Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Atheists Battle Their Super Egos

Photobucket



I have often accused atheists of only being able to understand the big man in the sky rather than more expansive views of God, such as process theology or Existential ontology. But I've slowly begun to realize that they really are using "God of the Bible" as a means of venting in a cathartic process of battling their own super egos. Look at the way they sound when they rant about how evil God is, they sound like teenagers who have just moved out of the house becuase they an't stand their father. One such prime example is that of a poster on carm:Roarian


Indeed, I would put him straight in the category of malevolent and elitist : he doesn't care one bit about what you did with your life or what you believed, but merely what you did not believe : if you weren't a part of his posse, you're out forever.

Can't you just hear a pot smoking kid of the 60s saying 'Dad doesn't care about me?' not that I mean to belittle this guy's feelings by saying that. Most guys my age have been there, even with the pot smoking. The fear that God is only concerned with penalizing you for believing wrong things rather than with how good you may be because you believe a few right things, this is not only a tortured understanding of the Gospel, but also reminds me so deeply of a wounded kid in a struggle with his/her father.


Instead of giving all people an equal and fair chance at getting it right, he makes an imperfect world that is extraordinarily bad for getting 'good souls' if you will : he knows beforehand that billions upon billions will never even hear of him, and billions of others will be brought up in opposing beliefs, which are in this world equally unsupported by any evidence.

Such complaints are fraught with misunderstandings. As Christians we look at the wonderful love of Jesus dying on the cross for your sins and at the parables of Shepard chasing down lost sheep out of pure love. The atheist is the wounded inner soul who looks at the fear that he's being held accountable for getting it wrong. No attempt to reason about the nature of theodicy. Of course there are plenty of theories one could support, C.S. Lewis the Problem of Pain, or dare I say in the same breath (not to compare) My own Soteriolgoical Drama. Which I think covers the bases pretty effectively. The issues of billions and billions who will never know Jesus existed (where do these guy's live?) going to hell because they are in the wrong religion is merely an outright misunderstanding of the Gospels which is countered by Paul himself in two different books.


He then expects everyone to just go on faith that this particular religion among thousands is correct. He has his instructions penned down and translated several times, many of which incorrectly, in a tome some 2000 years ago in a sparsely populated area of the world.

The atheist's special vehement hatred of the Bible must be brought into it because its one of the few concrete pieces of data they actually have that's not just opinion. The understanding what we are to do in spreading the Gospel is of course totally inadequacy since it assumed the wrong translation of the Great commission* and does not come to terms with the concept of being a witness or spreading the love of God. These unhappy creatures who can't find their creator because they want to look in the right way think that it's all a matter of just spouting the right cods; we as Christians let them down when we fail to show by example that its not about bringing belief to the world but bringing God's' love to the world.




He then sits around and billions continue to die without ever being able to even known Christianity, while the bible writers sit around waiting to be inspired, finally in 300 AD or such resulting in the Bible.

But of cousre this view that God is "sitting around" rather than working every moment to draw people to himself is indicative of their lack of receptivity and their own refusal to respond. Of cousre he must mix it with the hatred of the Bible because that's really their own tangible piece of evidence, which is largely based upon poor reading skills.


This book is so poorly written that it is then misinterpreted and used as an excuse for hatred,
Poorly written. Has he ever ever read it? It's written in Greek and Hebrew you know. Most likely he's only a translation so he really don't know how it's written. Since he probably doesn't read it daily but relies upon atheist message boards to spread his venom and only cares about finding contradictions not finding value in it he really has no room to talk. Sure enough he has no argument to make as these are nothing more than platitudes he's mouthing.




and millions head to hell because of internal strife between different factions of his one chosen people, sending millions more to hell because nobody can agree on the correct religion and wars and dark ages break out. This all goes on for about 1700 years, ultimately ending up today, where a guy called Metacrock would call him omni-benevolent.


Of course it's only going on in his imagination because he's making fundamentalist assumptions instead of seeking to truly understand the Gospels.

Popular misconceptions of the nature of the Gospel.

"Gospel" means "Good News." The Good News is not that people are going to hell. The Good News is that God cares and provides a way to orient our lives toward him so that we can know him in this life, and in the world to come.

Are there really well meaning people?

"All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." From a human perspective, relatively speaking from one human to another there are, of course, well meaning people. There are good people all around us, from a human perspective. Relative to the Divine however, no one is good, no one is capable of meriting salvation. We all have our sins, we all have our human frailties. We are all caught up in "height" (our ability through the image of God in which we were created to move beyond our human finitude and seek the good) and "depth" (our nature burdened in the sinful wickedness to human deceit).

These are Augustinian terms and they basically mean that we are both, good and bad, saint and sinner. God knows the heart, He Knows what we truly seek. God is merciful and is able to forgive our trespasses. But, if we are really well meaning toward God we will seek the truth. If we are seeking the truth than God will make it plan to us.

Other Religions

Paul said "To those who through persistence seek glory, honor and mortality he will give eternal life.But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the good and follow evil there will be wrath and anger...first for the Jew and then for the gentile; but glory honor and peace for everyone who does good. For God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will perish apart form the law and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Indeed when Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirement of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences bearing witness and their hearts now accusing, now even defending them..." (Romans 2:7-15). New American Standard and other translations say "their hearts accusing, now excusing them..." Most Christians are afraid of this conclusion and they down play this verse. Often Evangelicals will come back and say "he makes it clear in the next passage that no one can really follow the law on their hearts." Well, if they can't, than they can't. But if they can, and do, than God will excuse them. God knows the heart, we do not. The verse clearly opens the door to the possibility of salvation (although by Jesus) through a de facto arrangement in which one is seeking the good without knowing the object one is seeking (Jesus). In other words, it is possible that people in other cultures who follow the moral law written on the heart know Jesus de facto even if they don't know him overtly. Paul backs up this conclusion in Acts 17:22 Paul goes to Athens as is asked by the Athenian philosophers to explain his ideas to them.

