Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

> My point is, however, that life grounded on self-orientation too easily lapses into boredom and fear, but life grounded in an eternal Dimension (God) that knows no bounds or limitations only finds one fulfillment after another, and a continuing stream of interest and inspiration.

I would consider it selfish of me to worship a God that created a universe like this where the bad things I've listed occur. I would consider it the same as 'cashing my chips' so to speak, with a criminal of the worst kind. I would also consider such a life subservient. I don't want to lick the boots of someone who sends people to hell. It would be ignoble.

> But why? I mean really why.

Because it worsens being. Someone engaging in excessive activity, even at their own choice, will worsen their being, and maybe others as well. They may believe a particularly excessive life suits them well, but be unable, unaware, or duped away from a more healthy state of living. If you were to ask me why again, I'd ask if you think a worsening of being is good. My guess is that your answer would be no.

> But some people are: hedonistic at the expense of others and narcissistic because it's where they want to be at. And I presume whatever people want to be is OK as long as it's where they want to be at? (Is that what your position is?)

No it's not. Worsening other people's being is wrong, so I don't condone people doing whatever they want as long as it suits them, because there are externalities. It's a difficult issue, because some people do unhealthy things and I don't lecture them. That has to do with preferences within a certain sphere. Some people chain-smoke for example. I do not. But if someone forced another person to chain-smoke, I would object.

> supposed someone is making good money trafficking young girls, and he is happy and where he wants to be at. What makes that wrong in the grand scheme of things?

Because it harms the young girls. This is wrong in the grand scheme of things because such an occurrence is itself part of the grand scheme of things. Obviously at some point in the "grand scheme of things" it will be over, but that's not the point. The point is that it occurs and worsens their being at that point. The fact that the harm might, perhaps, not be "Eternal" with a capital E, doesn't make it unimportant.

> I know he was objectively bad, but not in his mind nor in the minds of at least some others.

I don't care. He was mistaken, as were they.

> In your view, however, if we're just evolved from chemicals with no intrinsic value or meaning, I wonder if there's truly a logical basis to object. (There's certainly an emotional one, but if we're just "survival of the fittest," and if we're just evolved matter, on what logical basis can I say such behavior is wrong?)

Firstly, your conception of me thinking we come from "chemicals with no intrinsic value or meaning" is an assumption of my position. I don't necessarily believe that. I'm unsure of our origins, whether life is matter or mind, or both, and how (some) processes develop. Additionally, what applies at one level of reality may not apply at another. That's part of what the subject of emergent properties is about. Certain chemicals may not have the same kind of rules apply to them as they don't have consciousness (at least not in the same way) so they can't be tortured like we can. It's a little like going for a walk in the sunshine or eating something healthy. Someone could say "it's not worth doing any of those things, you'll eventually be dead". That's not the point. It's what happens between now and then that counts. It gives these things even more value in my opinion, as we must grasp them before they pass away.

[jimwalton]

> I would consider it selfish of me to worship a God that created a universe like this where the bad things I've listed occur.

I guess we're always going to disagree about this point, then. I've shown, I though in a rational way, that to create without the possibility of suffering would steal away our very humanity and render the world non-functional. You perceive God negatively for having done that. As tragic as suffering is, I perceive God has having created well. Light makes shadows; that's unavoidable, not cruel.

> I don't want to lick the boots of someone who sends people to hell. It would be ignoble.

I guess we're always going to disagree about this point, then. I have shown how the Bible says God will always be perfect fair with people. I don't see that as ignoble.

> Because it worsens being. Someone engaging in excessive activity, even at their own choice, will worsen their being, and maybe others as well. They may believe a particularly excessive life suits them well, but be unable, unaware, or duped away from a more healthy state of living. If you were to ask me why again, I'd ask if you think a worsening of being is good. My guess is that your answer would be no.

If we are just evolved chemicals, this is all meaningless. We are just chemicals! There's no "good" or "bad," no "right" or "wrong." What is, is. There's no meaning to "it worsens being."

> Worsening other people's being is wrong

Is one wolf killing another wolf "wrong"? I don't think we look at it that way. It's the circle of life, the law of the jungle, so to speak. When guppies eat their young, is it "wrong"? But if we are just part of nature, then why is it "wrong" to "worsen other people's being"? I don't get it. There are no intrinsic values here, just made-up ones.

