Ep. 101: The problem of suffering

[yjoeyh]

I like that response, though you missed the first question.

Thanks. Yes, I thought about it while typing but didn't really address it. For me (as I hope it is for you as well) I think my understanding of the Bible is correct because it is the most reasonable, logical and consistent one I can find. I also suspect that I have a lot to learn so some of my thinking will need to be corrected as I go along.

So what if my understanding of the Bible as an atheist leads me to the conclusion that no matter my good deeds, I will be punished for not believing in God. Is that a proper understanding of the Bible?

No I don't think that is a proper understanding of the Bible, but I see where that idea comes from. The Bible does teach that you have to deal with the consequences of your 'bad' deeds, no matter your 'good' deeds. I think most people, Christian or not, concur with that, right? Don't you? For example, how many homeless people does a child molester have to feed to make up for the consequences of his actions? Or in turn, how many can you or I feed to make up for those actions?

Also, there are other Holy books do you suggest we have a proper understanding of those books as well?

Absolutely. Each has to be weighed for what it is and for it's importance to us and those around us.

[yjoeyh]

We could say the same thing about the Gita, the Upanishads, the Qu'ran. But those "sacred" texts are given short shrift as if the only real maketplace of spiritual ideals resides in the bible.

Agreed

Theists: how many of you have spent the same or even half the effort on understanding the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita as you have the bible?

Great question. I'm not sure that 'half' the effort is warranted, but you imply that more effort generally is, and to that I also agree. I've put a good bit of time (though not half by a long shot) on the Quran. Interestingly, my parents gave me a copy of the Bhagavad Gita when I was young, and I read that quite a bit, but didn't really understand it much at the time. I've spent some time studying the Vedic texts as well, but not as much as the Quran, Gnostics, Book of Mormon and other culturally "sacred" texts.
Now, I'll turn that question around on the atheists out there as well. How many of you have spent the same or even half the effort on studying, quoting texts, and looking for errors, inconsistencies and acts of depravity from these other books besides the Bible?

[mitchellmckain]

Theists: how many of you have spent the same or even half the effort on understanding the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita as you have the bible?

Not me to be sure.
I have not spent half the time studying Biology as I have spent studying Physics.
I have not spent half the time listenting to opera as I have spent listening to symphony (understatement).
I have not spent half the time watching spectator sports as I have spent watching movies (understatement).
I have not spent half the time studying french, spanish, chinese, italian .... as I have spent studying german, japanese, korean and russian.

There are many things in the world to choose from and I make my choices about what I am interested the same as anyone else.

This is what makes gnostic legalism so ridiculous -- its not much different than saying that only basketball players go to heaven.

[Dr Mundo]

Don't people have a right to learn where they are comfortable with their own kind and try to figure out why they were blessed with life?

I have absolutely no problem with people getting together with their own kind and trying to figure anything out. I just don't like people being mistreated or treated unfairly. And if the reasoning behind it happens to be a religious reason, then that only upsets me more, because I think we would be better off not trying to force others to believe what we do. Yes talking and debating about those issues are vastly important. But standing by as someone else is being harmed by other peoples ideologies (religious or otherwise) is not something I am prepared to do.

[humanguy]

Don't people have a right to learn where they are comfortable with their own kind and try to figure out why they were blessed with life?

I have absolutely no problem with people getting together with their own kind and trying to figure anything out. I just don't like people being mistreated or treated unfairly. And if the reasoning behind it happens to be a religious reason, then that only upsets me more, because I think we would be better off not trying to force others to believe what we do. Yes talking and debating about those issues are vastly important. But standing by as someone else is being harmed by other peoples ideologies (religious or otherwise) is not something I am prepared to do.

So what is it that you do instead of standing by as someone is being harmed by other people's ideologies?

[Dr Mundo]

Don't people have a right to learn where they are comfortable with their own kind and try to figure out why they were blessed with life?

I have absolutely no problem with people getting together with their own kind and trying to figure anything out. I just don't like people being mistreated or treated unfairly. And if the reasoning behind it happens to be a religious reason, then that only upsets me more, because I think we would be better off not trying to force others to believe what we do. Yes talking and debating about those issues are vastly important. But standing by as someone else is being harmed by other peoples ideologies (religious or otherwise) is not something I am prepared to do.

So what is it that you do instead of standing by as someone is being harmed by other people's ideologies?

