"Letters From a Skeptic": Book Discussion

[Caroljeen]

So you think we are offered other options than, accepting Jesus or going to hell?

Oblivion.

Why not choose Jesus? What would your objections be IF you were to meet him today?

 

[Caroljeen]

You have to remember, though, that G.B. is attempting to write for a reader who has not had any such experience, and who does not see the resurrection as a historical fact.

We don't know about Edward's past experiences before GB was born. According to the book, EB is agnostic not atheist. Isn't the wall of unbelief a less thick to chip away at with an agnostic?

 

[Caroljeen]

As I'm pretty sure you realize, the existence of a set of human beings -- namely, Christians -- who are more loving than the rest of us, more patient than the rest of us, more honest than the rest of us, etc., is not something which nonbelievers see as manifestly true. To use considerable understatement.

I do realize it. It's just more pronounced on CARM for some strange reason.

My evidence-based faith is in Jesus not his followers. We aren't the bright shining lights throughout the world like Jesus told us to be.
The blame is on us not Jesus. Mathew 5: 14-16

But none of us witnessed what the church was like in the first centuries after the crucifixion. So I don't see how this answers Edward's objection about what we do witness, or what we see recorded by those who were not partisans.

If you heard someone talking about miracles happening at a place where Christians were meeting in your vicinity, would you go to check it out and see for yourself?

 

[Tiburon]

Oblivion.

Why not choose Jesus? What would your objections be IF you were to meet him today?

Where does the Bible tell us that oblivion is an option?
If I chose Jesus I would be a Jew. I have no reason to choose Jesus. He may have been a nice guy, but I don't have any cause to believe he was more than that.

 

[Caroljeen]

Where does the Bible tell us that oblivion is an option?

When there is mention of destruction.

If I chose Jesus I would be a Jew. I have no reason to choose Jesus. He may have been a nice guy, but I don't have any cause to believe he was more than that.

I'm not a Jew and I chose Jesus. If he is more than a nice guy, if he is who he said he was, he is worth choosing.

 

[Tiburon]

When there is mention of destruction.

Yet many Christians are still peddling hellfire. We really need some consensus.

I'm not a Jew and I chose Jesus. If he is more than a nice guy, if he is who he said he was, he is worth choosing.

Did you choose Jesus, or Paul's idea of Jesus? None of us have met Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. He taught in opposition to the hierarchy, the priestly caste, but he wasn't seeking to end Judaism. If he was who we are told he was and if the whole foundational background story is true then maybe he is worth choosing. I'm not convinced of that.

 

[Komodo]

We don't know about Edward's past experiences before GB was born. According to the book, EB is agnostic not atheist. Isn't the wall of unbelief a less thick to chip away at with an agnostic?

An agnostic would be more persuadable that God exists than a positive atheist, but might be just as resistant to persuasion that Christianity is true. But my point was that EB's objection about the evils done by the church isn't really answered by saying "when you experience God's presence and are born again, you will see what God wishes of His church." If "you'll see that this is not an insuperable problem, once you convert" is the answer to any objection, then all other apologetics arguments are redundant, aren't they?

 

[Komodo]

I do realize it. It's just more pronounced on CARM for some strange reason.

My evidence-based faith is in Jesus not his followers. We aren't the bright shining lights throughout the world like Jesus told us to be.
The blame is on us not Jesus. Mathew 5: 14-16

If all the Bible said was "Jesus taught us that we should be loving and patient," then maybe that's a reasonable answer. But the Bible seems to go beyond that to say "you will be given the gifts of love and patience," which is a claim that seems empirically testable, and falsifiable.

If you heard someone talking about miracles happening at a place where Christians were meeting in your vicinity, would you go to check it out and see for yourself?

It would mostly depend on how credible I found the reporter.

 

[Caroljeen]

Letter 2: Why is the world so full of suffering?

Edward thinks, if God is real, then the church should be God's delegated authority on earth and that God would oversee its activities as it is his 'vehicle for saving the world'. I agree with him on the latter part. I'm not sure what EB means by "God's delegated authority on the earth.

