Carol Platt Liebau has written a column titled “Sarah Palin’s Problem”. Other than the title, the column is a mostly unobjectionable look at Palin’s public relations faux pas’ (the decision to let Bristol give an interview is the focus). Unsurprisingly, the column drew a lot of heat. Liebau seems puzzled by this. She writes in her blog:
The reaction to my piece, as reflected in some of the comments, has been interesting. It’s remarkable, and a little sad, that many readers interpret any criticism of Sarah Palin — however gentle or well-intentioned — as tantamount to betrayal of the conservative movement.
I don’t find it at all remarkable. The Republican Party has just seen the end of the Presidency of George W. Bush a man who, for all his many admirable qualities, has battered the conservative movement. He has not only embraced agendas and policies hostile to conservatism, but he’s exercised such a gargantuan influence on Republican politics, that most of the major Republican players have been co-opted to his version of conservatism. Few hands are left unbloodied; nearly all have taken up the lash in the service of government largess. To add to our woes, we’re now powerless to combat a radically liberal agenda. A more drastic political collapse can scarcely be imagined.
But, nature abhors a vacuum. If we’re powerless by necessity, we won’t be rudderless by choice. For millions of conservatives, in the absence of any spirited conservative direction, Palin is that rudder. Sure, she has problems of her own, but she’s authentic and confident; two things the modern Republican Party decidedly isn’t. There’s a good bit, in the otherwise mediocre film The American President, where Michael J. Fox says something like “The people are thirsty for leadership, and in the absence of water they’ll drink the sand”. The people who criticize Sarah Palin, occasionally have valid arguments, but they’re missing the point. If perhaps some of Sarah Palin is sand, or muddied water, she’s at least something and she knows it; the Republican Party is practically nothing and it doesn’t. And if folks like Liebau- well-meaning though they may be- want conservatives to take a more critical look at one of our few stars, they ought to focus on irrigating GOP deserts. Then, maybe the folks looking for leadership won’t need to drink the sand.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 pm
how do you know she’s authentic? that seems like an opinion thing. she doesnt seem authentic to me.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Sand is tasty. That bodes well.
And it’s “other than the title. You’re such a wonderful writer, but you get so hung up on then/than and they’re/their/there. It’s kind of funny.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
An abhorrent article, though.
You’re telling me that it’s my job to put forward something better if I don’t like Palin. It’s like when theists say to atheists “Well, what created the Earth then, if God didn’t!?” Well, I don’t know, and I’m content not to know. And I’m content to wait for the next great leader. I’m not going to put a hubristic halfwit like Palin on a pedestal in the meantime.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Matthew, I’m probably the last guy on earth who should bring up grammer issues with you but, dude,
“alot” …not a word my friend.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
There isn’t a vacuum, Matthew. We don’t have to drink sand, we have people like Romney, Jindal, Sanford, and others to look to for leadership.
I’m glad you linked to this, though. Libeau’s right on the money with this:
“By now, it’s obvious that Sarah Palin has many of the qualities that would make her a compelling leader – most notably, an enviable degree of self-confidence. But self-confidence unsupported by judgment, knowledge and savvy is nothing but arrogance.”
If that doesn’t describe Palin, I don’t know what does.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
mac — It’s grammar! And yes, it’s “a lot.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Alex,
No one is asking you to put her on a pedestal, but we deal in facts here. It is a fact that whole groups of Republicans react viscerally to any criticism of Palin. You might, if you like, say “well, they ought not do that” or “through biting repartee, disdain, and a dazzling intellect, I’ll convince them not to do that”. You might. But, if you’re actually interested in moving them, you should consider why they feel the way they do. And the first thing you might come to is that, if the Republican Party seems content to follow a “hubristic halfwit”, then perhaps it’s because, in its current state of disarray, hubristic halfwittery is the best it can do. Wait your heart out, but don’t complain when the masses don’t “wise up”.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I can’t move them. No one can. The Palinbots are absolutely unmovable. You’re right — they’re desperate.
All I can do is wait for someone better to come along. Jindal? He’s not very hot, though.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
The article is fundamentally flawed in that the interview was Bristol’s idea. If the author had actually watched the interview she would have heard that Bristol “sprung” it on the governor.
Granted, I agree the interview was a fiasco. Bristol was nervous as hell, probably said some things she regrets, and had to be saved by her mother in short order. But it was Bristol’s choice (she is an adult), and suddenly having doubts about Sarah Palin over it is just ignorant.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
3
“It’s like when theists say to atheists “Well, what created the Earth then, if God didn’t!?” Well, I don’t know, and I’m content not to know.”
Alex, I don’t doubt for a second the sky high IQ and all, but is it logical to be “content” believing (or not believing) in something that has no narrative? ‘In the beginning was nothing, then there was something…from nothing, and from that inanimate something came life and a bunch of other unexplainable things like gravity, symmetry and order (from or coexisting with disorder).
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
6
lol! At least I added the disclaimer!
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Matthew
I haven’t been able to figure out what people like about Palin so much. I’m not going to say she’s not intelligent or not capable like some. But to be honest, I see the same thing in inflammatory shock-jocks like Coulter and Limbaugh: I’m not sure what the draw is, but they sure get a certain group of people excited, while completely turning off other groups.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
mac, I would assume that they are just natural. But there is no evidence that it came about from anything other than natural processes. I’m content simply to assume that it’s natural and not to subscribe to the “God of the Gaps” mentality. Saying it came from a supernatural force just begs the question: why then, Christianity? Why not deism? Hinduism? A tribal spirituality? Competing gods? Zeus? Where did this supernatural force with the ability to create universes come from? It’s considerably easier for me to wrap my mind around saying that natural forces created the universe — since we know that natural forces exist — than to say that a supernatural being with both the knowledge and the means to create infinitely complex universes popped out of nowhere or simply “always existed.” (Turtles all the way down!)
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
mac
Take it from a creationist who also strongly respects science: it’s very very easy to believe that “symmetry and order” came from nothing, if you are willing to consider that it’s taken place over billions of years.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
also, i don’t believe science necessarily states that “something” came from “nothing”.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
natural processes = more something from nothing.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
15
Where did the something come from? Natural processes?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Again, mac, it’s difficult to wrap the mind around it, either way, but since natural processes are confirmed as existing, I am willing to accept an unspecified natural process as the cause.
It is absolutely incredible in the literal sense of the word — not credible — to think that a supernatural spirit with the knowledge and means to make universes popped up out of nowhere. Moreover, even if I did believe that, I’d just be a deist, anyway, and my life would not change whatsoever. What’s important is that I have rejected religion.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
“Something” has always existed. Matter is eternal. Doesn’t seem so implausible to be. Are you going to tell me God hasn’t always existed?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Alex,
What in the world could you mean by “natural”, outside of (prior to) time and space? Natural means, literally, of or pertaining to nature. Nature is, of course, the universe. Natural forces created nature? Natural forces all the way down?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Doesn’t seem so implausible to *me*
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
12:
What evidence is there that Palin is in it for shock value? It seems to me the liberal vision of a fire-breathing theologically driven conservative is just a construct.
Really, she’s just a typical conservative politician whose ideology is well within the party’s mainstream and whose rhetoric is mostly folksy attacks on the status quo.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
What evidence is there that Palin is in it for shock value?
I don’t think her reasons for being “in it” are any different from any other politician’s. What I mean is that this is why she is so popular among certain groups.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“What’s important is that I have rejected religion.”
That’s honest and I respect your decision, but still pray for you.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
What in the world could you mean by “natural”, outside of (prior to) time and space? Natural means, literally, of or pertaining to nature. Nature is, of course, the universe. Natural forces created nature? Natural forces all the way down?
Gods of Abraham all the way down?
Either the world came out through natural causes or it came about through supernatural causes.
I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that since there’s no evidence of the supernatural, it’s due to natural causes.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Your argument basically rests on word games. “How can it be natural causes!? Did nature create nature!? Hah! It was the Father of Jesus Christ, then!”
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
#3 An abhorrent article? jerk
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Gamecock, good Lord. It was hyperbole.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Are you going to tell me God hasn’t always existed?
God created the heavens and the earth (matter), He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. God Himself is ‘pre-matter’ He has said “Before there was, I AM.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Alex: The Epitome of Hyperbole
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Alex,
“Either the world came out through natural causes or it came about through supernatural causes.
I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that since there’s no evidence of the supernatural, it’s due to natural causes.”
I’d say two things to this. First, it’s not clear to me why an eternal natural system would be, in any meaningful sense, natural. Something which is its own cause (or ground)- and I don’t quite see how such a system could escape being its own cause- is by definition supernatural. But, perhaps this is just a linguistic shell game, so I won’t belabor the point.
But, the second thing I’d say is that, insofar as we have evidence, the actual universe doesn’t seem to be it’s own cause; it doesn’t seem to be eternal. You can posit, as many atheists do, that perhaps there are multiple universes, or continually expanding and contracting universes- string theory is interesting stuff- but once you’ve moved the ball in this fashion, it seems to me that you’re moving into territory more fanciful then traditional deities.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Alex,
I think you are the one playing word games with “natural.” you suggest that all of this extraordinary order is simply “natural.” In other words, it simply “is.” But that presents the problem mac suggested. There is really no explanation, no narrative on your part. Effectively you are saying “there is gravity because there is. There is logic because their is. There is rhythm because there is. There are predictable patterns to the universe because there is.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
mac
I’m not saying God didn’t always exist. I believe He always has. Just as I believe matter has always existed, in one form or another.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Alex,
Is it natural for an effect to be uncaused?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
33
Fred you can believe whatever you want bro, but if you’re a Christian “creationist” you are wrong.
