If illusionary free will is your idea of free will, then fine. Enjoy it. But in an atheist world view,free will in terms of actual choices one can make is not precluded in any way we can tell by some all-seeing force that sees the endgame before its run. As an atheist, I do have free will-- I can even choose to leap off a cliff naked to fly, though I will suffer some pretty bad consequence for it-- as theists, you have it's illusion.

[yjoeyh]

But you do god a disservice. God doesn't have "more of it" than we do, he has infinitely more of it than we do, and therein lies the problem.

If one takes such an illogical position, then sure. But God does not and can not have infinitely more knowledge than we do. Actually that fits more in with an atheistic worldview than it does with a Christian one, because in the atheist worldview, God's knowledge doesn't really exist, it's merely a hypothetical and therefore imaginary. An imaginary God can have an imaginary quantity of knoweldge. But if one suggests that God is real, and has real knowledge, then the quantity of it must also be real... not imaginary. There is no "disservice to God" in that.

The race is run. My choice is an illusion at best.

Do you believe that your choices are an illusion? Take God out of the question, and if someone else anticipates your choices, then does it fail to be your choices? That's what you are suggesting.

According to the worldview you promote, I am merely a rat in a maze unable to realize I'm a rat in a maze, making every choice it was long ago known I would make. I just think I'm making choices to go left or right.

I don't promote that worldview. I think your choices are just as real as you think they are. This conclusion just doesn't follow from the assertion that someone else is able to anticipate your decisions, not matter how good they happen to be at it. The only variable you can possibly introduce is one where your decisions can't be anticipated at all because on some level they are purely random in nature. Now I would grant you that may indeed be the case, but even so, that randomness does nothing to give you any more freewill. In fact it seems to lessen your ability to make choices as they become something that arbitrarily happens to you, rather than something you control.

But in an atheist world view,free will in terms of actual choices one can make is not precluded in any way we can tell by some all-seeing force that sees the endgame before its run. As an atheist, I do have free will-- I can even choose to leap off a cliff naked to fly, though I will suffer some pretty bad consequence for it-- as theists, you have it's illusion.

So then you reject materialism and physicalism and take some kind of dualism or idealism view, correct?

[bebop88]

Question on God's Knowledge:

When I hear theists talk about God's ability to know an outcome in the future, is this because God has some power that allows him to do so (like you know fortune tellers) or is it because God has such complete knowledge that this allows him to practically know what will happen next, because God has all prior knowledge beforehand.

For example, I used to love my mathematical modeling class, and in it we will try to predict future outcomes based on many variables. Obviously, we will always be off by some percent, but it could always be explained by the fact that we never took into account every single thing that affects this process. So applying this to God, since God is complete when it comes to knowledge, God is able to take into account every variable thus he can accurately without fail predict future outcomes? Please let me know what you think theists even if the thought is "what a stupid question!"--Thank you.