EB continues to air his concerns about the incongruity of an all-loving God who created and cares about this world with all of the suffering in it, especially the suffering of innocents. "When the freedom to decide to do harm results in pain and suffering to innocent people, God is simply not the "loving" God you make him out to be!" Then he gives the example of "this lunatic down here in Florida who was released from jail after some seven or eight years for raping a teenage girl and then chopping off both her arms, leaving her for dead."

Is it fair that the free choice of one to harm should circumvent the free will of another to not be harmed? It looks to EB as if God values the freewill of the criminal and not the free will of the victim.

EB also want to know where was God when millions of people in Africa starved because of a drought. Did God forget about them? Was he punishing them for sin? Or because they were Muslim and believed in a different god and it made God angry with them? These are the types of things that, in EB's mind, prove an all-loving, all-powerful God who is interested in our welfare does not actually exists.

What are your thoughts on this? You probably agree with EB's conclusion. Right?

I'll present Greg's response in my next post.

@Komodo

 

[Komodo]

Letter 2: Why is the world so full of suffering?

Edward thinks, if God is real, then the church should be God's delegated authority on earth and that God would oversee its activities as it is his 'vehicle for saving the world'. I agree with him on the latter part. I'm not sure what EB means by "God's delegated authority on the earth.

It isn't clear to me either, though it seems suggestive of theocracy. I remember Pat Robertson once advocating that a council of spirit-filled Christians should have veto power over all government decisions, which would make them a kind of "delegated authority." This may have been a case of mullah-envy, given the way the clergy had taken power in Iran. It certainly would be odd for an agnostic to see this as desirable, but maybe the idea is that if Christianity were true, the church would consist of men and women who would not fall into corruption if given power, and so they would be the only ones who should be trusted with it.

I haven't read any of the Left Behind books, but if I'm recalling the summaries correctly, LaHaye & Jenkins picture a millennium of rule by the church after Jesus slaughters all his enemies at the battle of Armageddon.

EB continues to air his concerns about the incongruity of an all-loving God who created and cares about this world with all of the suffering in it, especially the suffering of innocents. "When the freedom to decide to do harm results in pain and suffering to innocent people, God is simply not the "loving" God you make him out to be!" Then he gives the example of "this lunatic down here in Florida who was released from jail after some seven or eight years for raping a teenage girl and then chopping off both her arms, leaving her for dead."

Is it fair that the free choice of one to harm should circumvent the free will of another to not be harmed? It looks to EB as if God values the freewill of the criminal and not the free will of the victim.

EB also want to know where was God when millions of people in Africa starved because of a drought. Did God forget about them? Was he punishing them for sin? Or because they were Muslim and believed in a different god and it made God angry with them? These are the types of things that, in EB's mind, prove an all-loving, all-powerful God who is interested in our welfare does not actually exists.

What are your thoughts on this? You probably agree with EB's conclusion. Right?

Yes, and I don't find the "free-will" answer persuasive, though I think I'll hold off on that until you provide Greg's response.

Maybe worth noting that in the earlier chapters, Greg is fighting a defensive action, so to speak: he is trying to show his father that his objections to Christianity are not insuperable. But of course even if he were to "win" that argument, it would not imply that Christianity was true, or even likely to be true. Presumably he realizes that.

 

[Caroljeen]

Letter 2: Response from Greg to Why is the world so full of suffering?

Greg's condensed EB's argument about the rapist and the victim to, "Now you are wondering how an all-loving God could allow as girl to get rapped and mutilated by a sicko, and you don't buy the explanation that God gave this sicko free will, for this explanation doesn't take into consideration the (violated) free will of the girl."

Greg recognized this question as tough and almost insensitive to answer. He acknowledged that it would be perfectly understandable to be angry at God and everything else in the world, and rage is the only understandable immediate response to those personally touched by this tragedy. GB mentioned those believers in the Bible who suffered and asked God similar questions, (Job, David, Jeremiah).

Who is responsible for this evil? Not God. GB argues once again it is human free will. "If God is going to give free wills to His creatures, He has to allow for the possibility of them misusing that freedom, even if this means hurting others. " GB notes to be "significantly free is to be morally responsible" for our actions. I find this aspect of his argument to be important because if God has given us a "significant" free will and we are morally responsible for what we do, then God has every right to judge us for those actions we did with the free will we have be given whether they are good or evil.