Creation is s(after) the Creator.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
35
mouse issues
Creation is secondary (after) the Creator.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
God created the heavens and the earth (matter), He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. God Himself is ‘pre-matter’ He has said “Before there was, I AM.”
Well, yes, I suppose you can quote the Bible to prove the Bible’s accuracy if you want to…
Is it natural for an effect to be uncaused?
I have no idea what the cause was. Is it okay to be ignorant of something? I say yes, you say no and therefore believe in the God of the Gaps.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
36
dumb issues
*to* the Creator.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I think you are the one playing word games with “natural.” you suggest that all of this extraordinary order is simply “natural.” In other words, it simply “is.” But that presents the problem mac suggested. There is really no explanation, no narrative on your part. Effectively you are saying “there is gravity because there is. There is logic because their is. There is rhythm because there is. There are predictable patterns to the universe because there is.”
No I’m not. I’m saying that I don’t know because it happened a billion years ago. Someday I’ll be sure to whip out my time machine to get the answers for you. We know that nature exists, so I will assume that there is some cause in nature that got the state of the universe to where it is.
In the meantime, you’re choosing to believe in supernatural forces — and not just supernatural forces, but a specific one laid out in a holy book! — when literally no evidence exists for its authenticity.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
There are around 250,000 species of beetles.
As has been noted: God must have quite the inordinate fondness for beetles.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
You’ve got to be kidding. What a pointless argument to have.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
mac, no, I do not subscribe to the idea of an ex nihilo creation.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Alex,
“It is absolutely incredible in the literal sense of the word — not credible — to think that a supernatural spirit with the knowledge and means to make universes popped up out of nowhere.”
According to Christianity and Judaism, God always was, or more accurately, always IS. The fact that we cannot conceive of “time before time” or the infinite does not make the explanation implausible, just impossible to fully comprehend. And that, to my mind, is necessary. Intuitively, I think it is implausible to assume that man is capable of comprehending everything that is. Therefore, any theory that demands complete comprehension is to my mind….. implausible.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
#12 I started liking Palin two years ago when I saw her on Cspan and saw that she shared all conservative values; was right on every issue and had acheived so much in Alaska as a Governor.
That said, I am shocked that she let Bristol do this interview.
more later
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
37
“Well, yes, I suppose you can quote the Bible to prove the Bible’s accuracy if you want to…”
It’s that narrative I mentioned earlier: Cause and effect. Seems natural and logical to me.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
“There are around 250,000 species of beetles.
As has been noted: God must have quite the inordinate fondness for beetles.”
And…………..?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
According to Christianity and Judaism, God always was, or more accurately, always IS.
Christianity also asserts that the Lord of the Universe created 250,000 species of beetles — and that’s just since the time of Noah! Why?
The fact that we cannot conceive of “time before time” or the infinite does not make the explanation implausible, just impossible to fully comprehend.
Well, gosh, that certainly makes it easy to escape the conundrum of having to use evidence, doesn’t it?
And that, to my mind, is necessary. Intuitively, I think it is implausible to assume that man is capable of comprehending everything that is. Therefore, any theory that demands complete comprehension is to my mind….. implausible.
That certainly opens quite the Pandora’s Box.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
#28 good
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Alex,
“when literally no evidence exists for its authenticity.”
I guess that depends on what you consider “evidence,” and what you mean by “authenticity.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Gamecock
I can understand if you’re drawn to those certain characteristics. However, do you think that’s the same thing that draws her most rabid supporters?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
The human body is embarrassingly defective. No self-respecting omniscient Creator would make such a shoddy piece of work.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 pm
You’ve got to be kidding. What a pointless argument to have.
Welcome to the world of Republican politics in 2009.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 pm
I guess that depends on what you consider “evidence,” and what you mean by “authenticity.”
Evidence = Something that supports the authenticity — or correctness — of something else.
If you want me to believe that the Bible’s words are truly divinely inspired, you need to give me a reason for it. Why the Bible and not the Qur’an? They can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Alex,
“Christianity also asserts that the Lord of the Universe created 250,000 species of beetles — and that’s just since the time of Noah! Why?”
I dunno’. I’m not God. And that’s really at the heart of a lot of your (and other atheits’) objections. They start from the premise, “If I were God then……….. but since that’s not the way it is, God must not exist.”
It’s a really dumb premise. It’s like saying, “If I were President, there’d be a balanced budget. Since there is no balanced budget, a President must not exist.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Alex,
I’ve conceded that this is partly linguistic, but it’s also strictly rational. Naturalism, by definition, requires that events be explicable in terms of causes. An uncaused thing, or a thing which is its own cause would be, whatever else it is, not “natural”.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
#44 – Palin is right on amnesty? Wall Street greed? When she says she likes to walk across the aisle to get something done for the American people? When she lobbyied for the stimulus? I could go on. Her conservatism is more imagination than reality, in many cases.
She’s been gov for 2 years. Her accomplishments are minimal.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
The human body is embarrassingly defective. No self-respecting omniscient Creator would make such a shoddy piece of work.
The human body is simultaneously frail and amazing. Perhaps a this condition in mortality was God’s intention for us?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
MWS,
They’re, to borrow a Lewis phrase, putting God in the Dock.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I’ve conceded that this is partly linguistic, but it’s also strictly rational. Naturalism, by definition, requires that events be explicable in terms of causes. An uncaused thing, or a thing which is its own cause would be, whatever else it is, not “natural”.
I have no idea how the universe as it is came to be as it is.
That doesn’t mean that I’m going to turn around and embrace the God of the Gaps.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Alex,
“The human body is embarrassingly defective. No self-respecting omniscient Creator would make such a shoddy piece of work.”
See #54, and the silliness of the “If I were God premise.”
“If I were God, we’d all like ice cream.”
“If I were God, I would make 3 eyed people that could fly and substitute farts for long hand division.”
“If I were God, everything in Australia would be pink, and people would cry only if they were suspicious.”
“If I were God…….”
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The human body is simultaneously frail and amazing. Perhaps a this condition in mortality was God’s intention for us?
A fascinating game of rationalization. When everything is in God’s plan, no apparent defect can really be a defect, because God made it that way. But why would God make something so patently absurd? Well, that must be part of his plan. Why did God give us frail bodies? Well, that must be part of what makes mortality so important; it’s all in His plan, after all. And on and on it goes. It’s like a game of Whack-a-Mole; you think you’ve bashed the mole’s head in, but out he pops in another hole with another fallacy.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
60 – So goes the rationalization game. “Sure, God made a whole bunch of useless creatures in astoundingly weird numbers, but hey, if God likes beetles, who am I to question God? Hey — if God’s a beetle man, then so am I! Beetles rule! Love, love me do…oh wait.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
it’s all in His plan, after all. And on and on it goes.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Man did this thread go in a boring direction.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Alex,
So how would God have made people, if He exists?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
42
Well, again, that seems to be exactly what you and Alex are arguing: something from nothing.
To me, Alpha and the Omega means everything, not nothing. Everything was and is through and by Him.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
God made spines that are faulty?
Useless tonsils?
The useless appendix?
Eyes that go bad at an early age, for some?
An omniscient God can’t explain that.
Evolution can.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
This is what Palin and Romney have in common (besides nice hair, that is). Another thing they have in common is groups who get quite angry over any praise.
My observation is that most of the people who go nuts over any praise of Palin are the same ones who go nuts over any criticism of Romney. I’m not sure if the Palin fanatics get as angry over praise of Romney — perhaps they do.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Alex,
Maybe if you were omniscient, beetles would be more fascinating to you.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Alex,
“If you want me to believe that the Bible’s words are truly divinely inspired, you need to give me a reason for it. Why the Bible and not the Qur’an? They can’t all be right.”
There are a number of people who have endeavored to do just that: they’re called Christian apologists or theologians. They’ve taken all manner of routes in this pursuit. They’ve used history, reason, intuition. They’ve made philosophical arguments. If you want us to rehash all of them at midnight, on a political forum, you’re bound to be disappointed. But, you’re far too bright to say “why, there are a lot of religions. They make competing claims. Hah, toss them all”. You might as well say, “why, there are a lot of beliefs on inherent freedom. They make competing claims. Hah, toss them all”.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Trust me, this is a lot easier to understand if you believe in an omniscient God.
Oh no, I know exactly what you’re doing and where you’re coming from! I have relatives that are quite religious and I’m used to all of this from the discussions that we’ve had. I grew up with all of this. Went to Sunday School every week, was the youngest lector that the church had, did the Christmas readings every year at church, sang in the choir and did solos, volunteered at Vacation Bible School to help with the kids, was the Pastor’s Favorite…
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
There are a number of people who have endeavored to do just that: they’re called Christian apologists or theologians. They’ve taken all manner of routes in this pursuit. They’ve used history, reason, intuition. They’ve made philosophical arguments. If you want us to rehash all of them at midnight, on a political forum, you’re bound to be disappointed. But, you’re far too bright to say “why, there are a lot of religions. They make competing claims. Hah, toss them all”. You might as well say, “why, there are a lot of believes on inherent freedom. They make competing claims. Hah, toss them all”.