These were pagan followers of another religion. Paul stood up and said to them, "Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious for as I walked around and observed your objects of worship I even found an alter with this inscription 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD' Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you."He basically says that they are worshiping God, they just don't know who he is. That's why he says "I will make it known to you." He doesn't say "you have the wrong idea completely." Most Evangelicals dismiss this as a neat rhetorical trick. But if we assume that Paul would not lie or distort his beliefs for the sake of cheap tricks, we must consider that he did not say "you are all a bunch of pagans and you are going to hell!" He essentially told them, "God is working in your culture, you do know God, but you don't know who God is. You seek him, without knowing the one you seek. He goes on,(v27)"God did this [created humanity and scattered them into different cultures] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out and find him though he is not far form each one of us." This implies that God not only wants to work in other cultures, but that it is actually his paln to do things in this way. Perhaps through a diversity of insights we might come to know God better. Perhaps it means that through spreading the Gospel people would come to contemplate better the meaning of God's love.

In any case, it does mean that God is working in other cultures, and that God is in the hearts of all people drawing them to himself. Of their worship of idols, Paul said "in past times God overlooked such ignorance but now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (v30). Now what can this mean? God never overlooks idolatry or paganism, in the OT he's always commanding the Israelite to wipe them out and expressly forbidding idolatry. It means that on an individual basis when God judges the hearts of people, he looks at their desire to seek him, to seek the good. That their status as individuals in a pagan culture does not negate the good they have done, and their ignorance of idolatry does not discount their desire to seek the good or the truth. IT means that they are following Jesus if they live in the moral life, even though they follow him as something unknown to them. IT also means that all of us should come into the truth, we should seek to know God fully, and when we do that we find that it is Jesus all along.

Justice of Punishment.*

Jesus himself never speaks directly of hell, but always in parables. The other statements of Hell are mainly in euphemistic passages or in apocalyptic passages such as the book of Revelation. But I suggest that for some crimes hell is deserved. The slaughter of innocent people, the disruption of thousands of lives, the Hitlers of the world, and those who rationalize the deeds through "following orders" deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions. Evil has consequences, and those who commit evil should suffer the consequences, and they will.I have no direct knowledge of what hell is. It is based upon the Greek mythological concept of Tartarus which got into Hebrew thinking through Hellenization. There is no "hell" in the Tennach or the Pentateuch ("OT"). In the Hebrew scriptures there is only mention of Sheol, or the "the grave" to which everyone goes. But in the books of Revelation it does speak of those who work inequity being "outside the Kingdom of God." I don't' believe that hell is littoral fire and brimstone, I do believe it is some state of anxiety or desperation from God.

Knowing God.

Heb. 8:10-12 "...I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man say to his neighbor 'know the Lord' for they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more." This passage promises a "personal religion ship with God."The word for "to Know" is the Greek Term ginosko, which means personal expirential knowledge. To give one's life to Jesus means to develop a personal relationship with Jesus. Jesus said (John) "My sheep know my voice..." Personal relationship means that it is more than a set of rules, more than an ideology or a belief system, but a matter of the heart, the emotions, religious affections. IT may not be through dramatic miraculous effects (although I do believe that that is open to all Christians) but it is deeper than mere rule keeping, and does make for a satisfaction nothing else can match.God acts upon the heart. Salvation is a matter of "knowing God" not of mere intellectual assent. What does it mean to know God? It means that being a Christian is a matter of experiencing God's love in the heart and of loving God and others. It is also a matter of being "led" by God through impressions upon the heart, and not merely a set of rules or a list of beliefs that one must check off. IT is the development of "religious affections."The excitement of knowing God is unequaled by anything else in this life.

There are so many misconceptions to disabuse them of, but I really put the blame on myself and other Christians. We have to show them the love of God. This is the only way we are going to correct these misconceptions.


*This was one of the first articles I put on Doxa years ago. At that time I still had a sort of Hell light idea, with some form of separation but not the big fire stuff. Now I don't believe in hell at all. I do believe that those who reject God and die in their sins will cease to exist and perhaps they will before doing so realize what they did wrong. But I also believe that God is love, so I don't know if even this much hell is real. I know God is mercy and I also know that atheists expect to cease existing so they really complain about it too much if that's the case. what I don't believe is that God will torture people becuase they believe the wrong thing. That idea is childish and it was never what the Bible said.


*The right translation of the great commission should say "where ever you happen to be going" not "go ye." It's not in the imperative so it's not a command.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Barker up the Wrong Tree: the "Genius" of Dan Barker

Barker is a former Church of Christ minster who turned atheist and has for 30 years been a very vocal atheist guru. In fact he was "new atheist" before there was a new atheist movement. I had stuff on Doxa answering some of his antics. I lost it over hte ages and had promised someone to put Barker stuff up. So this is it. But I really don't feel he's worth wasting our time on. He is the epitome of the angry fundie atheist opportunist with noting to say and plenty of fire and venom to say it with. This is an online copy of material form Barker's book Losing Faith in Faith.



First let's see some of his ingenious bible contradictions:

First we have a quote that tells us more about Barker than it does about the Bible.
PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines.
That's funny, I don't actually find the Bible t be a confusing morass of incoherent gibberish I find it to be pretty understandable. Then again I went to a real Methodist school of theology (I doubt know that Barker went to a real theology school, probalby some Church of Christ preaching school). Maybe he's confused by the Bible or maybe he's just capitalizing upon people's lack of training. these are just listed in a row as though they are complete thoughts themselves.

Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?
 Why do trained physicists differ? Surely science is fact and fact is obvious so why should there be any differences? I find arguments in physics all the time, such as Fred Hoyl who has entertained the public for years with steady state theory. There are people like Andre Linde who is producing inflationary models while for the majority the Big Bang theory still "the standard model." Every single academic discipline I've ever heard of is full of disagreement. Why do educated people in all fields differ in their interpretation of the facts? life is just not that obvious. That's a very freshman like view point. why is this guy such an amateur?

"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound," Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:8, "who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Exactly! Paul should have practiced what he preached. For almost two millennia, the bible has been producing a most "uncertain sound."
The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mish-mash, taken seriously, causes so much discord? Here is a brief sampling of biblical contradictions.

More capitalizing n ignorance.

now we have a bit of multiple one-liner things.

 

Should we kill?

  • Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
  • Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." vs.
  • Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
Difference between God commanding killing in time of war and individual premeditated murder. Of course he doesn't bother with things like context.  This is a typical atheist habit, they want things to be spelled out real clearly and not involve any learning or any kind of complex ideas. For a movement that prides itself on appearing more intelligent and more learned their opponents they are incredibly simple minded.

Should we tell lies?

  • Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
  • Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord." vs.
  • I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
  • II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

This is incredibly dishonest and manipulative. He's comparing a command to us not to lie with God's allowance of the king's lie, placed in the form of God's action but in terms of ancinet world thinking we should understand that it's permissive not active. Even if it is active it's obvious the false prophets are in rebellion they are already sinned, they already left God so forcing the to sin again is not hurting they they already are as hurt as you can get. They have essentially already told lies and accepted lies that's why they are false prophets.

This is hilarious the way this guy thinks. It makes sense that he's chruch of Christ because this is the kind of legalism I remember from the Church of Christ preachers I knew, well not all but some. These next few examples demonstrate real dishonesty in several ways:


Should we steal?

  • Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
  • Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him." vs.
  • Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
  • Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
  • Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.

We see first of all not exactly a command. It's about Moses being commissioned to free his people from slavery, it's a more of a prediction about how it will turn out.  It' not a license for all believer to steal. The passage from Luke doesn't even say there taking the donkey and foal without permission.


Shall we keep the sabbath?

  • Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
  • Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
  • Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." vs.
  • Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
  • John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
  • Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."



this one he surely knows the answer to, he knows he's using it dishonestly. It's based upon the distinction between law and the new covenant. In the first example we see that the principle of Grace is active in the OT. Since Barker doesn't understand the idea of Grace all he sees is a contradiction. The other two are clearly New Testament so they are clearly overtly about the distinction. The cross has done away with the law, we are no longer under law but Grace. He can't understand that but he knows enough about the language of the Bible to understand that he's playing on ignorance.

We can see enough form this stuff to get the drift that Barker is a con man. He's so cynical about the nature of the world that he can't even be honest enough to make a valid argument agaisnt the faith. He has to manipulate and play upon ingorance to create confussion there is none. Look at the first statements he makes he's setting up the unwary to see the passage s in a certain light.

That's part of the atheist  brain washing.

speaking of stealing I stole the horrible pun in the title from J.P. Holding. maybe if the 10 commandments were written to day there would be an 11th saying "thou shalt not pun."


Sunday, May 12, 2013

Interesting Quote: Atheist Spring is Over

 Not much to this but came across it in reserach and thought it would be good to keep. It's the kind of thing you will wish you had latter if you pass it up.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

The atheist spring that began just over a decade ago is over, thank God. Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies. He’s the Mary Whitehouse of our day.
So what was all that about, then? We can see it a bit more clearly now. It was an outpouring of frustration at the fact that religion is maddeningly complicated and stubbornly irritating, even in largely secular Britain. This frustration had been building for decades: the secular intellectual is likely to feel somewhat bothered by religion, even if it is culturally weak. Oh, she finds it charming and interesting to a large extent, and loves a cosy carol service, but religion really ought to know its place. Instead it dares to accuse the secular world of being somehow -deficient.

A lot of Americans might not get reference to Mary Whitehouse.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Rant about Atheist Stupidity and Healing

....Atheists are really scared to death about the idea of healing. They hate it, they can't stand it. They will do anything to discredit it. Most atheist don't know beans about studies and methodologies. They hear therm "double blind" they think that's the only kind of study you can do. They are always toaugting some double blind study that supposedly proves prayer doesn't work.
....You don't an experiment to see if prayer works. God is total control on the other end. You can't have a control group when the mechanism you are studying (God's healing power) wont cooperate and let you control it. Come to that there's no way to have a control group and experimental group when you can't control for outside prayer? How are you going to stop friends and relatives from praying for someone? How are you going to stop guys who pray for everyone every day from praying? Can we really imagine that God is that anxious to give us scientific proof of his healing power? I don't think so. I don't think God is sweating our approval. I think God knows that those who seek him and those who fear death will reach out to him when they need to. He's not worried about getting in the world to go to chruch.
....Empirical Evidence is fool proof. It's proof. you look at the before xray and say "this is broken." Look at the after Xray and say "It's not broken" they were taken five minutes apart, broken dont' heal in five minutes. that' has to be proof. Especially when the only thing that happened in that five minutes was prayer. The miracles of Lourdes are based upon empirical evidence. They use the best medical researchers in Europe and have strict rules.



The Special Mission of Lourdes


The Marian Library Newsletter

No. 38 (New Series)
Summer, 1999

Since the apparitions at Lourdes in 1858, a procedure has gradually developed for verifying the cures and healings which occur there. Today, Lourdes is recognized as the Church's foremost center for investigating healings. There, medical personnel from all the world are invited to investigate the evidence for reported healings. Included among the medical examiners are those who allow and those who exclude the possibility of miraculous healings. The procedure also attempts to respects the dignity of the person who has been cured. John Paul II reminded the medical personnel of Lourdes that the verification of miraculous cures is Lourdes' "special responsibility and mission" (Nov. 17, 1988).


