If Stephen Fry Met God - Revisited God & Problem of Evil

[TGHusker]

 

 

Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

 

 

 

First known from ancient Egyptian scripts in the 18th Century BCE, and a popular tenet in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... lots of the isms. It isn't something the Christian God wrote on man's heart (as Paul wrote), it's something lots of gods wrote on lots of hearts. Apparently.

 

Yes, I know the principle of reciprocity goes well beyond the time of Christ. The term Golden Rule is attributed to Christianity based on his words - but that doesn't mean the principle started then. So the term "Golden Rule" is one description to describe the general term of the principle of reciprocity which has been spoken in various ways similar to the way Jesus spoke it.

 

http://www.innovateus.net/content/golden-rule-and-ethics-reciprocity

 

The natural law: as I mentioned, religion (Christian or otherwise - all of the "isms") codifies it in various ways and has done so prior to Paul's words. And Paul notes that it (natural law) isn't just a 'Christian thing' - for he talks of those living out the law, even though they did not have the codified law. Paul was arguing against the prideful Jews who had their religion's laws and rules but failed to live out the natural law and contrasted that to the 'gentiles - non-belivers' who lived out the natural law - but imperfectly. Religion basically gives us (as individuals and as societies) a framework to live out the natural law already written in our hearts.

 

Ver. 14. — For when the gentiles, which have not a law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not a law, are a law unto themselves.

 

If anyone is interested here is a link to a commentary on the chapter and verse in which Paul speaks. To get the full impact, it should be read in content - Romans 1-8. Romans 12-16 become the practical 'living out' of the topic. http://www.godrules.net/library/haldane/31haldane7.htm

[TGHusker]

X - I also understand what you said about survival of the fitness also includes cooperation. That is similar to what Knapp is saying also.

 

Someone needs to teach me how to do 'multi quote' like you guys do.

[TGHusker]

 

x, if God stopped an earthquake from happening, that would hardly be a demonstrable thing.

 

Well if we're going to nitpick . . . I suppose not, unless as the first building was starting to crumble, God appeared and pulled some real Aladdin sh#t. That could work.

.

 

Knapp, WOW -Great post - thanks for your honesty in that first sentence (not saying rest isn't honest - for I know it is).

 

Ultimately, in the materialistic world view, none of it matters. One day all of our survival, all of our altruism will be for naught. For one day, if this physical world is all that there is, all of this will wind down to nothing. The sun will burn out and poof - no more life (probably will happen well before then because of man's destructive tendencies ) That is why I say that as a believer in a God who is the 'First Cause' of all that is (nothing can't produce something), that personal suffering can be redemptive in the long run as trials and suffering and even natural calamities can produce redemptive character traits in all of us but beyond that - As a Christian, I believe that there is a hope of a 'new heaven and an new earth" - an eternal place both after death and at the end of our linear time. Where this earth of suffering has been changed to a redemptive place of true justice, in which evil has been removed. As Geisler says in my 4th post - the current world isn't the best world but it is the best way to the best world - which is yet to come.

 

In regards to altruism, the culturalization/colonization affect of society does build in altruism but lets not short change 'religion' or faith in that regards. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 2 about the law (moral law) being written in our hearts and our hearts either agree wt or condemning us (depends if we are keeping it or not - and all of us have failed in multiple ways - and me everyday!). Others of course refer to this as natural law - which has been codified by various religions in various ways - think 10 Commandments. So one of the benefits of faith and religion as a whole, is the teaching of being altruistic ie: The Golden Rule - "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you". Jesus also said - the 2nd greatest command after Loving God with all of our heart is to "Love your neighbor as yourself". His example of sacrifice encourages many to do acts of sacrifice even self sacrifice of giving up life for the benefit of others. You might call that 'advancing the DNA pool'. I call it living a Christ like life.