What ever is in my power I suppose. I try to help people understand what other view points are, I give up some of my time to provide assistance in what ever fashion I can. If and when I get a good amount of money I want to use it to help as many people as I can. For now, the best I can do is talk to people and hope that makes a bigger difference that it seems to be making at the moment. I think the best place is supporting the gay rights group, because its pretty easy and cheap to show support. I went to a gay pride rally in the spring. I wont lie and say I have provided a great deal of assistance but at least I try, with my limited resources, I think its enough for now. That is just how I have been through out my life anyways. Even as a christian I did what I thought was helpful. I did missionary work on two separate years as a High school kid during my spring breaks, now its just a bit of a different direction/position I take when I try to help others.

Mainly though, because I can be pretty lazy, I think my preferred method is through conversation. Do you think this is a sufficient way to provide help to a cause or a group of people you feel is being in any way limited? It may not be the best way but in my opinion its a great way to help. Assuming I am making articulate enough stamens that are reasonable and whose message can be relate-able to. I think there are plenty of good reasons not to limit other peoples happiness (provided it doesn't come at the suffering of others) and by expressing that to as many people as I can, I feel like at least I am making a difference somehow. And this is precisely why I ask for so much feedback when I am trying to make a point, and I am not getting anywhere. I would really appreciate anyone calling me out on where they think I am either mistaken or not making sense.

[Keep The Reason]

Now, I'll turn that question around on the atheists out there as well. How many of you have spent the same or even half the effort on studying, quoting texts, and looking for errors, inconsistencies and acts of depravity from these other books besides the Bible?

I have spent a fair balance of time on each, I've read them all "cover to cover" quite a few times.

The Book of Mormon is a waste of time, so let's leave it at that.

My assessment is that The Quran is fairly violent -- not on a page after page sense, but it doesn't have that softening "New Testament" element that Christianity claims.

The Gita is violent too. I mean, the the text asserts non-violence but Krishna urges Arjuna to war all throughout. Of course, it's explained a being a metaphor of "internal struggle" much like various interpretations of jihad asserts the term means a holy war within oneself.

But the difference I think is that in the Gita, the war is told as a event that happened, much like its done in the OT, wherein the Qu'ran people are extolled to be on such a guard all the time. That's why Islam s driven to conflict and the Hindus seem to be a bit more inclined to non violence by comparison. Of course, this is purely the theological reasons-- there are other reasons that Islam is more inclined to conflict that we neednt go into here.

The upanishads are more gracious of them all, in my opinion. The promotion of harmlessness, or ahimsa is threaded strongly into the Vedic tradition. For a nice summary of this, Go here

I know that mm's response is really the most common-- that "no, I didn't investigate those because I'm less interested in them" kind of response. But to me, that's just not a good way to go about it. I'm the type that needs to understand a lot of sides, if not all sides. To each their own.

[mitchellmckain]

I know that mm's response is really the most common-- that "no, I didn't investigate those because I'm less interested in them" kind of response. But to me, that's just not a good way to go about it. I'm the type that needs to understand a lot of sides, if not all sides. To each their own.

So KTR makes no choices and really doesn't know anything -- just pretends to know everything. Yeah I can see that.

[Keep The Reason]

So KTR makes no choices and really doesn't know anything -- just pretends to know everything. Yeah I can see that.

Sure I made a choice after reflecting on as many available options as I could. My choice was a perfectly valid "None of the above". I could look at lots of cars and choose that none of them represent something I would buy. And so, I have looked at many religious beliefs and have decided, based on informing myself, they aren't worthy to buy into.

I hope you didn't injure yourself making the incredibly silly claim that more informing of oneself of the issues and options leads to a less informed choice. That would be funny, and I would like to thank you for the early Christmas present

[yjoeyh]

The Book of Mormon is a waste of time, so let's leave it at that.

For me its not. I have several friends who are Mormon, and get an opportunity to have these kinds of conversations with them quite a bit, so I think I need to be familiar with their texts at least enough to understand where they are coming from.

My assessment is that The Quran is fairly violent -- not on a page after page sense, but it doesn't have that softening "New Testament" element that Christianity claims.... The upanishads are more gracious of them all, in my opinion. The promotion of harmlessness, or ahimsa is threaded strongly into the Vedic tradition.

Yeah that's my take on the Quran as well. I vaguely remember something like what you are talking about with the Vedic texts . Perhaps I need to freshen up on some of that. Based on your impressions of these texts, are some a better assessment or guide for all of humanity that others? I ask, obviously because as a Christian, I find a lot more validity in the Bible, but I'm curious about looking at them all from a non-Christian perspective.