The Number of healings

"It is impossible to estimate the number of cures which have occurred at Lourdes. There are healings of a spiritual nature, such as faith, conversion, acceptance, joy. There are also the psychological cures-- freedom from anxiety, release from addiction and compulsion. There are cures of a physical nature, the only type investigated at Lourdes (and also the only type accepted in the beatification or canonization process), because evidence of both the past and present condition can be presented."



There have been only 66 official proclomations of miracles at Lourdes since the miracles began. This may sound like so few that it is hardly worth caliming them, however, this is not the case. It is really a testimony to the rigor of the process and to the Chrch's refusal to use the miracles as any sort of propaganda. If the calims were merely used to bolster propaganda of some sort one would think they would choose many more than this. But the requirements or so strict that only a few are accepted. There is actually a much larger pool of claims to choose from, and many more "remarkable" cases that did not make it because the documentation is just too difficult to get.

Marian Library (Ibid.)

"In the last one hundred years, over 6,500 individuals have reported cures to the Medical Bureau. Of these, at least 2,500 cases are considered truly remarkable, but they lack some requirement needed to allow them to advance to the next stage--witnesses, evidence, lack of agreement on the nature of the ailment. In the last twenty years, there have been reports of about twenty cases of extraordinary cures or healings, about one a year. Mr. Bély's healing is the 66th cure occurring at Lourdes which has been officially recognized by ecclesiastical authorities. The recognition by church authorities has been a feature of Lourdes for a total of sixty- three years of its history."



The Process of Verification

There are three stages:

1)Examination by Lourdes Medical Bureau.

[Ibid]
"The first occurs when the cured person is examined at the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Established in 1883, the Medical Bureau receives the testimony of the cured person, of the doctor and of those who accompanied the person to Lourdes. After the preliminary examination, the cured person is usually asked to return to Lourdes a year later for another examination. Many cases remain at this first level because of the difficulty of gathering the previous medical reports, a frequent occurrence with individuals who come from underdeveloped areas."


2) Cases passed to International Bureau.

(Ibid.)

"Sufficiently documented cases are passed on to the International Medical Bureau. Established in 1946, this bureau consists of medical doctors, psychiatrists, and experts in specific diseases. The criteria for recognizing a cure at Lourdes are the same as those proposed, in 1743, by the canonist Prospero Lambertini (the future Benedict XIV) regarding the miracle required for the beatification and the canonization of saints. The infirmity must have been serious and considered impossible to cure; no medication or treatment must have been given, which could possibly have caused the change; the cure must be sudden and complete, with no relapse. In a word, the cure must be unexplainable, that is, there is no human or natural factor which could have effected the cure. (The doctors at Lourdes speak only of inexplicable cures, not "miracles.") If, in the opinion of the International Medical Committee, there is no natural explanation for the cure, the case is then referred to the bishop of the diocese in which the individual resides."


3)Investigation by Diocesan Canonical committee.

(Ibid.)

"At present, the final stage in the process is the investigation by the diocesan canonical committee, appointed by the bishop of the diocese. In the early years of Lourdes, the final judgment appeared to rest with the doctors, so much so, that the second President of the Medical Bureau wrote, in 1892, that "the history of Lourdes has been written entirely by doctors." In the twentieth century, church authorities have assumed a greater role in the discernment process. Although medical science has a role to play in their discernment, science alone cannot be the final arbiter. Since miracles are signs which point to something beyond, they belong to the order of faith. It is the Church's prerogative to recognize these signs of faith. In addition, a miraculous cure is not simply an impersonal intervention of divine power, but a gift to the individual, frequently accompanied by greater faith, charity, peace. For that reason, the canonical examination should also consider the individual's disposition at the time of the cure and religious attitudes which are part of his or her life.

The final word belongs to the bishop of the diocese, who, as did Bishop Dagens, recognizes the miraculous cure "in the name of the Church."


The Lourdes Medical Bureau and the International Bureau hold Symposia and conferences at which medical experts of all kinds present papers on the data of the miracle calims. Both philosophical and medical questions are addressed. The papers of top academic quality and the discussions are very important. There is a very interesting section on the Marian Newletter site about this, it is well worth reading, but we cannot go into that here. I urge the reader to click on that link and consider all that is said. One of the major issues addressed is the meaning of miralces. The Catholic chruch does not regard miracles as proof of the existence of God, rather, it understands them as a message, a sign form God, and the Pope has decalired that miracles are a call to prayer and to seek God. In light of this realization, I present a few examples of hearlings from Lourdes:

A Few examples from Lourdes The Marian Library Newsletter
No. 38 (New Series)
Summer, 1999

http://www.udayton.edu/mary/respub/summer99.html

On February 10, 1999, Msgr. Claude Dagens, bishop of Angoulˆme, France, announced that the cure which Mr. Jean-Pierre Bély, a member of the diocese, had experienced at Lourdes twelve years earlier, was truly "a sign of Christ." The bishop said, "In the name of the Church, I recognize and acknowledge in public the authenticity of the cure which Mr. Jean-Pierre Bély experienced at Lourdes on Friday, October 9, 1987. This sudden and complete cure is a personal gift of God for this man and an effective sign of Christ the Savior, which was accomplished through the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes."

In 1984, Mr. Bély was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and, by 1987, he was completely paralyzed. He was brought to Lourdes on a stretcher in 1987 as a participant in the October Rosary Pilgrimage. On the final morning of the pilgrimage, as Mr. Bély was anointed in the Sacrament of the Sick, he felt a "sensation of coldness" followed by "a gentle warmth" that seemed to fill his entire body. "Later, I took my first steps, just like a baby who is learning to walk."