 

Yeah, lest anyone think that identifying as an atheist is like a yellow brick road to Sunshine and Lollipop land, there are some unfortunate but necessary conclusions that you can draw––or at least contemplate––about the meaning of it all. The universe is very old, and very large, and things a lot bigger than our planet go boom every single day. I think the "nothing matters" bit is subject to scrutiny, though. Nothing matters to whom? That's the real question. I think in your first paragraph we see one of the oldest causes and functions of religious belief. The end of everything is a hard concept to face mentally and philosophically.

 

The other thing I wanted to add is that survival of the fittest is often mischaracterized or misunderstood. It doesn't just mean "I get mine and screw everyone else," because in many cases organisms that behave that way don't survive. Cooperation is an aspect of fitness. Bees mindlessly follow the queen's directives to maintain a hive; wolves hunt in packs; chimpanzees live in groups (some even make tools); humans build civilizations. Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

 

Good post X - I appreciate your honest appraisal as well. And yes, the older one gets the 'end of everything' just on a personal level is a 'in your face' concept to consider - one's own mortality. And on a larger scale, the mortality of society at large.

[Husker_x]

X - I also understand what you said about survival of the fitness also includes cooperation. That is similar to what Knapp is saying also.

 

Someone needs to teach me how to do 'multi quote' like you guys do.

 

Basically all I do is just quote someone, write a response, and then go back up to another post and quote that one. If you don't care about including the names, you can use the "quote" bubble box in the text editor and copy/paste whatever you want. I think there's a max of five or so you can do in one post. It helps keep the thread looking clean.

[knapplc]

Good post X - I appreciate your honest appraisal as well. And yes, the older one gets the 'end of everything' just on a personal level is a 'in your face' concept to consider - one's own mortality. And on a larger scale, the mortality of society at large.

The "grasping of one's own mortality" is a rude smack in the face from life that I could have done without. It's not a pleasant thought to dwell on, that I'm going to die and life will continue without me.

[NUance]

 

 

 

Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

 

First known from ancient Egyptian scripts in the 18th Century BCE, and a popular tenet in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... lots of the isms. It isn't something the Christian God wrote on man's heart (as Paul wrote), it's something lots of gods wrote on lots of hearts. Apparently.

 

You two are comparing things that are similar, but not quite the same. The law Paul talked about being written on men's hearts is God's law. God's law involves the Golden Rule and having a good conscience, but it's taken a bit further. It also involves worshiping and obeying God.

 

 

"Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from various religions:

 

 

Bahá'í Faith:

"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

 

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. 1

 

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

 

Buddhism:

"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

 

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

 

Christianity:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

 

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

 

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

 

Confucianism:

"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

 

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

 

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

 

Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. 2

 

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

 

Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3

 

Jainism:

"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

 

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

 

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

 

Judaism:

"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

 

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

 

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 4

 

Taoism:

"“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

"To those who are good to me, I am good; to those who are not good to me, I am also good. Thus all get to be good."

 

Zoroastrianism:

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself." Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29 5

 

 

Yes, those are various versions of the Golden Rule. And it's a good rule to live by. Always has been. But Paul wasn't merely speaking of the Golden Rule being written on one's heart.

[Husker_x]

 

Good post X - I appreciate your honest appraisal as well. And yes, the older one gets the 'end of everything' just on a personal level is a 'in your face' concept to consider - one's own mortality. And on a larger scale, the mortality of society at large.

The "grasping of one's own mortality" is a rude smack in the face from life that I could have done without. It's not a pleasant thought to dwell on, that I'm going to die and life will continue without me.

 

 

Christopher Hitchens also said something almost exactly like that the last part of your sentence there. It one of the hardest parts form him to deal with when he was dying of esophageal cancer. It's not the dying or being dead part. It's that the party is going to keep going but you're told you can no longer attend.

 

But extending that metaphor, would you or I or anyone be any happier to hear that we're invited to a party, that attendance is compulsory, and that you may never ever leave? This also seems to me to be a problem.

[knapplc]

 

 

Good post X - I appreciate your honest appraisal as well. And yes, the older one gets the 'end of everything' just on a personal level is a 'in your face' concept to consider - one's own mortality. And on a larger scale, the mortality of society at large.

The "grasping of one's own mortality" is a rude smack in the face from life that I could have done without. It's not a pleasant thought to dwell on, that I'm going to die and life will continue without me.

 

 

Christopher Hitchens also said something almost exactly like that the last part of your sentence there. It one of the hardest parts form him to deal with when he was dying of esophageal cancer. It's not the dying or being dead part. It's that the party is going to keep going but you're told you can no longer attend.

 

But extending that metaphor, would you or I or anyone be any happier to hear that we're invited to a party, that attendance is compulsory, and that you may never ever leave? This also seems to me to be a problem.

 

 

Depends on how good the party is. If it was a drag, I'd be ready to leave. Being unable to leave would be a bigger drag.

 

One of the things I find neatest about life is that I have a burning curiosity about what's going to happen next. I think we live in a fun time, when lots of things are changing and improving. Advancements in science, culture, society and the overall quality of life are fascinating to me, and I want to see the Next Thing: Humans on Mars, discoveries, aliens, the next great boy band, whatever.

[knapplc]

Yes, those are various versions of the Golden Rule. And it's a good rule to live by. Always has been. But Paul wasn't merely speaking of the Golden Rule being written on one's heart.

Considering that many of those predate the Golden Rule, some by millennia, it's safer to say that the Golden Rule is a version of the Ethic of Reciprocity.

[BigRedBuster]

Great discussion.

 

But, I get back to, if we are so smart now that we realize that we are cooperating so that the survival of the fittest survives and continues to reproduce humans on this earth and that is really the only meaning in life, why continue it?

To me, now...really, nothing means anything in this world, why continue the charade of that it DOES mean something?

 

Now that we know all of that, we can now move towards educating our kids and indoctrinating the population that really, there is no reason to save the planet, worry about your fellow human...etc.

 

If all we are is a chemical reaction, then there is no purpose in continuing anything. The feelings we feel towards these things are nothing more than part of the chemical reaction that we are and we can work to change that and save billions of people a lot of grief.

[knapplc]

Great discussion.

 

But, I get back to, if we are so smart now that we realize that we are cooperating so that the survival of the fittest survives and continues to reproduce humans on this earth and that is really the only meaning in life, why continue it?

 

To me, now...really, nothing means anything in this world, why continue the charade of that it DOES mean something?

 

Now that we know all of that, we can now move towards educating our kids and indoctrinating the population that really, there is no reason to save the planet, worry about your fellow human...etc.

 

If all we are is a chemical reaction, then there is no purpose in continuing anything. The feelings we feel towards these things are nothing more than part of the chemical reaction that we are and we can work to change that and save billions of people a lot of grief.

 

Why is a god or afterlife necessary to make this life meaningful? I'm not following this logic at all.

 

You go to Prom, you're there for the pomp and ceremony, and have a blast amongst all your friends. Afterward you could either go home and chill or you could go to an after party and continue to hang with folks.

 

The last few posts you're making seem to say, if you don't go to the after party, it was never worthwhile to go to the Prom in the first place. I'm saying, the Prom is worthwhile in its own right, and doesn't need to have anything attached to justify it. I'm going to rent that tux, wash my car, comb my hair and buy my date a corsage because that's part of the whole experience. It is its own thing, and doesn't need anything after.

[Hammerhead]

Great discussion.

 

But, I get back to, if we are so smart now that we realize that we are cooperating so that the survival of the fittest survives and continues to reproduce humans on this earth and that is really the only meaning in life, why continue it?

 

To me, now...really, nothing means anything in this world, why continue the charade of that it DOES mean something?

 

Now that we know all of that, we can now move towards educating our kids and indoctrinating the population that really, there is no reason to save the planet, worry about your fellow human...etc.

 

If all we are is a chemical reaction, then there is no purpose in continuing anything. The feelings we feel towards these things are nothing more than part of the chemical reaction that we are and we can work to change that and save billions of people a lot of grief.

 

Even as atheists, we're not saying that we know that -- it's just our best guess as to what's going on. How we got here isn't a known quantity at this point, and likely will never be. We just see no reason to believe that we got here because an omniscient higher power put us here, because the evidence doesn't suggest it to us.

 

Saying that there's no purpose to living completely factors out the human element, and it assumes that there's a sole arbiter of whether or not life has actual meaning, or what that meaning might be. Everyone has their own reason for living. Yes, there's a lot of pain and suffering in this world, and not everybody can handle it. That's why some people do decide to end it all. Despite that, there's also plenty of pleasure to be derived from living too. If this is the one life we get, why not see it through? On a grand scale, all those chemical reactions may be nothing more than that, but the meaning of it all is vastly different at a personal level.

 

Besides, even if there is a higher power, there's still just as much question as to what our purpose is. Were we created to serve that higher power unflinchingly in exchange for eternal life? Why would an all-powerful deity need to create sentient beings to worship it? Why would we be eternally punished for not serving our purpose, despite no clear evidence that we have a purpose granted from a higher power? To me, lending credence to the possibility of a higher power out there creates more questions than the alternative.

[NUance]

Why would an all-powerful deity need to create sentient beings?

 

 

Maybe it's like the Tom Hanks character and Wilson.

[Landlord]

Everyone has their own reason for living.

 

 

 

Scientifically speaking, wouldn't this more accurately be stated as 'Everyone has convinced themselves of their own alleged reason for living'? Reason implies logic, which is a reflection of static scientific certainty. If I decide that my reason for living is for my own happiness, well that is hardly something that is imbued in the fabric of the universe outside my brain, that's just electrical signals in my head firing randomly. 2+2=4 regardless of whether or not I believe it does. That's the kind of thing that can be defined as true and real and inherent to life. My made up reason for my own satisfaction of why I'm living isn't any of those things.

[TGHusker]

Knapp, I take the point of view that the prom (good illustration) isn't the main event. We may think it is the main event and should be enjoyed for all of its fullness but there is a bigger event to happen afterwards (the eternal afterwards party to continue your illustration). I would agree with you 100% - we should enjoy and can enjoy this world for all of its benefits (even with all of its flaws that we've been discussing). I would add that even if there wasn't the promise of heaven, I'd still strive to live a Christian life for all of its benefits in this life (and I'm not talking about the false prosperity preachers benefits that turn many away from faith). So for me, this is the practice place, the foretaste of something better - the best place on the way to the better place. Enjoy it to the fullness while we have breath.

 

Atheist William Provine would state that life has no ultimate meaning. He says life may have 'relative meaning' only.

Dr William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’

Reference

1. Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

 

 

William Lane Craig agrees by addressing the Ultimate meaninglessness of man without God. He addresses the area of meaning and gives 3 options 1. suicide 2. Face the absurdity of life and live bravely (kind of what Husker X says above about facing the facts of life head on as an atheist) 3. God exists therefore life has ultimate meaning, value and purpose. God & Immortality are the prerequisites for ultimate meaning and purpose in life (around minute 29 in the video)- he goes on to explain the Christian world view on the subject.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWRoJ9myovY?t=173

 

 

 

 

I did a quick search and found several bloggers who addressed this from a Christian perspective.

Here is an interesting take from one blogger - I just found (an atheist turned Catholic). She even questions my statement above somewhat about enjoying the Christian life now even without a heaven.

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/if-atheism-is-true-does-life-still-have-meaning/

 

 

http://www.rightreason.org/2010/god-and-the-meaning-of-life/

http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/01/can-atheists-find-meaning-in-life/

http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2011/05/the-atheistic-problem-of-purpose/