> Because it harms the young girls.

Why do young girls have any more value than, say, earthworms? I'm really curious, because if we have no intrinsic value as people in the image of God, and if pangeism is true, we are no different than mosquitoes, mice, or Canada geese.

> This is wrong in the grand scheme of things because such an occurrence is itself part of the grand scheme of things.

I don't get it. If there is no objective morality, but only a morality of my own making, there is no "grand scheme of things" that makes anything wrong. You're going to have to explain.

> That's part of what the subject of emergent properties is about.

Emergent properties may show derivation, but says nothing about value.

> It's what happens between now and then that counts.

Why? I'm pushing you on this because it matters. How did we come about? If there is no God (and therefore no entity granting value or dignity), we are no different than the leaves on trees. Is there objective value? If so, what is the source or standard of that objective measure? Ultimately, if nothing gives me value except my own brain saying, "I'm human, and therefore I have more value than a leaf or a housefly," I must question the logic of that perceived value. It seems to me the choices are two: (1) You truly have no value, and you must come to grips with that; (2) you have true value that comes from a source outside of human evolution.

[Book Mitten]

> We all need to stand against the horrific atrocities of human trafficking as a cancer on humanity. But my reason for doing so is because we all have intrinsic value as being created in the image of God.

Why does it have to be because of God and being created in his image? Can't living things be an end in themselves? Can't they have value on their own? Also, if God created something horrible, (I know you think he didn't, but say for the sake of argument that he did) would you still worship him? Would you still think the horrible thing had value because it was created in the image of God? I suspect you might not, since you stated earlier that you don't support divine command theory.

Regarding your point about us arising from chemicals and as such being worthless in such a scenario, might not this be interpreted by some as an insult to the medium with which God creates? Presumably every atom and movement of his creation has value if he has created it. With this in mind, don't these things have objective value? Going back to your rejection of divine command theory, I would assume you would agree that the reason creation has value isn't just because God created it, but that rather God is good because his nature (in essence as well as in the nature of his creation) is valuable. This would likely mean that part of the reason God is perfect (in Christian eyes at least) is because what he creates is good. He wouldn't create something bad. Therefore, wouldn't this universe have value regardless of whether he created it or not? Since whether he created it or not (at least theoretically speaking) it stays the same?

[jimwalton]

> Can't living things be an end in themselves?

What gives us any more value than a woodchuck or a stinkbug on my window screen? If we've all arisen together as natural species, we're no different than the bugs. I couldn't even say we are a higher order of evolution. We can't really say such a thing. Throw a human in the ocean and then ask whether the human is more evolved than a fish! Context is everything. Furthermore, if we assume that life on the planet had a single origin (and there are good reasons to assume this is true), then every organism that exists today has experienced the same amount of evolutionary time. While one could plausibly say that humans are "more evolved" than a mammal in the Jurassic period, we are not "more evolved" than a mouse that exists in 2019. The overall history of life on the planet obviously does show some progression in terms of complexity (only single-celled organisms in aquatic environments initially --> multicellular life with differentiated tissues found in all kinds of environments), but the argument that evolutionary biology scientifically demonstrates that humans are "more evolved" than other organisms doesn't hold weight.

So why does anything have value, and from where does that value derive?

> Regarding your point about us arising from chemicals and as such being worthless in such a scenario, might not this be interpreted by some as an insult to the medium with which God creates?

No. God created things with different value, some as part of the food chain, some as animals with the breath of life, and some as humans with the image of God. Somewhat of a hierarchy is built into the system.

> This would likely mean that part of the reason God is perfect (in Christian eyes at least) is because what he creates is good.

Not really. "Good" in Genesis 1 connotes "functional," not in any moral sense. God is perfect because He has no flaws and no sin.

> Therefore, wouldn't this universe have value regardless of whether he created it or not? Since whether he created it or not (at least theoretically speaking) it stays the same?