[Keep The Reason]

For me its not. I have several friends who are Mormon, and get an opportunity to have these kinds of conversations with them quite a bit, so I think I need to be familiar with their texts at least enough to understand where they are coming from.

I think I wasn't being clear. In terms of understanding what various belief systems promote, if nly to understand others, the BoM remains something you should investigate. but in terms of its message, it's hard to read it without a compelling desire to laugh at it. It's just not got anything of much value to adopt that you can't find in better written, more elegant and richer texts. I also left out Dianetcs but that's because you don't really get the "depth" of Scienology without actually joining the cult. Frankly, it's probably no surprise that Scientology is just a wild heap of shit from start to finish.

Yeah that's my take on the Quran as well. I vaguely remember something like what you are talking about with the Vedic texts . Perhaps I need to freshen up on some of that. Based on your impressions of these texts, are some a better assessment or guide for all of humanity that others? I ask, obviously because as a Christian, I find a lot more validity in the Bible, but I'm curious about looking at them all from a non-Christian perspective.

Perhaps I'm a bit unique in this. I find meaning in all of them, and indeed enjoy them all (I just dont mistake them as being the accurate depiction of a literal reality; they are mythic). I think the Upanishads would rate as my top choice because it consistently illustrates how meditative states enable people to gain wisdom. Now, I know how that often sounds, but if you read them, it becomes apparent that meditation is simply inner reflection, which is pretty much indistinguishable from taking time to reason through things. It's been argued that prayer is te same thing in Western culture, but the difference is that in biblical texts, prayer is clearly spoken of as a way to give god his worship and thanks (particularly as Jesus extols it), and that is quite different than what the Hindu tradition is offering.

This is a terrific Online Sacred Texts Link -- it has everything, including the marvelous and magical Apocrypha.

[cleve]

Don't people have a right to learn where they are comfortable with their own kind and try to figure out why they were blessed with life?

I have absolutely no problem with people getting together with their own kind and trying to figure anything out. I just don't like people being mistreated or treated unfairly. And if the reasoning behind it happens to be a religious reason, then that only upsets me more, because I think we would be better off not trying to force others to believe what we do. Yes talking and debating about those issues are vastly important. But standing by as someone else is being harmed by other peoples ideologies (religious or otherwise) is not something I am prepared to do.

So what is it that you do instead of standing by as someone is being harmed by other people's ideologies?

What ever is in my power I suppose. I try to help people understand what other view points are, I give up some of my time to provide assistance in what ever fashion I can. If and when I get a good amount of money I want to use it to help as many people as I can. For now, the best I can do is talk to people and hope that makes a bigger difference that it seems to be making at the moment. I think the best place is supporting the gay rights group, because its pretty easy and cheap to show support. I went to a gay pride rally in the spring. I wont lie and say I have provided a great deal of assistance but at least I try, with my limited resources, I think its enough for now. That is just how I have been through out my life anyways. Even as a christian I did what I thought was helpful. I did missionary work on two separate years as a High school kid during my spring breaks, now its just a bit of a different direction/position I take when I try to help others.

Mainly though, because I can be pretty lazy, I think my preferred method is through conversation. Do you think this is a sufficient way to provide help to a cause or a group of people you feel is being in any way limited? It may not be the best way but in my opinion its a great way to help. Assuming I am making articulate enough stamens that are reasonable and whose message can be relate-able to. I think there are plenty of good reasons not to limit other peoples happiness (provided it doesn't come at the suffering of others) and by expressing that to as many people as I can, I feel like at least I am making a difference somehow. And this is precisely why I ask for so much feedback when I am trying to make a point, and I am not getting anywhere. I would really appreciate anyone calling me out on where they think I am either mistaken or not making sense.

Doc,
From what you've shared, it sounds like you're in the process of seeking wisdom. If that's the case, how do you think it is possible to acquire it? In similar fashion, all of us would appreciate having advice on how to proceed through life, in order not to make as many mistakes as we tend to do in the process. But we all seem to end up "buying wisdom" as/where needed or not - and sometimes end up paying dearly for it.
Carry on, Doc. Experience and enjoy life with all your strength. Take on, pursue and experience whatever you find interest in with a passion.

