Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!) 
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:55:59 GMT
  <adams.715353838@spssig> <1992Sep1.172208.7256@ac.dal.ca>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:



>These are getting long, but personally, this is the way I like 'em. 
>These issues are complicated and need some thought....
No kidding...and I think it's worthwhile, too.

>In article <adams.715353838@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Aug28.013822.7183@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>> In article <adams.714961727@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> "Theology for 500, please, Alex'
>>
>> Ok.  My hypothesis (and it's only that) is that given truly free will, and
>> the real, logical possibility of evil being actualized, someone, somewhere
>> will commit an 'evil' act at some point.  Granted, you won't do the things
>> you said but what about some lesser 'evil'?  Like say, telling a lie.  Or
>> getting too much change and not returning it.  

>Funny you mentioned that one, actually... :-)
>(I did return it, though, although I have no idea why...)
Good for you. ;-)

>>Or taking the name of God in
>>vain.  Or calling someone a name.  Or cheating on your taxes? I'm not 
>>accusing you of anything, just pointing out that 'evil' is anything which 
>>separates us from God (ie == sin).

>Fascinating. This might be another thread...the nature of sin. It is something
>I have thought a lot about. If you want to pick it up in another series of
>posts, let me know. 
Sure, let's go...;-)  Start a new thread.

>Re: Child abuse
>>>* WHY will I ALWAYS make the same choice, seeing as how I'm truly free?
>>>
>> Your basic nature, and your basic makeup, which are products of your
>> envirnonment, has lead you to understand that the particular situation does
>> not call for the response you have hypothesized.

>Now - watch - you have just acknowledged that "free" will is in fact 
>"conditioned" will. In other words, my so-called "free" choice is really
>an outgrowth of things I have no control over. 

I think what we are doing here is arguing over the meaning of 'free'.  We
always have a choice.  But many, many things affect our choice.  Things we
have no control over.  But that doesn't preclude radical change.  My
parents and I disagree on many, many issues.  Or better, my brother and I
disagree massively on isssues.  Or basic environment was similar, but we've
come to completely different conclusions and resolutions.  So although I
agree with you that conditioning happens, I think it can be overthrown.

>Now - can you control what you think is best? Are you "free" to choose
>what you think is best? In fact, no. A person will ALWAYS choose the
>action which seems to them to be best, given their conditioning and
>nature. Neither of which they can control. Our decisions, you might say,
>are determined by our nature and conditioning. I am NOT advocating a 
>scientific determinism, not at all. I am just pointing out that 
>"free will" is a completely artificial notion, like "pink unicorn," that
>has no connection to reality. We are what we are, and we act according to 
>what we are. And we cannot control what we are. 
This is interesting.  'Best' is a hard thing to define.  It's always a
balancing act.  We look at a situation and determine our actions based on a
combination of what we think is best and how society will react to a
particular action.  Isn't that making a free choice?

>If you want to test this contention, go find a child and beat her up,
>until she bleeds. It is your free choice, go do it. Now, I'll bet that
>even if I placed the most obnoxious kid alive in front of you, a kid
>that would benefit mightily from a little reminder that he is not the
>center of the cosmos, you would not beat him.  WHy not? "Spare the rod, etc."
>You couldn't do it! You might sort of want to, but you would want NOT to
>even more.  And there is the crux of my point. We ALWAYS "freely" choose
>that which seems to us to be the greatest good. And we cannot control 
>what seems to us to be the greatest good. "Free will" is just a very
>persistent myth.

I'd say that this particular example is so egregious that just claiming
that you won't do it doesn't answer the question.  Chose a smaller evil to
attempt to prevent a larger evil.  A famous example was Neville Chamberlin
who chose to allow Germany territory to stop a war.  So in this case,
selling out some people in East-Central Europe was less evil than the
consequeces : World War.

Or, another example, you have the opportunity to kill a Hitlerian leader
before he commits his horrors.  Do you do it?  Remember, in the system we
are discussing, murder is sin, and punishable by death.  Murder is evil,
isn't it?