Political philosophy stems from opinion. It’s about abstractions; ideas. The debate over religion is no such thing: they seek to show very concrete things about the world — what’s objectively true and what isn’t. It’s not a war of ideas. Religions are more comparable to sciences in that sense, if illegitimate ones.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
#7 and #8
Conservatives love Palin for many reasons, but the main two are that she is right on most all issues and that she is unapologetic about it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Alex,
#67,
There little question in my mind that the form and function of the human body has changed over time. But the whole premise of “faulty” is a value laden one that presupposes a standard to which God- were He to exist- must adhere, as the very standard of his existence.
“If I were God, porcupines would sprout from pine cones and the poles would be warmer than the equator. “
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
53
“If you want me to believe that the Bible’s words are truly divinely inspired, you need to give me a reason for it. Why the Bible and not the Qur’an? They can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.”
Christianity is the only religion in which God reaches down and saves man (grace). All other religions reach up to God (works).
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
I think, MWS, that it’s pretty easy to deem eyes that lose their ability to see as faulty, given that the function of the things are to see out of them. (Also, isn’t the logical conclusion of what you’re saying that glasses are anti-God?)
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Alex,
I think your clinching argument has to be, “If there were a God, beetles would be more interesting!”
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Christianity is the only religion in which God reaches down and saves man (grace). All other religions reach up to God (works).
Cool. But the Qur’an says that that’s a ridiculous concept and that I should reject it. Who do I believe?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
#70 and 71
Read CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity and the Pope’s Regensberg speech to see that it is unfair to lump all religions into the same basket in terms of what is their effect on a society.
The West is more tolerant than the East due to Christianity.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Alex,
” that it’s pretty easy to deem eyes that lose their ability to see as faulty”
In a sense, yes. But things break on people all the time. BTW, aren’t you the SLIGHTEST impressed by the eye to begin with?
Anyway, it is hardly news that things break on people, and that people die. If that’s the argument du jure of the atheists, come back and try again tomorroe.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
64
Thomas Alan,
Here’s a retread from the last thread:
Sarah is to politics as Anna K. is to tennis.
Feel better;)?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
The West is more tolerant than the East due to Christianity.
Sure, I’ll accept that. But that has nothing to do with whether it’s true.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
In a sense, yes. But things break on people all the time. BTW, aren’t you the SLIGHTEST impressed by the eye to begin with?
I’m highly unimpressed with it if it comes from a being that apparently knows everything and can do anything. In fact, it strikes me as rather malicious: he can make the perfect eye but refused to? Geez. Who got up on the wrong side of the universe today?
Anyway, it is hardly news that things break on people, and that people die. If that’s the argument du jure of the atheists, come back and try again tomorroe.
It’s not about “breaking.” Some people’s eyes just mess up. Some people’s appendices are just faulty. It just happens. No where or why to it. Just happens. God made it that way because..?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Alex,
“Political philosophy stems from opinion. It’s about abstractions; ideas. The debate over religion is no such thing: they seek to show very concrete things about the world — what’s objectively true and what isn’t. It’s not a war of ideas. Religions are more comparable to sciences in that sense, if illegitimate ones.”
This is nonsense, and I suspect you know it. When you speak about liberty, you don’t simply mean “this is some idea, I happen to have in my head. I’m speaking about it because, while I’m here, I might as well speak about something. I might as well not, also. Either/Or and all that”. Or I rather doubt you mean that. Instead, you believe that when you’re speaking about liberties and freedoms, you’re describing something that actually corresponds to the way the world ACTUALLY is. I.e, that we “ought” to treat people such and such a way, not simply that we may, as our synapses happen to dictate at any given moment. Precious few of us think of these things in terms of mere opinion.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Alex,
“God made it that way because..?”
In a sense, man made it that way, because all creation fell because of orginial sin. In heaven, our bodies are perfected. In the meantime, our frail, broken bodies prompt us to rely upon God more, and hope for our eventual perfection.
I don’t expect any of that to be persuasive to you, because before you get to explanations of PURPOSE, there has to be an acknowledgment of the Creator. It’s like asking how calculus works without accepting addition. Or demanding an explanation for Mary’s Immaculate Conception when you completely reject the notion of God to begin with.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
#78 CS Lewis and the Pope both answer that in a general way by showing how Chrstianity’s values affirm reason. I know this relates more to the EFFECT of the moral teachings than the miracles, but it does lend credibility.
I watched the PBS show on Thomas Jefferson last night and it shows how Christianity has two uses. One is the eternal destination of your soul, but also how its values shape a society, and that its effect on the civil society was something that all the founders values, even if they didn’t beleive in the miracles.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
This is nonsense, and I suspect you know it. When you speak about liberty, you don’t simply mean “this is some idea, I happen to have in my head. I’m speaking about it because, while I’m here, I might as well speak about something. I might as well not, also. Either/Or and all that”. Or I rather doubt you mean that. Instead, you believe that when you’re speaking about liberties and freedoms, you’re describing something that actually corresponds to the way the world ACTUALLY is. I.e, that we “ought” to treat people such and such a way, not simply that we may, as our synapses happen to dictate at given moment. This is hardly mere opinion.
I’m honestly not getting your point. I believe in what I believe in for a reason, but I in no way claim that it is objective truth. I start with certain axioms, state certain objectives, and then talk about how to get there. People can’t even agree on what objectives are worth reaching. But of course, there is no way to show which is objectively better. At the end of the day, it’s still an opinion, as idiotic as the other opinions might be. It doesn’t work that way in religion. You can’t say “Christ is the Son of God and I acknowledge the Trinity, but I’m also willing to acknowledge that Muhammad was a prophet, even if he was a really minor, stupid one!”
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
So getting back to my previous question, if God exists, how would the world be? Because most of your objections seem to center on the premise that things are not how you think must be, were God to exist.
So you play God, and tell me how God woulda’ done it, if he existed?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
In a sense, man made it that way, because all creation fell because of orginial sin. In heaven, our bodies are perfected. In the meantime, our frail, broken bodies prompt us to rely upon God more, and hope for our eventual perfection. I don’t expect any of that to be persuasive to you, because before you get to explanations of PURPOSE, there has to be an acknowledgment of the Creator. It’s like asking how calculus works without accepting addition. Or demanding an explanation for Mary’s Immaculate Conception when you completely reject the notion of God to begin with.
Well, certainly, it all makes sense with a Christian framework, which extols collectivism (“Original Sin” is a collectivist concept: I am being punished for what Adam and Eve did — thanks a lot, assholes), the validity of miracles, etc. But yes, you are correct: it’s like asking me to accept calculus before I have been shown that addition is valid.
Question: do you believe that prayer has helped cure cancer patients before?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
So getting back to my previous question, if God exists, how would the world be? Because most of your objections seem to center on the premise that things are not how you think must be, were God to exist. So you play God, and tell me how God woulda’ done it, if he existed?
Which God? The god of the Bible, the god of the Qur’an (yes, yes, they’re both the God of Abraham, but Islam holds that the Bible was ‘corrupted’), the god of Hinduism, the god of some African tribe, the god of…
All of them say ‘faith’ is what must be held to at the end of the day.
Well, that does me no good, as an objective observer.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
#82 Not understanding how you can agree and then say “its” not true. Do you mean that you don’t think Christianity played a major role in what the west is? Surely you can’t mean that. Don’t you argue against your percieved negative effects of Christianity on the West?
You simply must read
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/15/religion.uk
One more comment: The whole turn the other cheek concept’s effect.
Ok, some more:
The Jews changed western society when they emerged. They introduced the concept of moral law. The hatred of them throughout history is a function of this and of the effect of trying to excel and adhere to that law, which has been that they have excelled and been resented for it.
Christians in the early church in the roman empire were known for their moral lifestyle and how they loved each other. They changed society to be more civilized which paved the way for liberty.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Alex,
No, the way God MUST be- in your mind- for him to exist. Most of your objections are premised on the notion that things are not how they “ought” to be if God exists. I’m not asking you to write an apologia for some particular religion, I’m asking you how YOU think the world would be if God existed, because your premise demands that God conform to some standard you obviously have in your mind. I’m asking you to share that standard.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Alex,
“do you believe that prayer has helped cure cancer patients before?”
yes.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:00 am
#82 Not understanding how you can agree and then say “its” not true. Do you mean that you don’t think Christianity played a major role in what the west is? Surely you can’t mean that. Don’t you argue against your percieved negative effects of Christianity on the West?
No, I mean that the utility of and the validity of the truth of religion are two very different things.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:01 am
No, the way God MUST be- in your mind- for him to exist. Most of your objections are premised on the notion that things are not how they “ought” to be if God exists. I’m not asking you to write an apologia for some particular religion, I’m asking you how YOU think the world would be if God existed, because your premise demands that God conform to some standard you obviously have in your mind. I’m asking you to share that standard.
We’ll get to that after we’ve gotten some evidence that he even exists.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:02 am
#92 brilliant point that CS Lewis makes in Mere
where does this idea of what “ought” to be come from and what God would obviously be if there was one
Alex, answer that!
#87 An example of objective truth.
I put a candle under a hat. A friend approaches. He doesn’t beleive there is a candle under the hat. I do. I am right.
Alex, there is a God or there is not. And if there is, he gets to be God. He gets to define the rules, and for all we know he is bound by certain rules, one of which that if his goal is to create sins that can freely love him, that there is aprocess required to produce same, which we call life.
more later
February 24th, 2009 at 12:02 am
OK, OK, that’ll come off as evasive to you –
I would refer you back to what I said about the eye.