To a Christian, nature is not autonomous; God made it, and He sustains it. The value of created things is not in themselves autonomously, but in that God made them, and they deserve to be treated with respect (not revered as the Jainists would do, or romanticized, as the New Agers would do)

In a non-pantheistic system, the particulars can have different and distinct attributes. You're right that all creation has value in itself as a creation of God. Nature is not just utilitarian; it has value, but we make distinctions. The organic has more value than the inorganic; the personal has more value than the impersonal; human has more value than anything else.

[Book Mitten]

> So why does anything have value, and from where does that value derive?

Good life has value, and the value of good life is derived from our experience of good life as preferable to bad life, or death.
What gives us any more value than a woodchuck or a stinkbug on my window screen?

If the bug were to die, my guess is that it would experience less suffering (as would it's family or kin, I'm not sure how such bugs live) than would a human in the process of dying, and their family after the human was dead. The human potentially has more to bring to existence (I say potentially because they might be good or bad), and thus might be able to transform the world in a way that makes it better. Then again, there might be a situation where certain humans would receive less affection than animals if they were depraved to a certain degree (child rapists, torturers, etc. At least certain animals don't do those things; I'm guessing the bug does not).

I think treating animals well is important. I think we are animals too. Just a different kind from some. Moral norms exist in animal kingdoms as well. Monkeys respond with recognisable anguish at unfairness or the death of their kin.

In any case, my point about value is not derived from whether something is evolved or not, but whether it contributes to (Eudaimonia based) wellbeing, and reduces bad things. It might have consciousness as well, and this should be taken into account.

[jimwalton]

> Good life has value, and the value of good life is derived from our experience of good life as preferable to bad life, or death.

Very interesting. It sounds like you're saying our experience as "good" or "beneficial" is what gives it value. One observation: when I talk to atheists about my experiences of God or of the benefits of a relationship with God, they often say, "Experiences don't count. They're 100% objective and can't be used to assess value." I know you've told me you're not an atheist; I just find it intriguing.

And a question: What about someone who doesn't experience life as "good"? Does their life have value?

> If the bug were to die, my guess is that it would experience less suffering (as would it's family or kin, I'm not sure how such bugs live) than would a human in the process of dying, and their family after the human was dead.

VERY interesting. So it's the experience of suffering that brings value to human life?

> The human potentially has more to bring to existence (I say potentially because they might be good or bad), and thus might be able to transform the world in a way that makes it better.

Interesting again. There are many who would claim humanity is a bane to the evolutionary process and our species are an injurious perpetrator of savagery on each other and on the planet.

> Then again, there might be a situation where certain humans would receive less affection than animals if they were depraved to a certain degree (child rapists, torturers, etc.) ... my point about value is not derived from whether something is evolved or not, but whether it contributes to (Eudaimonia based) wellbeing, and reduces bad things.

So are these depraved humans of less value if they don't experience a "good life" and don't contribute to "transforming the world in a way that makes it better"?

[Book Mitten]

> I guess we're always going to disagree about this point, then. I have shown how the Bible says God will always be perfect fair with people. I don't see that as ignoble.

What I'm asking is how can you be certain that the Bible is completely true and infallible? Even if you were to claim it was divinely inspired, It was written by human beings, themselves flawed in the eyes of the religious. If you think eternal torture is fair all of these things considered, then yes, we can never be friends. I'd ask why you think that it is. Just because God says so? How does he know he is good? Presumably from his conscious awareness of his goodness, right?

> Emergent properties may show derivation, but says nothing about value.

I'm referring to the emergent properties because they show that we are not "just chemicals" as you are trying to suggest I should believe. We are clearly more than that. Chemicals don't have consciousness. We do.

> I don't get it. If there is no objective morality, but only a morality of my own making, there is no "grand scheme of things" that makes anything wrong. You're going to have to explain.

I'm not saying morality is your own making. I believe objective morality exists, like you do. I don't think people can just invent it out of thin air. Neither can God.

> Is one wolf killing another wolf "wrong"? I don't think we look at it that way. It's the circle of life, the law of the jungle, so to speak.

Again, this is an example of an imperfect system adapting and trying to survive. The wolf doesn't kill just for the sake of it. It will hunt for food, or defend itself. Even people who do harm for the sake of it do it out of adrenaline or spite or something else. These can be examples of defects in nature. Some natural systems are imperfect, and thus work within certain limitations.