Patron saints Index
Lourdes cures


http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stb06001.htm

Colonel Paul Pellegrin
3 October 1950
age 52; Toulon, France Post-operative fistula following a liver abscess in 1948. By the time of his pilgrimage in 1950, the condition had degenerated to an open wound that required multiple dressing changes each day, and showed no sign of healing. On emerging from his second bath in the waters, the wound had completely closed, and the condition never bothered him again. Recognized by the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France on 8 December 1953.

Brother Schwager Léo
30 April 1952
age 28; Fribourg, Switzerland multiple sclerosis for five years; recognized by the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland on 18 December 1960

Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon
15 May 1952
age 34; Bouille-Loretz, France multiple sclerosis for three years; recognized by the diocese of Poitiers, France on 16 July 1956

Marie Bigot
8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954
age 31 and 32; La Richardais, France arachnoiditis of posterior fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia); recognized by the diocese of Rennes, France 15 August 1956

Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre
21 September 1954
age 26; Carmaux, France Budd-Chiari disease (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis); recognized by the diocese of Albi on 31 May 1963

Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
5 June 1958
age 27; Patti, Italy tuberculous osteo-arthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right lower limb; recognized by the diocese of Messine, Italy on 26 May 1965

Juliette Tamburini
17 July 1959
age 22; Marseilles, France femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years; recognized by the diocese of Marseille, France on 11 May 1965

Vittorio Micheli
1 June 1963
age 23; Scurelle, Italy Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk. By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. Recognized by the diocese of Trento, Italy on 26 May 1976.

Serge Perrin
1 May 1970
age 41; Lion D'Angers, France Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became wheelchair-confined, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, his symptoms became worse, and he was near death on 30 April. Wheeled to the Basilica for the Ceremony the next morning, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. First person cured during the Ceremony of the Anointing of the Sick. Recognized by the diocese of Angers, France on 17 June 1978.

Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
24 December 1976
age 12; Paterno, Italy Ewing's Sarcoma of right knee; recgonized by the diocese of Catania, Italy on 28 June 1989

Jean-Pierre Bély
9 October 1987
age 51; French multiple sclerosis; recognized by the diocese of Angoulême on 9 February 1999



More detailed information on all these cases can be found on an offical Lourdes website.




Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Is Atheism Increasing in world Population?


 Photobucket

 ....There is another rash of statements about atheism increasing world wide, but most of them by atheists. Atheists are notorious for trying to inflate their figures. I've seen them try to claim all Buddhists as atheists, I even saw one try to claim all Hindus as atheists! Now they have a couple of impressive sounding sources to back up the idea of an increase in world wide figures: article on Christian Science Monitor and a world wide polling organization, Win-Gallup International. This is not to be confused with the Gallup organization, they broke off of them. While I am not judging their validity as a polling company  we have good reason to doubt their veracity in this matter. I'm also disappointed in the SCM article SCM is a find source, but in this case they fall for the old problem of not distinguishing between those not affiliated with any religion vs. real atheists. Christian Science monitor says atheism is on the rise.

Atheism is on the rise in the United States and elsewhere while religiosity is declining, according to a new worldwide poll. “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism,” conducted by WIN-Gallup International headquartered in Switzerland, found that the number of Americans who say they are “religious” dropped from 73 percent in 2005 – when the poll was last conducted – to 60 percent. Those who said they were “convinced” atheists rose from 1 to 5 percent. And 33 percent of the people polled said that they don’t consider themselves as a “religious person."[1]
CSM is siting the Win-Gallup International poll, that's important becuase we have reason to doubt their findings. Ryan Cragun, a University of Tampa sociologist of religion doubts that it really rose.[2]
....The article has huge inconsistancy:

"That view seems consistent with a study conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life in 2009 showing that 5 percent of Americans at that time said they did not believe in God or a universal spirit, but only 24 percent of the nonbelievers actually called themselves atheists."[3]

The CSM article is quoting a follow up to the 2007 Pew study which I have shown stands behind most of the religious landscape data  reported on in the media. This is 2009 follow up.[4] However, contrary to what was said, the follow up does not show that atheism is rising it doesn't een show that doubt about God's existence is on the rise, it shows only that people not affiliated with any religious orgnaiztion is on the rise. These are not he atheists.Pew study shows unaffiliated grew but CSM is confussing that with atheist. not affiliated is not atheist. Original Pew study of 2007 distinguishes. 15% non affiliated and only 1.6% atheist. But, the 2009 study distinguishes it too. the graph shows unaffiliated just under 20% but the atheists half up to between one and 5%. more like 3%.

2/3 of unaffiliated say they believe in God.

"However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor."[5]

Two thirds say they believe in God that doesn't mean that 1/3 are atheists. There's another category of "don't know" one might also count a category of "higher power" apart from belief in God per se.. It's all a matter of how one wants to draw up the categories. The article speaks of these groups in this way:

"Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%)."[6]
Atheists and agnostics, which the article says make up 6% of U.S. Population. If we assume half and half, fair, 3% for atheists which is I've been saying all along. Pew study of 2007 distinguished between "none" and "athiest" and found 1.6% were actual atheists. 3% is on the margin of error and supports findings by Gallup and tv network polls.[7] The point is the statement in CSM that the WGI data supported by the Pew data is totally false. The Pew Graph shows my  math is correct by listing atheists as between 1 and 5%. That pertains to the U.S. What about international figures?