It was meant to see.
Why does it fail?
I would refer you back to my 83.
I think it shows that God is malicious, if your version of him exists.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:03 am
93 – So why doesn’t God ever help out any amputees? Why is it just self-limiting illnesses?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Does God think that cancer patients are simply more deserving than amputee patients of having their prayers answered?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:04 am
#96 sons not sins
February 24th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Gamecock is right: one of us really is correct, and one of us really isn’t. Either God exists or he doesn’t. One of us is really going to win this argument one day, and one of us is really going to lose.
#92 brilliant point that CS Lewis makes in Mere – where does this idea of what “ought” to be come from and what God would obviously be if there was one
From the human experience, obviously. The eye ought to function flawlessly as a seeing device because it is manifestly obvious that that is what its function is. And if God is omniscient and able to do anything he wants, then why the hell doesn’t he just make a functioning eye? Besides the fact that he knew I’d look great with glasses, of course.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Alex,
And the heart was meant to pump blood. Why does it fail?
The point here is that whatever standard for God you have created in your mind is extremely relevant, because your whole reason for rejecting Him centers on your notion that things aren’t as they should be, were He to exist.
So far, we know that your standard includes the ideas that eyes shouldn’t fail, and there shouldn’t be 250,000 species of beetles.
Anything else?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Alex,
“So why doesn’t God ever help out any amputees? Why is it just self-limiting illnesses?”
He does all the time. Just not in the way you think he “ought.”
February 24th, 2009 at 12:09 am
#97 God gets to be God.
Now, I always find it curious that people hate or reject God because of suffering but never give him credit for happiness and life itself.
God has a plan, a goal, and he made the ultimate sacrifice to acheive it and knew he would have to when he started the process.
He wanted to create sons and daughters that could fellowship with him forever. That process of turning matter into such a being requires life and death and also required that God become like us and die.
please Alex, read Mere Christianity and get back to me
February 24th, 2009 at 12:11 am
He does all the time. Just not in the way you think he “ought.”
Ah, so cancer patients are deserving of being healed physically, but amputees are worthy of being healed spiritually. But not the other way around..? Is that it? Or what?
Alex, And the heart was meant to pump blood. Why does it fail?
Good question. Why do eight-year-olds get cancer? The list of malicious injustices God created can go on and on and on…oh, and remember that time he flooded the Earth? Killed more people than Hitler, he did! If he knows the future, shouldn’t he have known he’d regret it?
The point here is that whatever standard for God you have created in your mind is extremely relevant, because your whole reason for rejecting Him centers on your notion that things aren’t as they should be, were He to exist. So far, we know that your standard includes the ideas that eyes shouldn’t fail, and there shouldn’t be 250,000 species of beetles.
I understand your point, but I would also like to know why God made the appendix.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Alex,
“Does God think that cancer patients are simply more deserving than amputee patients of having their prayers answered?”
Honestly, many Christians struggle with the notion of why God answers some prayers in the way the petitioner wants, and not others. Ultimately, it is up to God, and as a finite being, I cannot always understand- much less judge- the purposes of an infinite being.
So the short answer (and the most accurate) is I don’t know. Often, people understand later why God didn’t give them the answer the wanted in their petition. Sometimes they understand in this life. Sometimes the next. Sometimes never. But God’s existence, and his goodness, is not premised on any of our understanding.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:13 am
This is not a strictly Christian concept, but I don’t think it’s incompatible with Christianity. Think of a novelist. He creates characters with varying joys and miseries. Reversals occur, tragedies ensue, etc, etc. Now, he could, of course, write a novel in which the hero never dies; where characters never suffer; where human beings live in perpetual bliss. It would be a happy novel, no doubt, but a poor one, without any of the meat that goes into good stories. Perhaps, Gods trick was to get the richness without abandoning the happiness. In creation God let man control his own story. In sin, man fell. In the incarnation, man was given an out; a way to that eternal happiness, which preserves the richness and elegance of a story. I don’t claim that this represents reality, but merely that it gives us a way to think about the question which at least partly deals with the problem of imperfection, pain, etc. It is hardly self-evident that a good, all-powerful God ought to have created a world which couldn’t go wrong.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Alex, if you view this mortal life as the only time period when justice must be made, then yes, it is very unjust. However, a lot of people believe that mortality is only a part of the timeline of our existence.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Now, I always find it curious that people hate or reject God because of suffering but never give him credit for happiness and life itself.
Because happiness and life make sense in both an atheistic and Christian context. Suffering makes sense in an atheistic context, but not in one in which an all-loving, omniscient being who can do anything he wants presides over the universe.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:15 am
#101 You mean “omnipotent” and I think you have focused correctly on a false claim about God. But before I address that claim about God, you must recognize the import of your agreement with me above.
There either is a God or there is not, and what humans say about him doesn’t change that fact.
There is a famous refutation of the omnipotent claim which is that “Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?”
The point I would make is the limitations of language and also the point I make about the required process to create sons that can live forever.
So yes, I would say that the term Omnipotent is quite flawed.
Alex, you ask the right questions and you simply must read some of the great thinkers that have addressed them.
CS Lewis
February 24th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Alex,
God is not “malicious” for taking life. God created life. God is the sovereign of life. It all belongs to him. No, God is not malicious or arbitrary, or capricious, but ultimately, there is no difference between God taking one person’s life in a flood, and another because of cancer. It all comes from Him, and belongs to Him.
As to the notion of God “regretting,” there are multiple possible connotations in that word, and my sense is that the best English word for the Hebrew original probably doesn’t fully convey the meaning. But it does not mean, as some suppose, that God thought He made a mistake.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:17 am
This is not a strictly Christian concept, but I don’t think it’s incompatible with Christianity. Think of a novelist. He creates characters with varying joys and miseries. Reversals occur, tragedies ensue, etc, etc. Now, he could, of course, write a novel in which the hero never dies; where characters never suffer; where human beings live in perpetual bliss. It would be a happy novel, no doubt, but a poor one, without any of the meat that goes into good stories. Perhaps, Gods trick was to get the richness without abandoning the happiness. In creation God let man control his own story. In sin, man fell. In the incarnation, man was given an out; a way to that eternal happiness, which preserves the richness and elegance of a story. I don’t claim that this represents reality, but merely that it gives us a way to think about the question which at least partly deals with the problem of imperfection, pain, etc. It is hardly self-evident that a good, all-powerful God ought to have created a world which couldn’t go wrong.
You’ve unwittingly revealed the horrific contempt that Christianity holds for mankind.
Kids with cancer, genocide, miscarriages, Down Syndrome — it’s all part of making things exciting and interesting! Because gosh, everyone living happily sure would make for a boring story, wouldn’t it?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:19 am
As to the notion of God “regretting,” there are multiple possible connotations in that word, and my sense is that the best English word for the Hebrew original probably doesn’t fully convey the meaning. But it does not mean, as some suppose, that God thought He made a mistake.
Fair enough — the Bible does not actually say that he regretted it. Just that he intended never to do it again.
But I can apply the same concept — God knowing the future — and say that God intentionally brings people into the world knowing full well that they will reject Jesus and go to Hell. Free will and God’s omniscience are quite incompatible.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Because gosh, everyone living happily sure would make for a boring story, wouldn’t it?
Depends on what you believe the purpose for this stretch of life is…
February 24th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Alex,
“Suffering makes sense in an atheistic context, but not in one in which an all-loving, omniscient being who can do anything he wants presides over the universe.”
Suffering makes sense in a Catholic context as well. I’m sure my Protestant brethren would say the same about their context, but Matthew speaks to that context quite well in #107. Basically, man screwed up, but God throws us a lifeline. That lifeline does not immediately transport us to Shangra’ La, but lends a redemptive quality to the injustice and suffering that we experience here.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:22 am
You mean “omnipotent” and I think you have focused correctly on a false claim about God. But before I address that claim about God, you must recognize the import of your agreement with me above. There either is a God or there is not, and what humans say about him doesn’t change that fact. There is a famous refutation of the omnipotent claim which is that “Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?” The point I would make is the limitations of language and also the point I make about the required process to create sons that can live forever. So yes, I would say that the term Omnipotent is quite flawed. Alex, you ask the right questions and you simply must read some of the great thinkers that have addressed them. CS Lewis
The “rock too heavy” question is silly; the rebuttal, which I am familiar with, is correct, within a Christian framework: it’s contrary to his nature. The question, unfortunately for you, is not what I asked.
Oops. Yes, omnipotent. I’ve been talking about the two so much that it’s easy to mistype them.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:22 am
#109 How suffering makes sense.
Think of how you grow in wisdom. It is more often from suffering, from touching a hot stove to the consequences of being mean to a friend. Better atheletes become better thru physical suffering. You are a better academic and thinker for your suffering thru hard work than playing.
Now, try and apply this (and I admit this is beyond us as humans) to the task of creating a holy being?
You see, I think that God is subject to a cosmic calculus.
Lewis describes the process as we would describe the process of turning a tin soldier or a dog into an equal with us.
Paul Harvey has a famous story of birds a farmer feard would die in a storm and how that if only he could be a bird, he could communicate to then that they should seek shelter in his barn.
Jesus became man
February 24th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Alex,
“Free will and God’s omniscience are quite incompatible.”
How so? Free will is our ability to choose. Omniscience is God’s knowing. How are they incompatible?