GB reminded EB that God "structured things to be this way because the alternative would be to have a race of robots who can't genuinely love--but that is hardly worth creating, is it?" I know there are objections against this argument (that God gave humans a free will so that they could freely love him instead of programming us to love him, even within the Christian community.

"So why doesn't God intervene every time someone is going to misuse his freedom and hurt another person?"

GB states it has to do with the nature of freedom itself. "A freedom which is prevented from being exercised whenever it was going to be misused simply wouldn't be freedom." To illustrate he gave the example of giving his granddaughter some money but he controlled how she spent it. It really isn't her money but remains GB's money which he is indirectly controlling through his granddaughter. Likewise, "if God really gives us freedom, it must be, at least to a large extent, irrevocable. He must have, within limits, a "hands-off" attitude toward it. God creates free people who can do as they please, not determined instruments who always end up doing what He pleases."
In order to have creatures who could freely love him and each other, God HAD to give freedom to those creatures even if they could use that freedom to choose to do harm. It's the risk God took when he gave us the power that comes with a free will to choose. The end of it all is God is not responsible for the evil in the world. Humans are responsible for their free will actions.

Incredibly, to some here, GB wrote, "Even God couldn't have it any other way." This is, in a way, what I have been saying in the Fine-Tuning thread.

 

[Caroljeen]

Letter 2: Why is the world so full of suffering?

Edward thinks, if God is real, then the church should be God's delegated authority on earth and that God would oversee its activities as it is his 'vehicle for saving the world'. I agree with him on the latter part. I'm not sure what EB means by "God's delegated authority on the earth.

EB continues to air his concerns about the incongruity of an all-loving God who created and cares about this world with all of the suffering in it, especially the suffering of innocents. "When the freedom to decide to do harm results in pain and suffering to innocent people, God is simply not the "loving" God you make him out to be!" Then he gives the example of "this lunatic down here in Florida who was released from jail after some seven or eight years for raping a teenage girl and then chopping off both her arms, leaving her for dead."

Is it fair that the free choice of one to harm should circumvent the free will of another to not be harmed? It looks to EB as if God values the freewill of the criminal and not the free will of the victim.

EB also want to know where was God when millions of people in Africa starved because of a drought. Did God forget about them? Was he punishing them for sin? Or because they were Muslim and believed in a different god and it made God angry with them? These are the types of things that, in EB's mind, prove an all-loving, all-powerful God who is interested in our welfare does not actually exists.

What are your thoughts on this? You probably agree with EB's conclusion. Right?

I'll present Greg's response in my next post.

@Komodo

@The Pixie

 

[Caroljeen]

Letter 2: Response from Greg to Why is the world so full of suffering?

Greg's condensed EB's argument about the rapist and the victim to, "Now you are wondering how an all-loving God could allow as girl to get rapped and mutilated by a sicko, and you don't buy the explanation that God gave this sicko free will, for this explanation doesn't take into consideration the (violated) free will of the girl."

Greg recognized this question as tough and almost insensitive to answer. He acknowledged that it would be perfectly understandable to be angry at God and everything else in the world, and rage is the only understandable immediate response to those personally touched by this tragedy. GB mentioned those believers in the Bible who suffered and asked God similar questions, (Job, David, Jeremiah).

Who is responsible for this evil? Not God. GB argues once again it is human free will. "If God is going to give free wills to His creatures, He has to allow for the possibility of them misusing that freedom, even if this means hurting others. " GB notes to be "significantly free is to be morally responsible" for our actions. I find this aspect of his argument to be important because if God has given us a "significant" free will and we are morally responsible for what we do, then God has every right to judge us for those actions we did with the free will we have be given whether they are good or evil.

GB reminded EB that God "structured things to be this way because the alternative would be to have a race of robots who can't genuinely love--but that is hardly worth creating, is it?" I know there are objections against this argument (that God gave humans a free will so that they could freely love him instead of programming us to love him, even within the Christian community.

"So why doesn't God intervene every time someone is going to misuse his freedom and hurt another person?"