Win-Gallup intentional Figures:

http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf

Their poll was 57 countries around the glob. For example they list Japan in top 10 atheist countries and give it 30% atheist.[8] My study of Japan on Doxa (not a true study but my own researches) show that Japan's Chrsitain base had been underestimated, they give the percentage of adults overall who are religious as 30%.[9] Japan has a done a lot to keep their traditional faith as part of their life style. My article on AW shows there is quite a bit of religious faith designed into the culture..[10] WGI puts atheism high in a handful of countries, China, Japan, Ches republic, France, all between 20-30%. then Germany, Netherlands, Austria, 15-14%, Iceland, Australia and Ireland, 10%. Wait, where is Russia? Where is Sweden and Denmark. This is the top 10 these countries we would expect to find there are not there. In fact this would give Sweden lower than 10% since it's not in the list and the lower end of the list is 10%. Yet Greely found that Northern European countries were 10% in hard core atheism and former West Germany was the only one with high levels of hard core atheism. Greely's categories were more extensive.[11]

  1. The proportion is above 10% only in former socialist countries (12.4% in Russia, 13.9% in Slovenia, and 11.3% in Hungary) and in the Netherlands (11.4%) and in Israel (12.1%).
  2. In the other eleven countries, the highest rates of Hard Core atheism are in Norway (6.7%) and Britain (6.3%). Thus if latent demand for religion is excluded only from the Hard Core atheists, there is still the possibility of a large clientele for those firms which might venture into the religious market place in such supposedly "secularized" countries as Norway and Britain.[12]

Atheism may have risen in the Netherlands since the Greely study, because he puts it 11% and GWI puts it at 14. Then Greely is segmenting "hard care" and GWI is not.GWI finds religiosity down 9%, this is compared to similar study done in 2007. They find atheism up 3%. The find 59% of the world is religious, 23% is non religoius, 13% atheist. They do seem to be distinguishing bewteen non religious and atheist.
....One of the main problems I have with this is their lack of definition of atheism. They don't distinguish bewteen hard core and soft core as Greely does. The Communist countries were only successful in East Germany in making hard core atheism a major force in their society. The others have it below 10% in most  cases. One would expect that with force of society driven that way it would be a lot more successful. In Greely's study hard core meant they agree that they do not believe in God and the "defiantly" do not beieve in after life.

Use of the data in other venues

All over the net I find these figures tossed around and misused.
Demographics of atheism wiwi. Include "great scientists." that doesn't effect the percentage of general population. Their source is the CSM article that is not distinguishing between unaffliated who believein God and atheism.



The percentage of the public agreeing with all three statements has shifted little since the first Pew Research values survey in 1987. That year, 68% of respondents agreed with all three statements; this year 67% do so.Biased article "the blaze" (August 9,2012) tries to say that "nones" are ahtiest but we ahve seen half believe in God. Nonetheless, there are some demographic and partisan differences over religious values. In the current survey, 68% of Millennials say they never doubt the existence of God, a decline of 15 points since 2007. Over this period, the proportion of older age cohorts expressing firm belief in God has remained stable.[13]
....Answers.com is typically misleading. They show several options:

16% of the world (1,1 billion) profess to be secular/non-religious/agnostic/atheist. It is thought that about 2.5 % of these are atheist. However, the figure is vague because many atheists don't proclaim their belief for fear of reprisal.[14]
where is that from? they don't say.then:

 An additional 6% of the world population are Buddhist. Conceptually Buddhism is atheistic in that it does not believe in a supreme being or creator.
You can't count Buddhists as atheists. It's only in the West that they would even dream of thinking this way. Asian Buddhists think its' insane. Many Buddhists in Asia do have gods and they all have a concept called "Buddha mind" which is much like Paul Tillich's idea of God as being itself. American atheists who don't read theology began the propaganda device of using Buddhism as an example of atheism to inflate their numbers. Then the article by Ansers draws upon Adheret's.com


Adherents.com reports that 16 percent of people are non-religious. This includes atheists and agnostics.

what they don't say is that the category is said to be half Atheist/agnostic. that means we can say 8% are atheist/agnostic so 4% are atheist. When we look at these it seems the fist answer above is also from the same source. So they are just using adherents as their only real  source. Then they recite without attributing any source: 1.1 billion people are estimated to be nonthiest/atheist.
From a current estimated population of 6.7 billion, that is approximately 15%. according to whom? So we have to watch out when talking about statistics of what percentage is atheist.
...There is cause for concern, but not for panic. The real loss of concern is the loss of Religiosity. I intend to deal with that on Metacrock's blog.
...Most of the use made of the such statistics is irresponsible, even article in good publications getting it wrong.Most of it is used for shock effect or to back to an ideological assumptions. We have to careful and make extra effort to check out the statistician. It does seem there is a loss of religious feeling, and defiantly Christianity is being tarnished we need to take that seriously. I think it's the right wing Republican Chrsitians in America and their unflinching support of big money and the rich, their driving relentless right wing politics that is turning people off the gospel.


Sources:


[1] CSM article
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Pew Religious Froum"nones on the rise," the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life, a proeject of the Pew Research Center. May 8, 2013,  URL: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx
[6] Ibid,  Pew Research Center calculations based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s August 2012 Current Population Survey, which estimates there are 234,787,000 adults in the U.S. (return to text)
[7] Doxa: Christian Thought in the 21st Century, Atheist Inflation. URL: http://www.doxa.ws/social/percentage.html
[8]WIN-Gallup International
GLOBAL INDEX OF RELIGIOSITY AND ATHEISM -
2012
URL: http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
[9]Doxa, ibid, "more People claim Chrsitain faith in Japan" the figrues from Gallup (the real Gallup organization March 8, 2006). http://www.doxa.ws/social/percentage.html
[10] "Zuckerman part 3," Atheistwatch, Thurdsay, April 1st 2010, URL: http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/zuckerman-part-3_01.html
[11]Andrew Greely, and The Demand for Religion: Hard Core Atheism and Supply Side Religion.http://www.agreeley.com/articles/hardcore.html
[12] Ibid.
[13] Pew 2009 followup, ibid.
[14] Answers.com
what percentage of the world are atheist?"http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_world_are_atheist

Monday, May 6, 2013

How to Deal With Atehist Fallacies: atheists trying to defend appeal to poularity


 Sylar, the same idiot who argued that Bayes is mathematics, therefore, its a mathematical fact that there's no God, and that prison populations must mirror the general population, is at again. Now he's making a sophisticated version of appeal to popularity. This argument is obviously not aimed at demonstrated that atheism is a logical position, but asserts that because the majority of philosophers are atheists that in itself is reason enough to be an atheist. Well that's partly appeal to popularity although it bleeds into appeal to authority; he says these are the guys who understand the God arguments and they are atheists then it must be the God arguments are bad.