The Cubs get to play 162 games this season, plus the playoffs, if they make it.
I know they will not win the World Series.
How are those two statements incompatible?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:25 am
#116 I did answer by saying that God is not omnipotent in the way that word is generally interpreted.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Suffering makes sense in a Catholic context as well. I’m sure my Protestant brethren would say the same about their context, but Matthew speaks to that context quite well in #107. Basically, man screwed up, but God throws us a lifeline. That lifeline does not immediately transport us to Shangra’ La, but lends a redemptive quality to the injustice and suffering that we experience here.
“Man” didn’t “screw up.” Adam and Eve “screwed up,” and I’m paying for it.
It’s just part of the obscene collectivism of Christianity.
And it’s really easy for you to say that God has been good to you, when you’re not the one with Down Syndrome, or living with a kid with cancer, or living in a failed state enduring civil war or genocide.
It’s easy to thank God for his lovely blessings when you’re living in the greatest country on Earth. In failed states, they embrace religion because it gives them something to believe in — something better must be out there. They wouldn’t know what to do, they say, if the life they know is all that’s out there. I’ve watched documentaries where people in sub-Saharan Africa say such things. It’s very tragic (and very interesting, from a sociological standpoint).
February 24th, 2009 at 12:27 am
How so? Free will is our ability to choose. Omniscience is God’s knowing. How are they incompatible? The Cubs get to play 162 games this season, plus the playoffs, if they make it. I know they will not win the World Series. How are those two statements incompatible?
God knows what I will do tomorrow.
Since God is never wrong, I can’t change what I’m going to do tomorrow.
Therefore, it’s predetermined.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Alex,
“And it’s really easy for you to say that God has been good to you, when you’re not the one with Down Syndrome, or living with a kid with cancer, or living in a failed state enduring civil war or genocide.”
Don’t presume to know things about people you don’t know.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:29 am
This is the best discussion I have ever had here.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Alex,
“God knows what I will do tomorrow.
Since God is never wrong, I can’t change what I’m going to do tomorrow.
Therefore, it’s predetermined.”
No, not the same thing.
If I ask my four year old if he would rather drink from the blue cup or the red cup, I know what he will say (blue cup). That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a choice.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:31 am
No, not the same thing. If I ask my four year old if he would rather drink from the blue cup or the red cup, I know what he will say (blue cup). That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a choice.
Using logical reasoning =/= Using psychic powers
February 24th, 2009 at 12:31 am
#120 All will die, not just some. There is that equality.
But, never forget, that God gets to be God and has his goals. One can reject God for any reason.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Let’s try and bring this to the future –
So you know your child is going to drink out of the blue cup.
Well, God knows what your child is going to be when he grows up.
You can’t change it. God knows. Your child can’t change it. God has decided what he’s going to be.
God is thinking right now of what your child is going to be. Say, a doctor.
He will not be a lawyer. He will not be a musician. He will not be a politician. He will be a doctor. Nothing that you or I do can change that, if God has decided he’s going to be a doctor.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Alex,
““Man” didn’t “screw up.” Adam and Eve “screwed up,” and I’m paying for it.
It’s just part of the obscene collectivism of Christianity.”
Are you suggesting that you never screw up? That were it not for Adam and Eve, you would be as pure as the wind driven snow?
And if it’s any consolation, you and I (and everyone else) will be judged individually.
As for the “collectivist” thing, I thing you are using loaded language, but think about it. Are you not, in some way, your fathers son? Are you not, in some sense, a “product” of the particular culture in which you grew up? Fantasies of Ayn Rand aside, you are not an island, and who you “are” is greatly influenced by those around you- for good and ill. That doesn’t preempt free will, but it is an example that we are SOCIAL creatures who influence- and are influenced by one another’s choices.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:34 am
#120 All will die, not just some. There is that equality.
What happens to those who never heard of Jesus in their lives?
And more to the point: God knows they’ll never hear of Jesus.
So what happens?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Alex,
“Using logical reasoning =/= Using psychic powers”
Well, dang, Alex, I’m not God either. I was making an analogy. The fact that God knows what you will choose does not mean He made the choice for you. I think that is a pretty simple and easy to understand concept.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Alex,
“You’ve unwittingly revealed the horrific contempt that Christianity holds for mankind.
Kids with cancer, genocide, miscarriages, Down Syndrome — it’s all part of making things exciting and interesting! Because gosh, everyone living happily sure would make for a boring story, wouldn’t it?”
It wouldn’t only not make a good story, but it wouldn’t work. One of my earliest difficulties with Christianity was curiously also one of my earliest difficulties with the most common atheistic against Christianity. I simply could not envision what one could possibly mean by “perfection” or “eternal bliss”. It struck me as sheer nonsense, because I couldn’t understand how a person- a 3 Dimensional person, with desires, goals and preferences- could exist in a world where he wasn’t free to go wrong, or make choices of any significance. Consequently, the Christian idea of heaven struck me as strange; as did the atheist idea that God, if he existed, ought to have created a sort of heaven from the get-go. A world where humans were always perfect, would be a world without humans in any meaningful sense: they’d be as ludicrously one-dimensional as the characters in our imaginary perfectly happy novel. It simply wouldn’t work.
But, then it occurred to me that Christianity had potential answers to this problem, while atheism objection remains bizarre. Because, in Christianity, there is something before this eternal perfection, where human beings really do get choices, and really can go wrong. And we find that when they do go wrong, God descends to give them a way back up. Only this time, the perfection isn’t the perfection of an automaton, a flat, 1-dimensional human, but the perfection of a transcendent being, with a whole narrative history, of which he is conscious. Again, I don’t claim this gets it exactly right, but it connects the dots better then atheism has managed. For me, at any rate.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:36 am
#120 Most of world history since Eden has been what we would call failed states. I think one of the main reasons America is so unique is proportionality to Christian values and especially our liberty to keep private property. Let me explain. I think the creator created us to be creative and interact with others. Free enterprise and capitalism has a moral heat in that if one wants to succeed, and make a second sale, he must produce a product that satisfies the buyer.
Michael Novak writes great on this.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Are you suggesting that you never screw up? That were it not for Adam and Eve, you would be as pure as the wind driven snow?
You’re the one who said that I’m paying for what Adam and Eve did, not me.
As for the “collectivist” thing, I thing you are using loaded language, but think about it. Are you not, in some way, your fathers son?
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that I should be thrown in jail when my father commits murder.
Are you not, in some sense, a “product” of the particular culture in which you grew up?
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that “it’s society’s fault” if I murder someone.
Fantasies of Ayn Rand aside, you are not an island, and who you “are” is greatly influenced by those around you- for good and ill. That doesn’t preempt free will, but it is an example that we are SOCIAL creatures who influence- and are influenced by one another’s choices.
Sure, I agree. But as you said: we have free will.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Alex,
“What happens to those who never heard of Jesus in their lives?”
That is an issue about which Catholics and (some) Protestants disagree. I firmly believe, and the Church teaches, that the possibility of salvation has been opened to all, and each will be judged according to what they have been given (like the parable of the talents in the Gospel).
February 24th, 2009 at 12:39 am
#128 I think there is some collectivism and this is at the heart of the mystery of the crucifiction and what I call the “cosmic calculus”. For some reason, the shedding of Jesus’s blood and death infected humanity as a whole.
more later
February 24th, 2009 at 12:40 am
It wouldn’t only not make a good story, but it wouldn’t work. One of my earliest difficulties with Christianity was curiously also one of my earliest difficulties with the most common atheistic against Christianity. I simply could not envision what one could possibly mean by “perfection” or “eternal bliss”. It struck me as sheer nonsense, because I couldn’t understand how a person- a 3 Dimensional person, with desires, goals and preferences- could exist in a world where he wasn’t free to go wrong, or make choices of any significance. Consequently, the Christian idea of heaven struck me as strange; as did the atheist idea that God, if he existed, ought to have created a sort of heaven from the get-go. A world where humans were always perfect, would be a world without humans in any meaningful sense: they’d be as ludicrously one-dimensional as the characters in our imaginary perfectly happy novel. It simply wouldn’t work.
That’s not what I’m talking about. Kids with cancer has nothing to do with “people being allowed to fail.” It’s people being doomed to day at age eight from day one.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Good discussion, guys. Thanks.
I gotta’ go.
BTW, I’m meeting with my broker tomorrow at Merrill Lynch, where I used to be a broker.
This ought to be fun…….
February 24th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Alex,
I’ll continue this later. I need sleep, and I’ve already blown off an essay I should have been working on.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:43 am
That is an issue about which Catholics and (some) Protestants disagree. I firmly believe, and the Church teaches, that the possibility of salvation has been opened to all, and each will be judged according to what they have been given (like the parable of the talents in the Gospel).
See, as an atheist, I think of this as something that the authors of the books of the New Testament, if at a round table and addressed with this, would start going: “Crap, I thought you’d cover that!” “Oh man, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that!” over.
It was a glaring omission that they never thought of, just like the Ramadan Paradox of the Qur’an.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:43 am
#129 I don’t know and I think those who think they do sometimes go too far. But, I do favor missions to let people know.
Now, let me address the underlying scepticism of your question which relates to the issue of fairness and also serves as a basis for not believing, since if there was a God surely he would be fair in the way that we all mean fair.
Think about that logic for a minute. If there was God, surely…
I think that is evidence that you know there is God and you are mad at him.
But the basic answer to your inquiry muct concede the possibility that God is not fair.