GB states it has to do with the nature of freedom itself. "A freedom which is prevented from being exercised whenever it was going to be misused simply wouldn't be freedom." To illustrate he gave the example of giving his granddaughter some money but he controlled how she spent it. It really isn't her money but remains GB's money which he is indirectly controlling through his granddaughter. Likewise, "if God really gives us freedom, it must be, at least to a large extent, irrevocable. He must have, within limits, a "hands-off" attitude toward it. God creates free people who can do as they please, not determined instruments who always end up doing what He pleases."
In order to have creatures who could freely love him and each other, God HAD to give freedom to those creatures even if they could use that freedom to choose to do harm. It's the risk God took when he gave us the power that comes with a free will to choose. The end of it all is God is not responsible for the evil in the world. Humans are responsible for their free will actions.

Incredibly, to some here, GB wrote, "Even God couldn't have it any other way." This is, in a way, what I have been saying in the Fine-Tuning thread.

@Komodo @The Pixie

 

[Caroljeen]

"Maximal goodness" (I didn't invent this phrase, of course; I'm just using it as I've seen it used in apologetics) doesn't mean that the world we live in is as good as it is possible to be; it means that the world God created, the laws and rules He instituted (such as endowing humans with free will), and the decisions he made to intervene or not to intervene, were as good as possible. In other words the input was maximally good, even if the ultimate output was not. I don't think that Gregory Boyd would disagree with this, even if he doesn't use that specific language.

God might even agree.

I don't know what lies behind his decisions to intervene or not intervene in the freedom that he has given us. I can guess on what might move him to intervene because I know of why the reasons why he has intervened at times in my life.

But the hypothesis that G.B. begins with is that this world is better than one with unfree human beings who did no evil.

Yes, his reason is only humans that have free wills can truly love someone else.

It isn't better according to common utilitarian measurements (the ratio of pleasure to pain), but it is better in that it includes elements (like love) which aren't present in the utilitarian paradise, and which (G.B. says) are more to be valued than a higher ratio of pleasure to pain.

I read some of the Utilitarian wiki page. What is the utilitarian paradise? It didn't come up on the first page of an internet search.

Love is highly weighted by God. If humans were to follow the rule to love God and love others we would need laws any other laws.

You don't even need to be a theist to say that this world might be the better one, you just have to reject pure utilitarianism. (Which is not to say that only a pure utilitarian would deny that this is the better world; you can still feel that love and free will are to be greatly valued, but that the price people pay for them in this world is too high.)

Then I would say that the pursuit of individual happiness and pleasures in this world are the cause of its malaise and the price we pay is a direct result of a lack of love for God, people, and God's creation in general. We were not created to hate and destroy one another.

No, that was my mistake. I read, too quickly and carelessly, a passage where G.B. said:

If I’m correct, the horrendous evil we see people inflicting on each other in this world is a necessary possibility if this is to be the kind of world where love is possible.

...and in my head it came out as "a necessary feature." So, apologies to you and to Greg for that.

We all make mistakes, right? No worries.

Would God have created this world full knowing how evil it would become because of evil human actions? I'm not sure that God knew for sure the majority of humans would choose the dark path instead of his path of love. I think God knew it was possible but desired the opposite.

Using the rebellious angels as an example where 1/3 of the entire angel population followed after Satan, I suppose God must have thought about the probabilities for a possible human rebellion and the numbers that might ensue. In the Bible, God is written as someone who is passionate that everyone will be saved and come to know the truth. It must be disheartening watching as his 'children' resist his love.

Still, I find it hard to see how an apologist who offers the "free will" defense can consistently deny that horrendous evil is inevitable, To say it is not inevitable is to say that it possible for there to be a world in which we all had free will, but in which human evil was only a minor irritant. And the obvious question then would be: why then don't we live in that world? Why couldn't God arrange things so that we did?

How would he do that and still allow the freedom that is necessary for love?

My analogies don't exactly have a perfect track record here, but I'll try another anyway. There are lots of strikeouts in baseball. We could say "well, it's not Baseball's fault that a batter strikes out, it's the batter's fault. It isn't inevitable that he struck out just now; there are lots of times when batters facing the same pitcher don't strike out." But if strikeouts became so frequent that the game was no longer enjoyable to play or watch, we (or the Gods of Baseball in the Rules Committee) could do something about it. We could move the mound back. We could shrink the strike zone. We could even go back to the days when there was no such thing as a called strike, so the batter never had to take a strike on an "unhittable" pitch. Under such circumstances, there would be hardly any strikeouts.