Sylar
If your proofs are so watertight, why are 87.4% of professional philosophers non-theists? Compare that to the 10.3% of the adult general population of the US that are atheists. What gives? If the god arguments are so awesome, shouldn't we have more theists in our philosophy departments rather than fewer?
Meta: That's not where it gets really stupid, (not yet, just wait). Then he starts saying that 70% of those in philosophy of religion are atheist! I point out that is statistic of 10% is inflated its 3%.

 Sylar:

 Fine, let's go with 3%. Why are professional philosophers of religion over ten times more likely than a randomly selected US adult to not be a theist?
 I show that 70% of philosophers of religion are theists, only 20% are atheist, he asserted the 70% were atheist. He's trying to say that the increase in likelihood of being an atheist philosopher of religion is over being an atheist in the general public is so much greater that it warrants being an atheist just because of that. I say that with 70% theists then being a theist as a philosopher of religion is even more likely. He argued that Philosophers are in the know, so we can say that the God arguments are no good or as he put it "lack efficacy," becuase they dont persuade those in the know. Philosophers of religion are looking at the God arguments more than just regular philosophers so they are more educated audience even then secular philosophers in this area and they tend to be theists much more so than not. No we can only look at the difference bewteen atheists in the general public and in philosophy of religion not the difference between theists and atheists sin the field.

In the mean time he's said nothing about why they believe as the do. He's done nothing to prove that any of them read a single God arguemnt. He's said nothing about what their reasoning processes are. So he's just basing the idea on the mere fact that they are as they are without regard to way. That's what he thinks is a valid reason for holding a particular position. My argument is that this is an appeal to popularity and to some extent authority (given that it's the popularity among an authority group).

There are a lot of reasons why philosophers might be atheists. They may not ever think about it. It's been popular among liberal arts people in the past to question authority and be radical and even be atheist. Before the net came along, when I was an atheist, all atheists were people you met in college. Atheism in the working class was very rare. It was a truism in popularity society that professors are atheists. So it could be that atheists just naturally sought out areas like philosophy to go into. Philosophers of religion might all be atheists before they were in that field and they went into it hoping to destroy it. That's not so hard to believe. See my confrontation with Hector Avila on Metacrock's Blog where he admits that that is his motive for staying  in his field.

He denies that it's an appeal to popularity but clearly it is becuase he doesn't even seek to know the reasons why they think as they do. He doesn't want you to decide the issue on any kind of knowledge of ideas, it's all about who else thinks so. His defense is it can't be polarity if it's about the specialized group that's in the know. Ok so that means it's a hybrid fallacy, it's bleeding into appeal to authroity. Who says Philosophers are the authorities to guide us to or away from God? who says Philosophers are the gatekeepers of all truth? He's just appealing to the authority of a group that he thinks supports his ideology and that in itself is the reason to make the decision not becuase of how they arrived at their views. That is a fallacious way to reason.

This guy wound up arguing that Bayes theorem is mathematics, it proves there's no God so it's a mathematical fact that there's no God. So if you believe in God you are going against mathematics. There's no analysis about the prior or how we arrive at the conclusion. I said atheism=mathematics. Of cousre I was being sarcastic.

Here's what's going on, atheism is a cult. That's why this guy wants you to make your decision based upon the authority of some group and not even consider why. It is ironic for an atheist to appeal to authority becuase they are only 3%. Then try to inflate their numbers all the time. He always wants to do away with the thinking part and arrive at a formula (like Bayes) that settles the issue with the fortress of facts and you don't have to think you just obey. That's the cult.



Saturday, May 4, 2013

Why Did God Create? Atheist Assumptions about Free Will Defense

Photobucket


Originally Posted by hsmithson View Post
In discussions about fine-tuning/design, it is usually taken for granted that God would want to create stuff. But it doesn’t seem obvious to me that he would want to create anything. Outside of pointing to a specific theology (which seems kind of question-begging), how could we possibly know what God’s preferences are when it comes to creating versus not creating? Could we perhaps argue as follows?

(1) If God exists, then he would ensure that the best possible world exists.
(2) Because God is maximally great, the possible world containing God and nothing else is the best possible world.
(3) Therefore, if God exists, he would not create anything.

I don’t have any real confidence in this argument, but I’m curious how people would object to it. And aside from the argument's success/failure, I’m curious how we can know whether or not God would create stuff.
That's just tailor made to find fault with God. set up your own expectations which obviously haven't been met, then you can blame God for not meeting them.

You are also assuming God is like a big man becuase you seem him as building contractor in the sky. He has to have a man's style of rational reason for doing something, he's gonna do it in a way that you can understand and approve. There's no reason to assume that.

You don't even understand all human motivations for doing things. if God were a big artist in the sky he might create for a pure reason of artistic creativity. Could you relate to that? Could you call it a failure?

The basic assumption in p1 is basically utilitarian at least. That's going to be a major assumption that most atheists will make. It's assumes the only consideration God has to work with is pleasure over pain. It also assumes there can't be any higher goal than avoiding pain. Atheits are often asking things like "why God just ignore sin? why can't God just give amnesty and everyone enjoy themselves?" This assumes there's no higher reason than pleasure over pain.