Either way, you have choice. Those that will live forever with God are those that WANT to. I don’t think people earn Heaven> They simply want to, and so submit to God’s will.
God gets to be God.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Alright. I should get going, too: I have a paper to finish up. A quick one comparing the policy solutions of different think tanks…wee. Oh, and some reading for Contemporary Middle East. Ta-ta.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Alex,
You are basing your analysis of God on some flawed understandings.
God doesn’t choose what your son will be when he grows up, he just knows what your son will chose on his own.
The justice and mercy of God are not settled in this life. In Christianity all these things will be settled at the final Judgement by Christ.
If Adam and Eve never fell from the Garden of Eden none of us would be here right now. Even though we are in a fallen world, we still have the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as the Savior and follow him.
As much injustice as there is in the world, the time on earth is very short in comparison to eternity.
Finally, as was already mentioned, God created everything perfectly and then the fall occurred which is why we live in an imperfect world with death and disease.
After Christ was resurrected he had a perfected body, and after we are all resurrected we will have perfect bodies, just like a perfect God would create.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:57 am
In the beauty, comprehensibility and consistency of reality I see the handiwork of God.
A God of the Gaps is really no God at all. I accept a God of all.
Of course all natural scientists are supernaturalists if they believe nature behaves the same where they can’t see it as where they can. Since they’ve never explained why a single law of nature holds, they’d have to be supernaturalists to just assume those ‘laws’ hold where we can’t observe them.
No law of nature has ever been explained. Ever. All laws of nature are really just patterns we observe and simplify without understanding why they work. Sometimes we simplify one law into another but we can’t explain why any part of natural behaves as it does. We’ve only discovered principles that explain how nature behaves, not the reasons behind that regular behavior.
In the unyielding and unexplainable laws of nature I see the edicts of the almighty God.
It is not possible for science to reach beyond its limits and touch the metaphysical which is ultimately whatever we suppose explains the unexplainable universe we observe.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:57 am
he just knows what your son will chose on his own.
How can it be a choice if it’s predetermined?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Cs Lewis addreses so much of this
no need to reinvent the wheel
February 24th, 2009 at 1:18 am
What if the fall of Adam and Eve were actually part of ‘the plan’?
Think about it.
If they had not eaten of the tree, would we be here? God would have had to find another way to get us all here. But, since Eve ate of the fruit, and Adam followed her, they gained the knowledge to pro create… and we eventually got here to get our bodies and start our own journey back.
What if Adam and Eve did not have free agency?
Oh, and the intervew on all levels, was dumb and stupid. Palin should have stopped her kid from making yet another dumb mistake. But the kid should have had more respect for her mum and her mum’s career.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Alister McGrath described why atheism has fallen into such a deplorable state lately in his book, “THE DAWKIN’S DELUSION?“.
I wish more atheists would read it. I don’t know if a single one would become a theist and I really don’t care.
Atheists would at least see the logical error of their new dogmas and fundamentalist attitudes, and learn to become more rational atheists.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I figured I throw my 2 cents in.
I’m not a hardcore religious person but I do believe in God. Some of my strongest beliefs are due to the lack of science to dispute 3 things. 1. Where’s the missing link? 2. Science teaches us that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change its form, human beings have energy running through us…electrical currents if you will. What happens to that energy after we die? 3. If evolution is correct…I’m referring to Darwinism, more than anything else, but if it is correct then why hasn’t other animals, species, evolved into walking, talking, intelligent, reasoning creatures with opposable thumbs?
The second cent, which I believe is the real point to this post, is that Sarah Palin is a leader! She may not be the leader everyone is looking for, but she is a leader and she has many attributes that can help move our party forward. I read so many posts and comments on this site, from fellow Republicans no less, that try to make me feel embarrassed for liking Sarah Palin…she’s dumb so I must be dumb too or some other nonsense. The fact is that this woman speaks with such a voracious charm and in this cynical day and age, I for one am happy to find a politician who I feel cares about the people…is she perfect? NO. Is anybody? I really don’t care if anybody else on this entire board likes Sarah Palin or not…but I’ll be damned before I apologize for liking her!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Oh the great debates I miss when I try to study and actually try to get a life.
On divine foreknowledge vs. choice I actually kind of agree with Alex here. To me the idea that there can be knowable choices in the future is like saying two + two = five. If the choice “to do” exists in the future, then I can’t “not do”, if a particular choice exists in the future, than not doing it can’t exist in the future, which means there really is no choice. MWS is right that divine foreknowledge doesn’t assume God controls future choices, but it does assume future decisions exist, which to me is a paradox, because if a choice were to exist in the future it wouldn’t really exist which would mean it isn’t a choice. So I’ve somewhat reluctantly accepted open-theism/ what I term the “The complexity of God” theory. That is to say I don’t believe future choices exist (which is necessary in my mind to believe in freewill, not believing in God’s omniscience as Alex does, does not lead one to believe in freewill), therefore God is still omniscient as he knows reality perfectly, it is simply that he has created a reality with an open future, wherein there are decisions that can be made which do yet exist. The complexity of God part refers to fact that I believe we cannot grasp all of this on human terms, so in some sense perhaps the traditional theists like MWS are correct, but in my way of thinking there is no logical way for choices to exist in the future.
I think its interesting that Alex does not seem to reject the idea of free choice, as the idea has no real objective evidence apart from faith. From a logical, naturalistic viewpoint it would make more sense to reject the concept of freewill, as freewill requires that choices in order to be truly free must be causeless. The idea of free will suggest two people could undergo the exact circumstances, and be identical in their physical makeup, and come to two different decisions, to say otherwise is to say that their physical makeup and/or circumstances have the final say which is to say there is no freewill. From a naturalistic scientific perspective you would expect two identical organism put into the same circumstances to have identical responses, to have an action stand on its own without cause that made it be(choice) is inherently not of the natural realm. True naturalism would suggest a future which is entirely determined by the course that matter is now taking, if one were to know all of reality they could trace what the cause of all processes would be up through the end of the universe. Such a view is of course meaningless, I think the atheistic philosopher Bertrand Ruessel put this despair better than any preacher of the gospel could:
“Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
February 24th, 2009 at 2:48 am
2. Science teaches us that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change its form
No, no: that’s matter.
I’m referring to Darwinism, more than anything else, but if it is correct then why hasn’t other animals, species, evolved into walking, talking, intelligent, reasoning creatures with opposable thumbs?
Because different species took different forms. And remember that things are ever-evolving; the eternal deception of evolution is that what we are now is the final form. It’s not.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:55 am
On the existence of God issue, I tire of this debate so I hope not to get dragged into it, but as a Theology major I can’t help myself.
Alex seems to think that matter all the way down makes more sense than God all the way. To me this does not make sense as matter as we know it is not eternal or self causing. Also that the idea of consciousness coming from unconsciousness seems to me like something comeing from nothing. The abstract world of feeling and thought, while certainly affected and arguably controlled by the material world, is of a fundamentally different nature than the material unthinking, the idea that there was no thought, no feeling, no mental conception of the universe, and than from inaminate chemicals – poof! there’s consciousness! Well to me that seems incredulous. However, ultimately for me it comes down to the fact that God is the ultimate source of truth, I believe in other reality because of God not vica-versa. Therefore, these debates end up being somewhat pointless as one really needs to have a personal relation with the “Word that became flesh” in order to know the truth.
The other thing of interest is how Alex claims that that he is satisfied in not knowing how the universe began. But in matters of what a God should have done ( heal amputees…) he claims he is smart enough to know exactly what God should have done. The answer to human suffering is sin, if God didn’t create a world in which we could fail it would be a world in which we could not suceed. Alex is right that Christianity assumes a sort of colectivism, but this I believe is also in our best interest, as a world in which everybody lived in a bubble and their actions did not effect their neighbors would not allow for people to do good for one another. Ultimately God wants us to be free to love him, and to love our neighbors, in order to be free to do this we must also be free to hate. It is impossible to fully understand the will of God, but the above I believe gives the general reasons for God’s allowance of suffering.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:02 am
I’ve always looked at free will in the sense of: life gives you the frame, canvas, and paints with which you can paint something, and you can choose what to paint.
I think that one has to work under the assumption of free will unless you want chaos, really: take the whole “are criminals responsible for their acts?” dilemma inherent in the free will debate. Determinists would say: no. Then if they aren’t responsible, is it right to punish them? But we know what will happen if we stop punishing criminals: we get more crime and the incentives to build a strong life are removed. So of course we don’t. But wait, not punishing criminals — is that even a choice? Were we destined to come to that conclusion? And the people who built strong lives — weren’t they destined to?!
Determinism is best rejected with an “I think, therefore I am” line of thought. From a bird’s-eye view, everything seems very calculated, and yet, if a person has ever done something knowing he shouldn’t be doing it, knowing very well he had the ability not to, it sort of casts doubt on the theory. I could be writing my paper, due in 5 1/2 hours, right now. I am not doing it. I could be. I am a bit perplexed at the suggestion that I have no choice in the matter of whether I’m typing on Race or typing up my paper.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:12 am
153, Yes it would seem you have a choice as to whether to be on race or typing your paper, and that I would have a choice as to whether to be here or working on my book report, but ultimately I think from a naturalistic perspective it would make more sense to say that we aren’t because of the mysterious downward pull of college procrastination.