>> In the above, I'd say the fictional part was "It doesn't matter which".
>> Because now you are talking about a basic, moral system.
>Ok, ok, you get the 10 points... :-) 
Thank you!

>>And since there
>>are systems to explain 'right' from 'wrong' we can act accordingly and do
>>not need to think.  Well, I think I can propose a situation that fit
>>societal norms yet is repugnant.  Female infanticide was socially
>>acceptable in Rome & Greece.  Does that make it any less evil?

>A trick question! Evil to us, but not to them, obviously. The point here
>is that my actions are DETERMINED by my sense of morality, over which I
>have no control. The source of morality is another question (which might
>be worth another thread someday :-) but all that matters here is that
>we see that our sense of morality (perverted or not) DETERMINES 
>how we will act. What we call a"decision" is just the internal resolving
>of conflicting urges, according to relative strength.

People can consciously change their personal morality.  Trust me.  I have.

>>>>The specific idea of 'evil' is not simply horrible, terrible things.  All
>>>>sin (that is, that which separates us from God) is evil.  I would be
>>>>willing to bet loads of money that you sin (whether you happen to be
>>>>Christian or not). 
>>> 
>>>Who, me???  Nahhh....
>>No sin?  I find that hard to believe! ;-)  Not Christian?  That I believe! ;-)
>>Remember, what you considder 'sin' may not be the same as what I considder
>>sin.  And since we're looking at my theology, I get to make that
>>determination...;-)

>Fair enough. By your standards, I sin continuously. Personally, I think
>Catholic-derived Christianity is a horrible misreading of Jesus life
>and message. But for more details of "Sean Hartigan's adventures in
>Christianity," go look at my post of Aug. 28 or 29 entitled 
>"Dialogue on Faith, Certainty, ex-Christians [was Re: The Light]"

OK.  I'll go check it out.  I agree that many Christians ignore the message
of the Gospel.  My studies have led me to discard a large portion of the
framework that was built over time, in favor of seeking out the message of
Gospel.

>>>>>And since God is omnipotent, and therefore BY DEFINITION always gets
>>>>>what he wants,  he WANTS evil to exist, he WANTS people to fail, be separate
>>>>>from him, etc. 
>>>>                
>>>>No, I disagree. 
>>> 
>>>Ok - watch this carefully. If I may point out, your response to this consists
>>>completely of unprovable assertions. I mention this because I know how easy
>>>it is to get in the habit of responding from the internal textbook instead
>>>of using our own noodle. 
>>
>>Since God is an unprovable assertion, this isn't particularly surprising.
>>I'll see what you have to say and do my best to respond.

>What I was getting at is that it seems to me that one has to reevaluate
>one's description of God. I'm not saying deny God, but the traditional
>theology (made by humans) is flawed. Having faith in God is one thing. 
>Having faith in St. Paul and the council of Nicaea is another! Unless
>they live in your heart, too! :-)

Paul's writings make up a large portion of the New Testament.  One of my
assumptions is that the Bible accurately reflects God's interaction with
men.  As such, I'm constrained by what the documents reveal.  I am
certainly no Biblical Scholar (at least, not yet), and I often disagree
greatly with the orthodox interpretations of what is found there.

As for Nicea, it was an attempt to formulate a basic creed for the church
and resolve the Arian heresy (which, by the way, is what the Jehovah's
Witnesses have adopted).   The concepts laid down at Nicea were beleived by
large sections of the church from the period of Paul on.  I understand the
history of the church and Paul's role in it.

>>>...but the reasoning is questioning if this is compatible with the
>>>supposed "omni" characteristics of God. You haven't responded to the argument
>>>yet.
>>Sure it is.  To borrow a quote from Job "Though he slay me, yet will I hope
>>in Him".  The book of Job is a pretty long answer to this whole problem.
>>The old maxim "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" comes from this
>>book, too.