How would God change things up and still allow the significant freedom that is necessary for love?

The question we'd ask ourselves then would be, "have we really improved the game with these changes?" But (to return from the analogy) there is basically no question that any changes which radically diminished the amount of evil in the world, while preserving the benefits of free will, would make the game of Life a better one. So, again: why doesn't God make them?

How far have you read in the book? I'm on letter 2. I plan on reading letter 3 tomorrow or Tuesday.

At the end of GB's response in Letter 2 he wrote, "If I'm correct, the horrendous evil we see people inflicting on each other in this world is a necessary possibility if this is to be the kind of world where love is possible. Even God couldn't have it any other way."

I agree with Greg here. If God could have achieved his goals (a world in which his image bearers, humans, had the freedom to love or not to love) any other way than this world, he would have done it. The only thing that I don't fully understand and would love to see changed is the existence of Satan and the fallen angels who followed him and Satan's rule over the earth. I think Adam's and Eve's choice of acting on the devil's lie doomed humanity. It is why Christ came.

 

[Caroljeen]

An agnostic would be more persuadable that God exists than a positive atheist, but might be just as resistant to persuasion that Christianity is true. But my point was that EB's objection about the evils done by the church isn't really answered by saying "when you experience God's presence and are born again, you will see what God wishes of His church." If "you'll see that this is not an insuperable problem, once you convert" is the answer to any objection, then all other apologetics arguments are redundant, aren't they?

I would say that the church EB is objecting to is not the true church of God. God knows those who belong to him and they depart from evil doing.

2 Timothy 2:19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who calls on the name of the Lord turn away from wickedness.”

What I see is that not every person who confesses Christ is a Christian because their words and actions betray their confession of knowing Jesus. Titus 1:16

So when someone blames "the church" for the many evils done in the name of God or Christ, they can't possibly be correct. Those who follow Christ would not go to war for Christ with an actual sword. To commit evil deeds and be the cause of nonbelievers blaspheming the name of Christ would be abhorrent to the believer who loves Jesus. Crimes done in the name of God are not approved by God. Those who were involved in the Inquisition, the burning of witches, and the Crusades may have thought they were doing God a favor, when in fact they were doing the wishes of Satan. In John 8:39-44 Jesus berates those so-called pious Jews who want to murder him. He tells them that they are children of Satan because they are going about doing the works of Satan.

Did I say this, "you'll see that this is not an insuperable problem, once you convert"? or something like that? I take it back if I did.

I think many atheists on CARM, if not all, see God in a negative light. They miss the God that I and many other Christians see in Jesus Christ, who is the very expression of what God is truly like. In Jesus, I recognize God as loving, kind, gentle, humble, patient, other oriented, self-sacrificial, etc...
If something is attributed to God in the Bible and it doesn't resemble the God I see in Christ, then there is obviously something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.

 

[Caroljeen]

If all the Bible said was "Jesus taught us that we should be loving and patient," then maybe that's a reasonable answer. But the Bible seems to go beyond that to say "you will be given the gifts of love and patience," which is a claim that seems empirically testable, and falsifiable.

I wish there were such things as the gifts of love and patience. Those are called the fruit of the Spirit and they come to fruition in the life of a Christ who abides in Christ. Just like natural fruit, spiritual fruit takes time to grow and mature.

Galatians 5:22 ...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control...

 

[Komodo]

God might even agree.

I don't know what lies behind his decisions to intervene or not intervene in the freedom that he has given us. I can guess on what might move him to intervene because I know of why the reasons why he has intervened at times in my life.

Yes, his reason is only humans that have free wills can truly love someone else.

I read some of the Utilitarian wiki page. What is the utilitarian paradise? It didn't come up on the first page of an internet search.

Love is highly weighted by God. If humans were to follow the rule to love God and love others we would need laws any other laws.