Really, though your arguement seems to boil down to the fact that we can’t function without acting as if we have freewill, which of course is true, but that doesn’t say anything as to the truthfulness of freewill.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:25 am
150, No, no: that’s energy. The first Law of Thermodynamics. I appreciate the theories and philosophies on evolution…I can wax philosophical as well as the next guy but I didn’t say we are the final form of evolution, I’m saying…why isn’t there an equivocal evolved species? The fact is that a lot of science is as unprovable as Religion, Intelligent Design…whatever you want to call it. I always thought it was pretty ironic that the study of science came to be due to the desire to prove that God exists.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:27 am
I should correct myself…when I wrote that a lot of science is as unprovable as Religion…I should have written that some aspects of science is as unprovable…
February 24th, 2009 at 4:41 am
This was a great thread until it turned into a discussion about religion…I read about religion before bed lol not on my political website.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:47 am
154 — Ooh, it’s both. Shows how much I know about science.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:09 am
If water-boarding is now deemed illegal just force the terrorists to sit through the Bristol Palin interview.
I literally had to turn her off it was that painful to watch.
Never before in history as anyone made GVS appear like an intellectual giant in comparison. Not even her mum – who is filling no vacuum let’s clear that up right away.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I think the female body is pretty amazing Alex! I know we may not agree there
.
But you are right. Those believing in god may as well believe in vampires or elves or something. Chances are about 1000/1.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Although from different parties Palin has so many similarities to John Edwards it’s not funny (although to be fair to Edwards he is much smarter).
I bet 4 years ago not one of the rabid Edwards supporters thought they would drop off him. Yet now most of them have.
The same thing will happen by this time in 2012 (if not before) – there is nothing surer.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Alex,
One day you will realize if you don’t already do that life is more than just a bunch of electrochemical and physical reactions. when you do…. life will have so much more meaning and it will make so much more sense and you will be that much more happier to have known the difference.
In the mean while you can accept only the notion of atheism all the time yo want… whenver you want to move beyond that knowledge let me suggest the followin prayer “Oh God, if there is a god, will you let yourself be known unto me? I would be willing to cange everything you find wrong in me if you would come into my life and let me know thee…” – I sincere prayer of this sort is enough to realize that tere is a God, and if there is a god what is his will and do we want to obey it?
February 24th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Wasn’t this settled already? God won by two falls and a submission.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:42 am
FWIW, Alex reminds me of a former believer who became frustrated and angry with God, and decided to punish God by denying His existence.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Actually, MarkG, while that sort of petty armchair psychology hardly merits a response, I was actually quite sad to leave my church, as I enjoyed the community and made a lot of good friends there. But it made little sense for me to be involved in something I was not a believer in. I was not “angry at God,” in fact, I very much wanted to believe. It took me a while to accept that not believing was okay.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:50 am
“I’ve always looked at free will in the sense of: life gives you the frame, canvas, and paints with which you can paint something, and you can choose what to paint.
I think that one has to work under the assumption of free will unless you want chaos, really: take the whole “are criminals responsible for their acts?” dilemma inherent in the free will debate. Determinists would say: no. Then if they aren’t responsible, is it right to punish them? But we know what will happen if we stop punishing criminals: we get more crime and the incentives to build a strong life are removed. So of course we don’t. But wait, not punishing criminals — is that even a choice? Were we destined to come to that conclusion? And the people who built strong lives — weren’t they destined to?!
Determinism is best rejected with an “I think, therefore I am” line of thought. From a bird’s-eye view, everything seems very calculated, and yet, if a person has ever done something knowing he shouldn’t be doing it, knowing very well he had the ability not to, it sort of casts doubt on the theory. I could be writing my paper, due in 5 1/2 hours, right now. I am not doing it. I could be. I am a bit perplexed at the suggestion that I have no choice in the matter of whether I’m typing on Race or typing up my paper.”
I’ve never quite understood the atheist objection omniscient=no free will. In the first place, a world in which there was ONLY nature, and natural processes, is necessarily a determinist’s universe. Again, naturalism means that events are explicable only in terms of cause and effect, whereby all of the possible causes exist within the same system.
As a simple point of logic, if events are only explicable in terms of cause and effect, and all possible causes exist within the same system, then our every action is determined by a trillion, billion, etc, etc cause and effect linkages before hand. To be sure, such a system could produce a pretty good facsimile of free will, but it couldn’t produce free will. Atheists seem to be saying, if I have this right, that man is free because he doesn’t understand every possible variable in the universe. I find this simply bizarre. We’re meant to try to understand ever increasing information about the universe, but we mustn’t go all the way, otherwise we’ll have killed freedom. It’s the Christian idea that really does have an answer to this: because it does not believe that nature is everything, and that everything is explicable by causes internal to nature. There is a God who may, if chooses, introduce a divine spark, and muck up the data. In the Christian universe, even if you had omnisicience- in terms of the natural universe- and knew every possible variable, data-point, and equation, you STILL couldn’t predict the future, because that divine spark might at any moment insert itself.
As for your objection more specifically, I’d simply say that I think you’ve mucked up the Christian understanding. At least since Aquinas, most Christians have generally believed that God doesn’t literally KNOW what you’re going to do, but rather he simply happens to be there when you do it. He’s in all places at all times. He exists in an eternal present. If I were standing beside you and I saw you eat breakfast, you wouldn’t say “don’t watch me, my friend. You’ll invalidate my choice”.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:51 am
In the mean while you can accept only the notion of atheism all the time yo want… whenver you want to move beyond that knowledge let me suggest the followin prayer “Oh God, if there is a god, will you let yourself be known unto me? I would be willing to cange everything you find wrong in me if you would come into my life and let me know thee…” – I sincere prayer of this sort is enough to realize that tere is a God, and if there is a god what is his will and do we want to obey it?
And then Allah will answer and tell me to go on a jihad.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Atheists seem to be saying, if I have this right, that man is free because he doesn’t understand every possible variable in the universe. I find this simply bizarre. We’re meant to try to understand ever increasing information about the universe, but we mustn’t go all the way, otherwise we’ll have killed freedom.
Er, not quite. I’m saying that individual human beings, through rationality and reason, are more than merely ‘wired’ to act a certain way. I accept it as an axiom, because being aware of one’s own determined fate would seem to destroy the point of the doctrine: “Oh, God, I’m going to do something and I can’t stop it! But knowing about it and thinking this was inevitable! And my response to it was inevitable!” — after a while it just becomes patently silly; it works within the same unfalsifiable realm as theism — and for reasons I noted above.
As for your objection more specifically, I’d simply say that I think you’ve mucked up the Christian understanding. At least since Aquinas, most Christians have generally believed that God doesn’t literally KNOW what you’re going to do, but rather he simply happens to be there when you do it. He’s in all places at all times. He exists in an eternal present.
Well, everyone else on here seems to agree with me about God’s omniscience, as well as Psalms 139:16, which has a number of translations, all of which are pretty clear that God knows what you’re gonna do before you do it: http://bible.cc/psalms/139-16.htm
February 24th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I didn’t offer any diagnosis. I’m still agnostic on God, but I firmly believe that psychologists don’t exist.
Anywho, atheistic certainty in my view has everything to do with the human mind’s need to have a complete understanding, without any loose ends. Whether atheists want to acknowledge it or not, atheism requires faith consciously or subconsciously.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Anywho, atheistic certainty in my view has everything to do with the human mind’s need to have a complete understanding, without any loose ends. Whether atheists want to acknowledge it or not, atheism requires faith consciously or subconsciously.
It’s not ‘faith,’ it’s a lack of faith. I refuse to believe in something without some sort of evidence for it. Natural processes exist — existence exists — so it is not “faith-based” to subscribe to naturalist, scientific views of the origins of the universe. The universe in its current form either came out through natural or supernatural processes. The latter requires faith; the former does not.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Fair enough. But it seems more accurate to say that you simply do not agree with others’ views as to what constitutes “evidence.” Or to put it in Rumsfeldian metaphysics: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Fair enough. But it seems more accurate to say that you simply do not agree with others’ views as to what constitutes “evidence.” Or to put it in Rumsfeldian metaphysics: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I hate that line. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but it sure as hell isn’t evidence of existence, either.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Hate the sooth, love the sayer.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:21 am
And actually, it could be better said that the absence of evidence is not the proof of absence. After a while, you just start to put 2 and 2 together.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:28 am
[...] something and she knows it; the Republican Party is practically nothing and it doesn’t.” [Via] var addthis_pub=”washingtoncitypaper”; var addthis_options=”facebook, twitter, google, [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Alex,
“Er, not quite. I’m saying that individual human beings, through rationality and reason, are more than merely ‘wired’ to act a certain way. I accept it as an axiom, because being aware of one’s own determined fate would seem to destroy the point of the doctrine: “Oh, God, I’m going to do something and I can’t stop it! But knowing about it and thinking this was inevitable! And my response to it was inevitable!” — after a while it just becomes patently silly; it works within the same unfalsifiable realm as theism — and for reasons I noted above.”
Fair enough. I confess that I don’t understand why, if you’re content to embrace unfalsifiable concepts, you’d choose to embrace one that is internally contradictory, but then, I never supposed I’d understand atheism. Man has freedom to act such and such a way, but he exists within a system where all acts are explicable in terms of causes internal to that system? If you wish.