[mitchellmckain]

I said that I did not spend half the time on these that I have spent on the Bible, not that I spent no time at all. I think it highly likely that I spent more time on many of these than KTR did. But that simply wasn't the point. The point remains that we all choose what to inform ourselves on and how much and there is just no way of getting around these choices AND that there is absolutely no justification for pretending that your choices make you superior in any way.

I have read sections of the Book of Mormon myself and made my own judgements about whether I thought it was worth investing more time in. I took a course at university on the religions of China and Japan. I took a course on Islam at seminary though we spent most of the time on history rather than the Quran. I studied the early history of Hassidic Judaism in a course entitled "Messianic movements" given by a Jewish Rabbi. I made a personal study of the teachings and history of the Quakers and their role in the history of the United States. And those are some of my forays into the study of other religions.

[OzAnt]

Yes all of these did it via their own decision, yet God raised Pharaoh up for that reason as it is reported in the bible. He knew what he and every other free will being would do given any particular situation. Remember, God still is an active player, it is not all just foreknowledge, he gets to play with the parts as well..

Well, I suppose if he's prepared to punish a whole species due to the disobedience of Adam & Eve, it shouldn't surprise me that he's prepared to punish an entire civilisation due to the stubbornness of one man. It certainly would explain why there isn't any more of his species and why he wound up alone and lonely enough to have created mankind to toy with. All I can say is that I'm really glad I've seen no evidence of his existence.

That said, the reason I (admittedly, flippantly) posted about this is because I just wanted to mention that, for me, it's hard to follow your reasoning when you say, "He is not powerful enough to do something logically incoherent, like make a free creature do something." when time and again, we read about him trying to do exactly that.

You misunderstand, it is not about locking us into our choices, we are still just as free as we are free. Just because God knew and activated the universe doesn't mean you are not free. The freedom you have is real no matter what God knew prior. I am not convinced that any other universe would contain the same persons. In any other universe, no matter how slightly different, the alternative universe seems to me to preclude any identical persons, but who knows?

Where do you get the notion of multiples universes? Obviously not from The Bible because it doesn't mention them. I ask, because the only time I've heard of them is when listening to the likes of Michio Kaku explaining the many-world interpretation of quantum physics. In explaining how things at the quantum level cannot be predicted absolutely but rather there being a range of possible observations, each with its own probability, multiple universes are born (one for each possible eventuality). So, when you talk about your god actuating the universe with the most good in it (or where the least amount of evil happens), I'm picturing other universes springing up to account for the other probabilistic choices each of us could make. Obviously in this scenario, a universe where I "choose" to remain a devout Christian would have to play out.

As such, I don't believe I misunderstand - rather I think you've misunderstood me. Sure, in this universe I'm aware I make the choices that I do - I'm not disagreeing with you here (at least not for the purposes of this discussion). The point is though, that in alternate universes I'd still make the choices - yet I'd choose differently (to account for the different probability playouts I just mentioned) and as such, in at least one of them, I'd pretty much have to have chosen to remain a Christian. So, in at least one of the possible universes I'd be "saved". The thing is though, by your god picking this universe, he's locked me out of that possibility because, according to you, he's going to be judging me based on what happens in this universe because it's the one he's actuated (science, on the other hand, doesn't give a shit, because no universe in this hypothesis is any more or less important than any other universe and all exist).

Ant.

[Equinox]

Mitch wrote:

So WHERE does it say that the goats are the atheists and that the sheep are the Christians? What! Its not there! So where in the world did that come from? It came from you. You put it in there. Maybe it is because the legalistic power monger Xtians you grew up among put that into your head. I don't know. But whatever, it isn't there in the Bible itself.

It's very important to remember that the different books of the different bibles were written at different times, by different people - different people with different beliefs, different expectations, and indeed, different religions, then only much later collected and put between two covers. By reading them separately, and letting each speak for themselves, a lot can be learned. Many of us have been taught by Christians that there is one message from the Bible, and so have been taught to selectively ignore parts of it so as it make these different religions fit together. This Goat discussion is a good example.

The G of Matthew was written by someone who's religion has heaven or hell based on what you have done, NOT based on belief. So consistently through his gospel you'll see that, among with other distinctive features, like the idea that Jesus was sent for the Jews, and so on. Much of that will be very different from what Paul writes, because for Paul, heaven or hell is based on belief in Jesus, and explicitly NOT on what you have done (works).

The idea that atheists are the goats comes from Paul, not from whoever wrote Matthew.

-Equinox