Then I would say that the pursuit of individual happiness and pleasures in this world are the cause of its malaise and the price we pay is a direct result of a lack of love for God, people, and God's creation in general. We were not created to hate and destroy one another.


We all make mistakes, right? No worries.

Would God have created this world full knowing how evil it would become because of evil human actions? I'm not sure that God knew for sure the majority of humans would choose the dark path instead of his path of love. I think God knew it was possible but desired the opposite.

Using the rebellious angels as an example where 1/3 of the entire angel population followed after Satan, I suppose God must have thought about the probabilities for a possible human rebellion and the numbers that might ensue. In the Bible, God is written as someone who is passionate that everyone will be saved and come to know the truth. It must be disheartening watching as his 'children' resist his love.

How would he do that and still allow the freedom that is necessary for love?

How would God change things up and still allow the significant freedom that is necessary for love?

How far have you read in the book? I'm on letter 2. I plan on reading letter 3 tomorrow or Tuesday.

At the end of GB's response in Letter 2 he wrote, "If I'm correct, the horrendous evil we see people inflicting on each other in this world is a necessary possibility if this is to be the kind of world where love is possible. Even God couldn't have it any other way."

I agree with Greg here. If God could have achieved his goals (a world in which his image bearers, humans, had the freedom to love or not to love) any other way than this world, he would have done it. The only thing that I don't fully understand and would love to see changed is the existence of Satan and the fallen angels who followed him and Satan's rule over the earth. I think Adam's and Eve's choice of acting on the devil's lie doomed humanity. It is why Christ came.

Sorry for not getting back to you here; I’m in the middle of some hectic days. Will respond soon!

 

[Komodo]

Letter 2: Response from Greg to Why is the world so full of suffering?

[. . .] GB notes to be "significantly free is to be morally responsible" for our actions. I find this aspect of his argument to be important because if God has given us a "significant" free will and we are morally responsible for what we do, then God has every right to judge us for those actions we did with the free will we have be given whether they are good or evil.

Even if this is the case, it doesn't follow that any punishment God inflicts as part of that judgment is necessarily right and just. (It may be that as an annihilationist you actually agree with that.)

GB reminded EB that God "structured things to be this way because the alternative would be to have a race of robots who can't genuinely love--but that is hardly worth creating, is it?"

Isn't this "alternative" a great oversimplification? I assume I have as much free will as anybody, but I also have a certain set of desires, and a certain set of things that repel me. This means, for example, that I have never found myself with a desire to humiliate my students for my own gratification, even to the extent I could get away with it. Still less would I have any desire to become a dictator or conqueror. I'm sure this is true of the majority of our species. If it were universally true, we would be rid of a great deal of evil. Would we really be a race of robots if God made certain it was universally true?

"So why doesn't God intervene every time someone is going to misuse his freedom and hurt another person?"

GB states it has to do with the nature of freedom itself. "A freedom which is prevented from being exercised whenever it was going to be misused simply wouldn't be freedom."

Not only the Bible, but almost all the believers I've heard/read telling of their experiences, recounts story after story in which God does intervene to prevent His people from coming to harm. Why isn't this an intolerable interference with human freedom?

(Sorry again for the delay. We're planning a long trip, and you probably know what that can be like.)

 

[Komodo]

I read some of the Utilitarian wiki page. What is the utilitarian paradise? It didn't come up on the first page of an internet search.

It's not a specific thing in utilitarian philosophy, so far as I know. I was just saying that, to a utilitarian (or at least to one who defined "the greatest good" in terms of pleasure) the best possible world (IOW "Paradise") would be one in which there was the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain, as in Brave New World. Of course Huxley meant that in large part as a parody or reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism, because he (and most of his readers) though it was actually a horrible world, one to be avoided,

I think my response to your other points here appear already in my post above, the one about EB's letter #2, but please let me know if there's anything else you want my thoughts on.

 

[Komodo]

Did I say this, "you'll see that this is not an insuperable problem, once you convert"? or something like that? I take it back if I did.

No you did not, but EB was asking, roughly, "why does God permit these Christians to do such evil in His name," and your response is that they are not true Christians, because Christians actually know the love of God and are motivated to do good in His name. But this is not something which a non-convert can be expected to see.