[jimwalton]

> What I'm asking is how can you be certain that the Bible is completely true and infallible?

That the Bible is completely true is an assessment based on many factors: historical reliability, archaeological confirmation, conforming to reality in our perceptions about people and the world (people are both noble and cruel, the existence of evil, jealousy, anger; the reality of the material world, etc.), true to life (forgiveness is beneficial, wisdom is desirable, etc.). In addition, people have experienced that true spiritual change comes to a life committed to Jesus. People are transformed by it.

> Even if you were to claim it was divinely inspired, It was written by human beings, themselves flawed in the eyes of the religious.

Those human writers claim that God took hold of them and superintended the writings. 2 Peter 1.20-21: It didn't come from their minds, but instead has its source in God. Their flaws as individuals didn't manifest in the text.

> If you think eternal torture is fair all of these things considered, then yes, we can never be friends.

I didn't say we could never be friends; I said we'll never come to agreement. I also didn't say that eternal torture is fair. What I said was it may only be eternal for those that would be fair for, and there may be other contingencies for most people—that God would be perfectly fair.

> I'd ask why you think that it is. Just because God says so?

You based your criticisms on what God says. Why is it unreasonable for me to based my explanations on what God says? All we know of hell is "what God says." You think eternal torture in hell is unfair because you perceive that is "what God says." I've explained to you that's a misperception, that "God says" something different. Why are you able to use "what God says" to deprecate God, but I can't use "what God says" to vindicate Him?

> I'm referring to the emergent properties because they show that we are not "just chemicals" as you are trying to suggest I should believe. We are clearly more than that. Chemicals don't have consciousness. We do.

You disagree with many other atheists with whom I've spoken. They adamantly argue that even our consciousness is just the working of chemicals and that we are nothing more than an agglomeration of chemicals. Period. No value; no meaning; no purpose.

Now, I'm glad to hear you think differently, but even our consciousness doesn't automatically confer value, does it? If I am at core a highly evolved animal with consciousness, and there is nothing else in the universe to change the organic picture, and I derived from impersonal organic material and will return to it, then whence cometh meaning and value?

> Neither can God.

I don't think God manufactures morality out of thin air. Morality is a description of His nature, and since we are made in His image, that objective standard translates to our conscience, and we subconsciously know about said standard and have a drive to conform to it.

But if there's such a thing as objective morality, but no God, where does the standard for right and wrong that is known to all humanity come from?

> this is an example of an imperfect system adapting and trying to survive.

Yes, but then where does "right" or "wrong" come from? If a system is geared to adaptation and survival, "truth" or "right" have nothing to do with it, but only adaptation to survival. If killing off a weak wolf is part of that picture, we accept that. What about killing off handicapped people or the elderly? Frankly, it would be easier for all of us not to have the burden of carrying along the weak and informed. And if they bring no "goodness" or benefit to life, is it "right" to exterminate them? And how do you know? Where's the standard? Aren't we justified in suggesting (and believing) that any such standard of objective morality and the value of human life came from a personal, intelligent, and moral source?

[Book Mitten]

> I perceive God has having created well. Light makes shadows; that's unavoidable, not cruel.

I'm not on about light making shadows. Shadows are nice sometimes. I have the same issue with Leibniz, who says something similar about humans liking different tastes at different times. The same rules don't apply to those as they do to extremes like starvation.

[jimwalton]

As I'm sure you perceive, the point was that it was impossible for God to create without the very probable prospect of the intrusion of evil. Since God is uncreated, any being He creates is going to be not-God, and therefore any created being has a susceptibility to using free will in a wrong direction. There's just no way around that. That was my reference to "when you create light, one result is always shadows"—the idea being that when you create, period, a very potential result is going to be the arising of evil. But as long as the creator deals with that evil in appropriate ways, as long as good outweighs evil, as long as there are ways to mitigate evil and redeem it, and as long as evil will be destroyed in the end, then there is possible justification for the allowance of its existence. That's not to say extreme starvation is a good thing, but only that it's possible for an omnibenevolent God to not directly stop it. If nothing else, extreme starvation awakens us all to the morality and goodness of overproducing food and sharing what we have with those less fortunate, turning greed into benefaction and motivating compassionate care for other human beings.