Doubting Didymus

Candide was a satire on the church? That's not the main message I got from reading it. I was under the distinct impression that the fearful point of Voltaires' satire was aimed squarely at Leibniz and his philosophy of positivism.

Then again, the catholic/protestant thing did feature prominently, now that I recall.

hal9000

I believe it was characterized as an attack on the evil that christian religion brought on the world, but I’m not a scholar of enlightenment thinking.

Douglas J. Bender

Not at all. Read my responses to David M. Payne, and see if you can discern what "happened" to me. I'll give you a hint, though - it's pretty much like what happens when someone spreads lies and misinformation about someone you love.


In Christ,

Douglas

David M. Payne

Thanks Zwi, I remember the story as one of Jewish moneylenders, but as I said, it was satire, so the description is not really germane to the story. There is no disrespect meant to any of the people of these religions, most of them are good people who have unfortunately been caught up in the oldest scam in history. The scorn is reserved for those in power who misuse their power in the name of God.

David

hal9000

I just did a quick search on the internet and MSN/Encarta said this about it, "Candide, in which Voltaire analyzes the problem of evil in the world, depicts the woes heaped upon the world in the name of religion." In any event I think it’s a quite effective piece of satire.

David M. Payne

You present Christians as having no real or valid evidence for the existence of God, for example. (That's "Douglas", if you don't mind. Thanks again.) Seriously, though, David - are you honestly open to the possibility of God's existence, or are you absolutely certain that He does not exist? Are you willing to consider possible evidence, or would you attempt to scoff it away under any circumstances?

Yes Douglas, I could be convinced of Gods existence. All he would have to do is show up in person on the planet and straighten out this mess religion has made of it with a snap of his fingers. Until that happens, I'll remain a strong agnostic, and an atheist as far as the Abrahamic God is concerned. As for your evidence, no amount of soothing words will suffice, he needs to show up in person, and he should be willing to do that for the beings he created in his image, and are his only children, shouldn’t he?

And you present the God that they believe in as being an obviously inconsistent and cruel Being.

That’s because the bible tells me so, Douglas.

Apparently only because you are very hard of hearing, or because you've not been paying attention when it speaks, since the Bible never says that.

I am not a student of the bible; I'm a student of history, politics, economics, a few other minor interests, and reality. And the reality of God/religion, the fact that every war has been about God/religion, or has used God/religion as a justification for one or more sides, is what "Bob" is all about.
I read "Candide" by Voltaire a few years ago in a class I was taking, and found it a quite amusing look at the problem of evil and the role of religion in bringing evil about. (Thanks for reminding me hal.) Satire has been very useful in destroying the myths mankind has invented, and I just follow in that mold. I just wish I had the skill of some of these writers, but I do the best I can with what I have. As for your point, the tale of Noah and the great flood is all the proof I need of my view that the God depicted in the bible is pretty much as I have drawn him in "Bob." This God of yours is omnipotent, benevolent, and just, yet the only thing he can do when faced with behavior he doesn't like is to kill all humanity, save one family? He has every option available to man, plus every option available to himself, and he chooses the worst one imaginable, the mass murder of humanity? Sorry Douglas, he looks like a monster to me, and I have read that passage (Genesis ) several times. It is pretty clear to me what it says. But as I said in "Bob" you can find whatever you want in the holy books, you just have to dig deep enough to get what you need. This is another problem with religion.

Well, you know, you've just proven that you're not qualified to judge Christianity, then. Anyone who cannot discern the difference between what a book teaches, and what those who claim to follow it do, is not discerning enough to expound on that book. Wouldn't you agree?

No Douglas I wouldn't agree. If I earned nothing else in Vietnam, I earned the right to freedom of thought, and freedom of speech, and I am using them here to the best effect I can to stop that kind of horror from going on, and on, and on. Get it?

PS, if you would use a format like this one, it would make our conversations much easier for both of us. We can't use the quote function the way you are posting with all the quotes, though they do look nice. I am calling you by your preferred name, please do me this favor Douglas, OK?

Best, David

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: David M. Payne ]</p>

JohnV

No, I don't see that at all. Just the opposite - you had to use an existing god and religion and change some things. You didn't "create" anything.

Tristan Scott

I have a question, David.

Did you write an earlier version of this story of Bob?

Philosoft

If you refer to Christianity, my irony meter is about to explode.

Fiach

Mr. Douglas Bender:

“You present Christians as having no real or valid evidence for the existence of God, for example. (That's "Douglas", if you don't mind. Thanks again.) Seriously, though, David - are you honestly open to the possibility of God's existence, or are you absolutely certain that He does not exist? Are you willing to consider possible evidence, or would you attempt to scoff it away under any circumstances?”

I know that Christians have no valid evidence for the existence of God. I am a student of history and have read the Bible extensively. What Christians claim as evidence for their god is either hearsay (what others wrote 1900 years ago) or personal experience (seeing or hearing God or the Virgin), which in every case that I studied were found to be hallucinations. You asked David if he could honestly admit to the possibility of a God. Well, I am not certain that some kind of a conscious creator could not exist. But God is not defined. I would more easily accept God as a natural process that we have not yet or never will discover, that belches out universes periodically. Such a creative force need not be a conscious being patterned off of human personality. It may be entirely inanimate like gravity or nuclear fusion. It may create universes not because of conscious effort but because that is its major or only property. Like David I know that the Abrahamic God is fictitious. It is a being patterned on the personalities of the Bedouin/Hebrew desert tribal shamans. That is why the Old Testament has God suffering rage attacks of mass killing. That is why their God is unjust such as the killing of millions of babies in the Noah’s Flood because some or all adults sinned in some way. God’s condemning of Adam and Eve for doing what he programmed them to do, and punishing all of their descendents is clearly unjust. It is what Americans call a Sting Operation. The demand of a blood sacrifice is a sign of the savage Bronze Age culture. Joe Hovah impregnating a girl to make a god-human for that sacrifice makes no real sense. Joe could have been magnanimous and simply forgiven mankind.

Secondly, the idea that a creator of the universe must be conscious is not supportable. Presumably this being is very great. He/She/It is not subject to metabolic needs such as food. He/She/It has no need to find a reproductive mate to have a family of little gods. He/She/It needs neither strategies nor intelligence to evade predators. No predator would be great enough to prey upon the greatest thing in the cosmos. All of those actions (finding food, finding a mate, evading predators) require conscious and some degree of intelligence. Conscience and intelligence evolved as survival mechanisms in animals. An animal is the product of evolution and survival of the fittest not a creator of everything. God therefore has no more need of consciousness and intelligence than he does of a .44 magnum for protection. Consciousness and intelligences are animal survival mechanisms produced by evolution. Primitive shamans didn’t know that. So they gave the god they created, a human mind.

“And you present the God that they believe in as being an obviously inconsistent and cruel Being.”

Aye, that is how God is presented in the Bible. I didn’t make his image such. The Bible writers did that. Even Jesus shows this. On the cross, Jesus who is supposed to be fully a god, asks “My God, My God, why hast THOU, forsaken ME.” This shows that he was talking TO God. He didn’t say Father, but God. And the fact that he thought he had been forsaken shows that he didn’t think that it would turn out that way.

“Apparently only because you are very hard of hearing, or because you've not been paying attention when it speaks, since the Bible never says that.”

I studied the Bible fairly extensively. I was required to do so in primary school. I read the Bible cover-to-cover one year in grade 7 or 8. In university, while I majored in Chemistry, I managed to take a Theology Course for 4 years that consisted of Bible study almost entirely. BTW, the Bible does say that. I am not hard of hearing. I am not stupid or daft, since I have a doctoral degree in Biochemistry and a medical degree. I think I am capable of reading comprehension, Sir.

“Well, you know, you've just proven that you're not qualified to judge Christianity, then.”

I am as qualified if not more so to interpret Christianity as you.

“ Anyone who cannot discern the difference between what a book teaches, and what those who claim to follow it do, is not discerning enough to expound on that book. Wouldn't you agree?”

I would agree that modern Christians, believers in the non-Biblical Trinity have no scriptural basis for their beliefs. I would also decry the fact that the Sermon on the Mount, the most noble of Jesus’ speeches is the most ignored. I think that most of Europe’s religious wars were founded on the more evil parts of the Old Testament, the many atrocities of the Israelite troops on Canaanite cities. Those were justified because God supposedly ordered or condoned them. Those likely were justified by evil men to cover their greed for the city and land and goods plus the young girls therein.

Fiach