In my view God created becuase he wanted free moral agents who willing choose the good. That's why he constructs a world that is morally neutral and that doesn't give off obvious indications of having been created. That way we have to seek truth and come to a conclusion about why we are here and the existence of God.

He's left obvious clues that set us on the right path if we are to seek with he heart. If what I'm saying is true the real challenge is to find what it means to seek with the heart. This has a close bearing on my free will defense. Atheists most often ask why did God create so they can charge God with being absent since the world is so screwed up. The answer to that is the free will defense.

Let's examine my basic assumptions in making this arguemnt, and I will show how I use it to answer arguments about why does God allow pain and evil?

Basic assumptions

There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.

(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.


The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impetus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.


(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.

That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.

(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.

The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.

The argument would look like this:


(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.

(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).

(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices

(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.


This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.

This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:


(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultimate goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.

(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us

(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.

(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.


In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.

This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.

Objection:

One might object that this couldn't outweigh babies dying or the horrors of war or the all the countless injustices and outrages that must be allowed and that permeate human history. It may seem at first glance that free will is petty compared to human suffering. But I am advocating free will for the sake any sort of pleasure or imagined moral victory that accrues from having free will, it's a totally pragmatic issue; that internalizing the value of the good requires that one choose to do so, and free will is essential if choice is required. Thus it is not a capricious or selfish defense of free will, not a matter of choosing our advantage or our pleasure over that of dying babies, but of choosing the key to saving the babies in the long run,and to understanding why we want to save them, and to care about saving them, and to actually choosing their saving over our own good.

In deciding what values outweigh other values we have to be clear about our decision making paradigm. From a utilitarian standpoint the determinate of lexically ordered values would be utility, what is the greatest good for the greatest number? This would be determined by means of outcome, what is the final tally sheet in terms of pleasure over pain to the greatest aggregate? But why that be the value system we decide by? It's just one value system and much has been written about the bankruptcy of consequentialist ethics. If one uses a deontological standard it might be a different thing to consider the lexically ordered values. Free will predominates because it allows internalization of the good. The good is the key to any moral value system. This could be justified on both deontolgoical and teleological premises.

My own moral decision making paradigm is deontological, because I believe that teleological ethics reduces morality to the decision making of a ledger sheet and forces the individual to do immoral things in the name of "the greatest good for the greatest number." I find most atheists are utilitarians so this will make no sense to them. They can't help but think of the greatest good/greatest number as the ultimate adage, and deontology as empty duty with no logic to it. But that is not the case. Deontology is not just rule keeping, it is also duty oriented ethics. The duty that we must internalize is that ultimate duty that love demands of any action. Robots don't love. One must freely choose to give up self and make a selfless act in order to act from Love. Thus we cannot have a loved oriented ethics, or we cannot have love as the background of the moral universe without free will, because love involves the will.

The choice of free will at the expense of countless lives and untold suffering cannot be an easy thing, but it is essential and can be justified from either deontolgoical or teleological perspective. Although I think the deontologcial makes more sense. From the teleological stand point, free will ultimately leads to the greatest good for the greatest number because in the long run it assumes us that one is willing to die for the other, or sacrifice for the other, or live for the other. That is essential to promoting a good beyond ourselves. The individual sacrifices for the good of the whole, very utilitarian. It is also deontolgocially justifiable since duty would tell us that we must give of ourselves for the good of the other.

Thus anyway you slice it free will outweighs all other concerns because it makes available the values of the good and of love. Free will is the key to ultimately saving the babies, and saving them because we care about them, a triumph of the heart, not just action from wrote. It's internalization of a value system without which other and greater injustices could be foisted upon an unsuspecting humanity that has not been thought to choose to lay down one's own life for the other.


Objection 2: questions


(from "UCOA" On CARM boards (atheism)

Quote:


In addition, there is no explanation of why god randomly decided to make a "moral universe".


Why do you describe the decision as random? Of course all of this is second guessing God, so the real answer is "I don't know, duh" But far be it form me to give-up without an opinion. My opinion as to why God would create moral universe:
to understand this you must understand my view of God, and that will take some doing. I'll try to just put it in a nut shell. In my view love is the background of the moral universe. The essence of "the good" or of what is moral is that which conforms to "lug." But love in the apogee sense, the will to the good of the other. I do not believe that that this is just derived arbitrarily, but is the outpouring of the wellspring of God's character. God is love, thus love is the background of the moral universe because God is the background of the moral universe.

Now I also describe God as "being itself." Meaning God is the foundation of all that is. I see a connection between love and being. Both are positive and giving and turning on in the face of nothingness, which is negativity. To say that another way, if we think of nothingness as a big drain pipe, it is threatening to **** all that exits into it. Being is the power to resist nothingness, being the stopper in the great cosmic drain pipe of non existence.

The act of bestowing being upon the beings is the nature of God because God is being. Those the two things God does because that's what he is, he "BES" (um, exists) and he gives out being bestowing it upon other beings. This is connected to love which also gives out and bestows. So being and love are connected, thus the moral universe is an outgrowth of the nature of God as giving and bestowing and being and loving.

Quote:
Thus the question isn't really answered. Why does god allow/create evil? To create a "moral universe". Why? The only answer that is given is, because he wants to. Putting it together, Why does god allow/create evil? Because he wants to?

In a nut shell, God allows evil as an inherent risk in allowing moral agency. (the reason for which is given above).


There is a big difference in doing something and allowing it to be done. God does not create evil, he allows the risk of evil to be run by the beings, because that risk is required to have free moral agency. The answer is not "because he wants to" the answer is because he wants free moral agency so that free moral agents will internalize the values of love. To have free moral agency he must allow them to:

(1)run the risk of evil choices

(2) live in a real world where hurt is part of the dice throw.

see my answersto atheist attacks on this idea in my essay: "Twelve Angry Stereotypes"