>The Lord essentially tells Job - who do think you are? I do what I want and
>I don't have to tell you anything!  This is fine - but again, NT (Pauline)
>theology wants God to be all-loving, all-forgiving.   If you want to 
>believe in a sovereign God who can do what he wants, hey, no skin off my nose. 
>But that contradicts something ELSE you want to believe, which is that he
>is a nice guy.  Everybody knows all-powerful sovereigns have to break a
>few eggs to make those omelettes...but you (and a lot of other folks)
>want to have it both ways.

Well, I have to admit that I do have a problem with this.  It is exactly
this that I struggle with.  But I am not prepared to discard the Bible.  As
such, I must develop an system where it all fits.  You've pointed out the
problems with that, and the discussion is helpfull.  I do not, at this
point, have an answer.  I don't know how an all-loving God could damn
someone to Hell...I don't.  Hence the constant search for a theological
answer.  And free will is the best I can do.  For the moment.

>>>Ok - so you accept foreknowledge then. That's something - it means you're
>>>stuck with the nasty dilemma outlined below.  Notice that you have not 
>>>responded to the above argument with anything other than doctrinal 
>>>assertions. You haven't dealt with the argument at all except to say,
>>>"I disagree." Just pointing this out. Forgive me if I don't eat my words
>>>just yet...:)
>>No problem!  I have run into the same problem that theologians much more
>>skilled than I have run into.  Namely Calvin, Augustine, Luther, etc.  

>You have a chance that they blew - to use your own noodle and see what 
>they refused to see (God can't be all-loving and still create souls 
>who will damn themselves) or else cheerfully accepted (eg. Calvin). 
>You don't want to be a Calvinist. Calvin saw the dilemma I am
>pointing out to you and said "Ok! God must want certain people to be
>damned! Fine with me - I'm not one of 'em."  Your other choices are:

>1. accept the contradictory theology anyway (God DOES love all those
>sinners he created, but is going to send them to Hell anyway) and
>while away the happy hours spinning sophistries about how it's not
>REALLY a contradiction - it's a "mystery."

>2. Reject one or both of the contradictory positions. That is, reject
>the salvation/damnation doctrine, or the omniscience/omnipotence/all-
>loving doctrine.

Yep.  John Hick did this.  And was condemend by numerous theologians.  You
might notice that I keep bringing Hick & Iraneaus into the discussion.  They
answered the problem with universal salvation.  And Iraneaus did it back in
the 2nd century...

I've come back and forth on this issue of salvation...if I could once and
for all work out scriptural references and Iraneaus, I'd be in line with
Hick and Iraneaus.

>>I don't deny that I've responded with doctrinal assertions, though you'll
>>find that my assertions often differ with 'accepted' ideas...heck, I've
>>been called a heretic around here more than once!

>Hartigan's law - "Every intelligent Christian ends up a heretic." 

I concur. ;-)

>>>>Well, I don't happen to agree.  I don't see that God is to blame for this.
>>>>Sure, he is *responsible*, but the individual is to blame. 
>>>                 
>>>Maybe - but he IS to blame for creating a being that he KNOWS is going to
>>>damn itself to eternal hell. And he didn't have to. 
>>Well, there are some philosophical arguments about this.  Most people would
>>consider creating better than not creating.  Something being better than
>>nothing. 

>Pain better than absence of pain?  

Actually, yes.  Wait a minute before you go ballistic!  In order for moral
choices to be actual, and for us to learn from our decisions,  they must have 
measurable results that direct us towards or away from a particular choice.
Without consequences, learning isn't possible.  Iraneaus rejected the
concept of Original Sin (Genesis was allegory & metaphor describing the
state of man's relationship with God) and explained that life was a
learning process that continued even after death, and in the end, all
souls would be gathered to God.