“Well, everyone else on here seems to agree with me about God’s omniscience, as well as Psalms 139:16, which has a number of translations, all of which are pretty clear that God knows what you’re gonna do before you do it: http://bible.cc/psalms/139-16.htm”
It’s my understanding, and I could be wrong, that the Catholic Church holds something like the Aquinas position on free will.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Fair enough. I confess that I don’t understand why, if you’re content to embrace unfalsifiable concepts, you’d choose to embrace one that is internally contradictory, but then, I never supposed I’d understand atheism. Man has freedom to act such and such a way, but he exists within a system where all acts are explicable in terms of causes internal to that system? If you wish.
Both free will and determinism are both unfalsifiable; they rest upon certain axioms, which, by their definition, are merely assumptions. I am saying that all acts are explicable to a point, and that I simply refuse to believe that I could not have acted to the contrary if I wanted to. Why? Well, it’s axiomatic, self-evident — after a point, it’s just something you know, and it can’t really be fully explained to someone else: I can’t transport my brain into yours, but I’ll assume you can relate.
It’s my understanding, and I could be wrong, that the Catholic Church holds something like the Aquinas position on free will.
I’ve never found Aquinas to be very intellectually rigorous on theological matters, but perhaps he represents the ‘best of the worst’ or the ‘cream of the crap.’ He certainly was well ahead of his time, but given that disclaimer, it makes little sense to be adhering to his thoughts in 2009 — but then, what do I care what the Catholic Church believes about free will?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am
“Both free will and determinism are both unfalsifiable; they rest upon certain axioms, which, by their definition, are merely assumptions. I am saying that all acts are explicable to a point, and that I simply refuse to believe that I could not have acted to the contrary if I wanted to. Why? Well, it’s axiomatic, self-evident — after a point, it’s just something you know, and it can’t really be fully explained to someone else: I can’t transport my brain into yours, but I’ll assume you can relate.”
It is true enough that determinism and free will rest on certain assumptions, but the central assumption determinism rests on is precisely a purely natural order. I find myself simply unable to imagine the sort of natural order you’re talking about. I submit that no one could imagine such a natural order, because it’s intellectual incoherence. Again, naturalism says that effects are caused by prior effects, internal to that system. Human actions are effects. If at any point we have an uncaused effect, in those terms, we no longer have a natural system. I simply don’t see how atheism gets around this. Theism can manage it, because theism posits that there is something outside the natural order, so effects aren’t required to be caused by causes internal to the natural order.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Of course effects are caused by prior effects. But the beauty of mankind is that men are rational beings. I would refer you to the painting analogy that I used: life provides the canvas and the brush, we paint the picture. We come to certain forks in the road where decisions have to be made. I refuse to accept that I am hardwired to be essentially forced into making a certain decision.
Theism still doesn’t solve it, because you can’t control whether a divine spark comes in. That’s not a choice you made. It may change things, but that doesn’t mean that it had anything to do with man’s free will.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I’m going to the gym. I’ll respond later today though.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Seriously? I contest that. Emotions driven by biochemical messengers in the most primitive parts of the brain are the prime movers. Reason in the rational (rationalizing) mind provides the post hoc rationalization.
At the very least, we are all “essentially forced” to make, or limited to making, decisions in certain predetermined ways.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Theological disputations aside, the nub of this is that a politician’s relative has given an interview that undercuts the politician’s message. Billy Carter, Patti Davis, Roger Clinton; it’s an old story.
Palin has a huge following, which makes her a strong contender for the presidential nomination. The unknown is whether she will become the mistress of her brief in matters of foreign policy and other issues where governors do not acquire hands-on experience. If she does her homework, she’s on her way. If she tries to coast, the comment section of this posting makes clear she would have a rough ride. If I have to guess, I think she’ll be a diligent student.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:00 am
roundhead22, why do you think Palin will be a diligent student? She’s not shown it. She didn’t want interview prep and knew she wanted to be VP since last Feb, yet did nothing to prepare.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:55 am
“I refuse to believe in something without some sort of evidence for it.”
“Both free will and determinism are both unfalsifiable; they rest upon certain axioms, which, by their definition, are merely assumptions. I am saying that all acts are explicable to a point, and that I simply refuse to believe that I could not have acted to the contrary if I wanted to. Why? Well, it’s axiomatic, self-evident — after a point, it’s just something you know, and it can’t really be fully explained to someone else: I can’t transport my brain into yours, but I’ll assume you can relate.”
These two statements are totally contradictorary. OTOH you reject religous faith, because supposedly you don’t have evidence. But when it comes to free-will because “it’s just something you know”, in other words you accept it on faith.
You’ve got the same reasons to reject free will as you do the existence of God -the lack of objective evidence for it. As Matthew Miller points out free will is inherently unnatural – choice is a cause without cause, because if there was a cause which made it be than it would no longer be free. By your own standards of naturalistic evidence there’s no reason to believe in such a cause without cause. This demonstrates that you don’t just believe what critical thinking would demand, but what you want to believe. You take the implications of pure naturalism, only as far as you are comfortable, but when it becomes to much to bear you refuse to go any further.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
#182
I think the story about interview and debate prep is less clear than your interpretation. Several senior policy officials on the McCain campaign came away very impressed with her effort to get up to speed while Nicole Wallace and perhaps Schmidt were giving her a rough time. So at worst, it’s too soon to tell.
As I said, mine is a guess and I could be wrong. But she is very much up to speed on energy and economic issues, so she can do it intellectually. If the woman wants to be president, my guess is that she knows she’ll need be able to punch and counterpunch with people like Romney and Sanford. Being far away where you can take the time to read and ask questions is actually a huge advantage. Besides, if she demonstrates knowledge in these areas when she returns to the national ring three years from now, many of her critics, who have based their opposition to Palin on her alleged ignorance, will find it hard to keep pressing the attack. But this is a conjecture and I readily admit I could be wrong.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Well said, Roundhead22.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
184, well put! Martha likes to find the most damning, refuted attack on Palin and try to sell it as Gospel. She probably runs around from site to site saying that Trig is Palin’s daughter’s baby after Bristol had an affair with a business partner that she saw in Russia on a Canadian tour of Drill Baby Drill, her new book that she will have banned and burnt when she returns to Wasilla on her next press junket as Miss Alaska, Rush Limbaugh.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Jersy, you need to back off that fact about the business partner. It’s a bannable offense to speak truth.
I am not martha, and martha is not me. But we both know who’ Trig’s birth mother is. It is momma palin, not teenage palin. But honestly? Doesent teenage Palin have more respect for momma Palin? Giving the interview undermines the Mom’s career.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“Of course effects are caused by prior effects. But the beauty of mankind is that men are rational beings. I would refer you to the painting analogy that I used: life provides the canvas and the brush, we paint the picture. We come to certain forks in the road where decisions have to be made. I refuse to accept that I am hardwired to be essentially forced into making a certain decision.”
Sounds pretty mystical to me.
“Theism still doesn’t solve it, because you can’t control whether a divine spark comes in. That’s not a choice you made. It may change things, but that doesn’t mean that it had anything to do with man’s free will.”
It’s not simply that a divine spark can intrude in the world, but that a divine spark has intruded in us. And I don’t mean this in some vague deist sense, but in a fully Christian one. Man was created in God’s image and was given rationality and choice. Indeed, Judaism and Christianity put choice at the very center. No one ever supposed that an aardvark could go “wrong” or sin, because aardvark’s weren’t created in God’s image, and therefore can’t be said to choose. I’m reminded of a passage from The Man Who Was Thursday:
“”It is you who are unpoetical,” replied the poet Syme. “If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!”
“Must you go?” inquired Gregory sarcastically.
“I tell you,” went on Syme with passion, “that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hairbreadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word ‘Victoria,’ it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed ‘Victoria’; it is the victory of Adam.”"
February 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I’d like to see some evidence of this alleged affair. As far as “teenage Palin’s” interview, who knows why she did the interview or why Sarah allowed her adult, 18 year old daughter to give an interview…grow up people. Sarah Palin is a real person dealing with real problems. Is she the perfect candidate…NO. Is Romney the perfect candidate…NO. Is Jindal the perfect candidate…NO. The next few years will be interesting to see how the possible candidates unfold. I wish good luck to all and I wish the right candidate will emerge who is capable of beating President Obama in 2012. He started his reelection campaign on day one and the people are buying his brand of bullshite…may God have mercy on us!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
a handfull of weeks ago, it was just the kid. Now she’s given birth and is now an adult with a mind of her own. How quaint. She is or she aint.
Sarah is not a real person. what you see on the outside is not who she really is. The interview with the ‘adult’ daughter was quite revelaling. He kid did not even have the respect towards her mother not to do the stupid interview. Speaks volumes about what is actually taught in that home, and it’s not the picture that is painted on the outside.
I guess I’m smarter than other for not falling into this trap. I find it funny that most of you ardent supporters are men. If you want to win the election, put up the best and brightest. Not the dumb and dumbest.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:43 am
The problem is that Mrs. Palin is neither dumb or dumbest. You are not paying attention as much as you think Knickers.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Knickers, you’re full of conjecture and unsubstantiated evidence…how do you know who the real Sarah is? You won’t even admit who you really are, Martha. Bristol may not be eloquent but she spoke how she felt…just because it differs from what her Mother may think does not mean she was being disrespectful…maybe the Palin family believes that their children should be their own people with their own ideas? I find it funny that you, as a woman, would fall into the same sexist trap that has been persecuted against women for years. I am so damn dumb that there could be no reason that I may like Sarah Palin other than for her looks…grow up and welcome to the 21st Century.