Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But your problem is far worse than that. You have not even shown that such a thing as "morality" exists -- so your question doesn't even make sense. Again, it reduces to "Why does God do what Belinda doesn't like?" The easy answer to that is, "Because Belinda isn't God."

Then you have no rationally justifiable exception to such a response. You may not find it very satisfying to you, but again, that's just subjective. For only if "evil" means something objective, something much more solid, real and universal than "what Belinda doesn't like" can you even pose the question.

Morality is the mutual agreement in any society to observe certain social rules. Morality may be recorded orally by such as bards, or written down by scribes. Morality is usually enshrined in laws that carry punishments for infringing them.



If you or I were living in another age and place our consciousnesses would be other than what they are, so our moral deficiencies would be different ones. I ask "what is evil?" ; Augustine of Hippo answers "evil is absence of good".

Fallible humans can only imagine perfect good by way of imaginative analogies.

If you or anybody else congratulates himself that he knows perfect good then he idolises his own imagination.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is the mutual agreement in any society to observe certain social rules.

Who gets to say which society? And since societies change ( and manifestly, some for the better, and some for the worse), at which point in time should we take our measurement of morality? And after we do, how do we know we got the right society and time period?

So is your question really, "How can God permit something that doesn't conform to the rules that I think that the majority in my society would probably approve at this moment in time?" Because that's all your definition gives us. In which case, the answer is, "Your society is a very transient and contingent entity, and nobody -- especially not the Supreme Being -- owes you to honour its temporary moral whims, whether they presently happen to be favoured by many or few."

[Belinda]

Morality is the mutual agreement in any society to observe certain social rules.

Who gets to say which society? And since societies change ( and manifestly, some for the better, and some for the worse), at which point in time should we take our measurement of morality? And after we do, how do we know we got the right society and time period?

So is your question really, "How can God permit something that doesn't conform to the rules that I think that the majority in my society would probably approve at this moment in time?" Because that's all your definition gives us. In which case, the answer is, "Your society is a very transient and contingent entity, and nobody -- especially not the Supreme Being -- owes you to honour its temporary moral whims, whether they presently happen to be favoured by many or few."

The above is mostly impenetrable. You need to learn untrammelled by your faith.

[Immanuel Can]

The above is mostly impenetrable. You need to learn untrammelled by your faith.

That's funny...it was your question, reworded to fit your definition of "evil."

Okay, Belinda. Happy days.

[uwot]

Morality is the mutual agreement in any society to observe certain social rules.

Who gets to say which society? And since societies change ( and manifestly, some for the better, and some for the worse), at which point in time should we take our measurement of morality? And after we do, how do we know we got the right society and time period?

In Europe we had roughly 1600 years of christian domination. The evidence of that history is that the bible is a very poor measurement of morality.

So is your question really, "How can God permit something that doesn't conform to the rules that I think that the majority in my society would probably approve at this moment in time?" Because that's all your definition gives us. In which case, the answer is, "Your society is a very transient and contingent entity, and nobody -- especially not the Supreme Being -- owes you to honour its temporary moral whims, whether they presently happen to be favoured by many or few."

Your concept of a supreme being is of one that allows all of that history to be done and have his name attached to it. I can conceive of an even more supreme being with the wisdom not to. Therefore, your supreme being disappears in a whiff of ontological logic.

[attofishpi]

It is irrational to believe that God is both all benevolent and omnipotent. For example, many parents lose their children to leukemia - is God being ALL benevolent here?

You would have to presume Determinism there. You would have to say, "If cancer happens, there can only be one reason it does: God." You couldn't say it happened by chance, you couldn't say it happened by diet, you couldn't say it happened as a judgment, or that it happened because of environmental pollutants, or by some choice made by some other person, or even through a genetic flaw. If human beings are free, all of these are possible alternate answers; so your suggestion that there can only be two answers depends on you also believing in Determinism.

Rubbish. What I am saying is that God, although omnipotent, is not all benevolent. The instance of a child being left to die due to natural causes, in this case, whatever caused the leukemia, is an example where, although God has the ability to cure the child, 'it' has chosen to allow the child to die. Ergo, no benevolence toward the child or the parents is apparent here, ergo, God is not ALL benevolent.

What do YOU regard as evil, whether or not I or anyone else consider such things 'evil' is not relevant to my questioning.

"Good" is that which is consonant with the character of God Himself. That which is incompatible with that character is what we objectively can call "evil."

Where are you getting this notion that only 'good' is consonant with the character of God? The bible? The old testament is littered with statements where God's character is far less than 'good'.

Do you believe all the statements within Genesis are true?

Let me ask you this: do you believe it would be okay for God to speak in illustrations, metaphors or poetry as well as in statements of bald fact? Or do you suppose God can only communicate truth if He is exclusively literal, and uses absolutely no normal devices of human communication, such as parables or figures of speech?

Then I'll understand what you mean by "true." And then I'll know how to answer that question.

Are you a politician? You constantly dodge answering questions with more questions of your own, and it's obvious you will not allow yourself or your faith to be made clear...allowing yourself to be free of rational scrutiny.
Have some back:- Let me ask you this: do you believe it would be okay for God to speak in illustrations, metaphors or poetry as well as in statements of bald fact? Or do you suppose God can only communicate truth if He is exclusively literal, and uses absolutely no normal devices of human communication, such as parables or figures of speech?

[Immanuel Can]

Rubbish. What I am saying is that God, although omnipotent, is not all benevolent. The instance of a child being left to die due to natural causes, in this case, whatever caused the leukemia, is an example where, although God has the ability to cure the child, 'it' has chosen to allow the child to die. Ergo, no benevolence toward the child or the parents is apparent here, ergo, God is not ALL benevolent.

Oh. You don't want to ask about whether or not God is responsible for evils, but rather, the question of whether or not God is morally responsible to prevent all evils.

If a world in which some evil is allowed to take place is necessary, because a world with the possibility of evil in it is actually, in some sense, a BETTER world than one in which evil is made utterly impossible, then the truly "benevolent" thing of God to do would actually be to ALLOW the possibility of evil. That's the right answer, I think.

But I'm not attacking you, and I'm not at all upset with you; so really, there's no need for flourishes of rhetorical rebuff, like "rubbish." I'm being quite sincere. And if that's not okay with you, atto, I guess that's still how it is -- I can't do anything about it either way.

What do YOU regard as evil, whether or not I or anyone else consider such things 'evil' is not relevant to my questioning.

"Good" is that which is consonant with the character of God Himself. That which is incompatible with that character is what we objectively can call "evil."

Where are you getting this notion that only 'good' is consonant with the character of God? The bible? The old testament is littered with statements where God's character is far less than 'good'.

Where? You asked me what I believe. I told you.

But you're wrong in what you say about the Bible. Maybe you can give me some example fo what you're thinking of? And we could talk about it.

Do you believe all the statements within Genesis are true?

Let me ask you this: do you believe it would be okay for God to speak in illustrations, metaphors or poetry as well as in statements of bald fact? Or do you suppose God can only communicate truth if He is exclusively literal, and uses absolutely no normal devices of human communication, such as parables or figures of speech?

Then I'll understand what you mean by "true." And then I'll know how to answer that question.

Are you a politician?

No. Rather, I'm asking you to clarify, and promising you a straight answer once you do. There's nothing political in that. And if you answer, I will also answer; because only if I know what you mean can I answer your question honestly and accurately. Fair enough?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

If a world in which some evil is allowed to take place is necessary, because a world with the possibility of evil in it is actually, in some sense, a BETTER world than one in which evil is made utterly impossible, then the truly "benevolent" thing of God to do would actually be to ALLOW the possibility of evil. That's the right answer, I think.

No it's not. It's true that some degree of evil is good and therefore may be the work of a good and all- powerful deity. The enormous number and degree of evil in the world cannot be the work of an all- powerful good deity.

[uwot]

Immanuel Can wrote:

If a world in which some evil is allowed to take place is necessary, because a world with the possibility of evil in it is actually, in some sense, a BETTER world than one in which evil is made utterly impossible, then the truly "benevolent" thing of God to do would actually be to ALLOW the possibility of evil. That's the right answer, I think.

No it's not. It's true that some degree of evil is good and therefore may be the work of a good and all- powerful deity. The enormous number and degree of evil in the world cannot be the work of an all- powerful good deity.

Mr Can is committed to the Leibnizian view that, since god is all powerful and all good, the world he creates is necessarily the best of all possible worlds. It is an opinion mercilessly shredded by Voltaire in 'Candide'. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19942/1 ... 9942-h.htm

[Immanuel Can]

No it's not. It's true that some degree of evil is good and therefore may be the work of a good and all- powerful deity. The enormous number and degree of evil in the world cannot be the work of an all- powerful good deity.

But you don't even have a definition of "evil," beyond " things Belinda doesn't like." It's subjective, remember? So you're in no rational position at the moment to be able to say there's any real, objective "evil" in the world at all...except things you don't like.

So all you can accuse God of doing is "what Belinda would rather he didn't." And I don't think anybody can even be surprised at that, let alone owe you any kind of explanation for why it is so.

Your comment, therefore, makes no sense -- not because I say so, but because your definition reduces "evil" to a mere triviality, so that if anyone believes your definition, then they have no reason to believe your comment is claiming something important.

To make an important claim against God, you would have to concede moral objectivism. But you won't. So you cannot.

[uwot]

But you don't even have a definition of "evil," beyond " things Belinda doesn't like."

And you, Mr Can, don't even have a definition of "evil" beyond "things god doesn't like."

It's subjective, remember?

As is your opinion of what God doesn't like.

[Belinda]

Uwot wrote:

Mr Can is committed to the Leibnizian view that, since god is all powerful and all good, the world he creates is necessarily the best of all possible worlds. It is an opinion mercilessly shredded by Voltaire in 'Candide'. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19942/1 ... 9942-h.htm

Thanks for reminding us Uwot. Immanuel should compare himself with Pangloss.

Moreover Immanuel Can doesn't fool anyone that he has to look up a holy book before he knows what evil feels like.

[Immanuel Can]

Moreover Immanuel Can doesn't fool anyone that he has to look up a holy book before he knows what evil feels like.

And yet, I'm not the one accusing God of "evil." That's you, it would seem. So that means the burden of proof is not on me, but on your view...that is, assuming you still think you mean something when you say that you think God allows too much "evil."

Now, whether or not you think I'm capable of giving a more reliable, objective and stable contrary count is an interesting question; but for the moment is simply not relevant to your own problem. It's a mere ad hominem tu quoque fallacy if you were to suppose it matters. If you are behaving rationally, you owe it to yourself to say exactly what you mean by "evil." If it's merely subjective, merely "what Belinda happens not to like," then you've effectively trivialized your own argument.

And I have no hand in that; you've done it to yourself. I merely point out to you what you've done to yourself.

[Belinda]

No, Immanuel. Your version of God allows too much evil../
My version of God is not a Being that omnipotently bestrides the poor world regardless of its suffering.

My version of God is that striving after and longing for good that is reported in the media and viewed in many everyday lives. My version of God is like a child that needs nurturing by people who are brave enough to take on that work. My version of God is not the other-worldly owner of everything . My version of God is seen fleetingly in selfless actions.

Reality includes suffering and also men's desire to alleviate suffering. God is men's desire and symbol of men's desire to alleviate suffering and create beauty.This desire originates in nature and in history not in some invisible Overlord.

[attofishpi]

Rubbish. What I am saying is that God, although omnipotent, is not all benevolent. The instance of a child being left to die due to natural causes, in this case, whatever caused the leukemia, is an example where, although God has the ability to cure the child, 'it' has chosen to allow the child to die. Ergo, no benevolence toward the child or the parents is apparent here, ergo, God is not ALL benevolent.

Oh. You don't want to ask about whether or not God is responsible for evils, but rather, the question of whether or not God is morally responsible to prevent all evils.

If a world in which some evil is allowed to take place is necessary, because a world with the possibility of evil in it is actually, in some sense, a BETTER world than one in which evil is made utterly impossible, then the truly "benevolent" thing of God to do would actually be to ALLOW the possibility of evil. That's the right answer, I think.

I'm not sure why you insist on using the term 'evil' in our discussion. It isn't a binary thing - God not always being benevolent, does not necessarily make God 'evil'.
It's really rather simple: there is no benevolence being shown toward the child and parents, in this instance, the child dying of leukemia. Thus, your statement 'God is ALL benevolent' is inaccurate.

Let me ask you this: do you believe it would be okay for God to speak in illustrations, metaphors or poetry as well as in statements of bald fact? Or do you suppose God can only communicate truth if He is exclusively literal, and uses absolutely no normal devices of human communication, such as parables or figures of speech?

Then I'll understand what you mean by "true." And then I'll know how to answer that question.

Are you a politician?

No. Rather, I'm asking you to clarify, and promising you a straight answer once you do. There's nothing political in that. And if you answer, I will also answer; because only if I know what you mean can I answer your question honestly and accurately. Fair enough?

But I turned the same questions you asked of me back to you, since I am the one seeking to clarify your stance, perhaps you could have answered your own questions first.