>>One needs to know the PURPOSE of the actions.  God's purpose appears to be
>>freely given love and worship.  Beyond that, there is only speculation as
>>to how things will turn out in the end.  Eschatology and soterolgy are
>>higly speculative, with little direct evidence given other than spotty
>>references in the Bible that are couched highly in allegory, metaphor,
>>poetry, etc.

>So you're saying that you really DON'T believe in the salvation'damnation
>doctrine. Jeez - why didn't you say so!!! :-)

I don't know!  That's the whole point!  I freely admit that I don't know!

>That is to say, you're admitting your ignorance, if I read you right.
Yep...I made it even clearer now!

>That's all I could ask for, except that you see that the doctrine is
>inherently contradictory, and therefore not from God, but from 
>St. Paul and his fanatical minions. 
Well, given my basic assumptions (which I am not prepared to abandon), I have 
to take Paul along with everything else in the Bible.

>And sooooo.....(heh heh) this leads us to ask the musical question:
>what MIGHT the true understanding of the salvation business be, since
>we can see that St. Paul's version breaks down under close scrutiny?

When I find out, I'll let you know.  Just don't hold your breath!

>> I still hold to the arguemnt that if the logical possiblity of evil exists,
>> it will be actualized at some point.

> Your doctrine reduces to:
>"if the logical possibility of X happening exists, it will happen at some
>point," 

> If we substitute "Sean beating a child" for "X," we see that your
>doctrine is false anyway.
>According to you, the logical possibility that X (me beating a kid) exists,
>but this will never happen.  Sorry, mate, but your doctrine is completely
>wrong.  If you want to know WHY it is wrong, go back to our chat on free will.

No, this isn't what I was trying to say.  I was trying to say that if there
is a logical possibility that X will happen, someone, somewhere will do it.
Not specifically you.  In other words, if we can conceive an idea that has
real possibilites, someone will do it.  Bungee Jumping and Skydiving seem
to prove the point...;-)

>> Perhaps so.  But, God and Hitler are quite different, in my opinion.  It is
>> within God's perview to do as He pleases with His creation.  Hitler has no
>> such claim.

>So it's okay for God to be an S.O.B of unparalellable stature? Fine, deny
>the doctrine that he is all-loving...your minister won't be happy! :)

My minister and I disagree on so much already that it's likely I'll be
changing churches...maybe I'll just form my own! ;-)

>>This example will surely be quite different than God's actions, but the
>>point is the same.  If I create something out of clay, do I not have the
>>right to destroy it?  Granted it isn't sentient, but I'm the creator so I
>>can destroy it.

>How cruel! Surely you don't mean this? Forgive me, but even to me, a 
>godless heathen atheist, this seems immoral in the profoundest sense of
>the word! 

Cruel?  To destroy a clay figurine that I constructed?

>> How about a fictional example.  Dr. Tsung creates 'Data' and 'Lore', two
>> human-like computers.  One turns out good, the other bad.  Is it OK to turn
>> off Lore?  How about Data?  If one and not the other, why?  Who gets to
>> decide?  Remember the legal ruling: Data is a toaster!  Are we any
>> different compared to God?

>Are we different than human-like computers?  Look - God makes the rules,
>right? So he can do whatever he @%$% well pleases, and that becomes "good"
>by definition, in your book. So if God creates beings that will damn themselves
>to Hell, that is "Good" by defintion. Fine - but that is incredibly inhuman
>and only the most ruthless rationalist could embrace such a doctrine, let
>alone have the slightest attraction towards any being capable of that kind
>of behaviour, which revolts me. I cannot help but find it profoundly
>insensitive, uncaring, and infinitely cruel.

Herein lies a large part of the problem, I think.  Definitions of good and
evil.  Religion tends to identify 'good' with the will of God.  Thus,
anything God does (He cannot act against His will) is, by definition good.

We may not think so...just ask Job.

>Sugar!!! I have to go!!! Just about everything is covered above, though,
>I think. If you feel I've missed something important, let me know, and
>I'll do another "followup" and hit it. 

;-)  Here we go again!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage