luvluv

"The Christian, by virtue of his commitment to God, is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and is not free to alter it without drastically altering the very foundation of Christianity."

The point you are missing is that the "restraint" is internal. We CHOOSE to live by the moral code and can choose not to if we wish. Free moral agency was only meant to imply that our decisions are not coerced by external forces. The fact that we, of our own free will, make the decision to discipline ourselves does not reduce our free moral agency.

"Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it."

Christians can create versions of their own moral prerogatives and many of them have. Their are fundamentalist Christians, Marxist Christians, Black Nationalist Christians. The range of Christian thought and opinion on political and moral issues is as vast as the atheist range, and all of the people holding these opinions are legitimately Christian in God's eyes (I believe). Are you under the impression that Christians agree totally on moral issues?

Suffice it to say, though, that Christians do have free moral agency even if they choose to use that free moral agency to obey God, because God doesn't MAKE them obey Him. Again, the lack of external compulsion is all that free moral agency ever was intended to communicate.

rainbow walking

Tercel earlier: In the case of "free moral agent", what comes to mind is the idea of one who has the ability to accept God's morality or refuse it.

Rw earlier: Yes, I know, and it has all too often been accepted as the default mindset, when in reality, it requires one to first accept that there is a God and that he is a moral being worthy of acceptance. Both assumptions are negated by the reality of suffering.

Tercel: Is that a problem? As I understand it, the argument from suffering attempts to disprove the Christian worldview by demonstrating it as inconsistent with the observed world. It is a proof by contradiction: 1. the Christian worldview is assumed, 2. shown to lead to a contradiction with observed reality, 3. and then declared false.
Now the relevance of “free will” to the argument is in part 2 of the argument, as it is raised to counter the claim that the observed world contradicts the Christian worldview. Now by part 2 of the argument, we have already assumed the truth of the Christian worldview in part 1. Hence I don’t see the requirement of having to assume the existence and morality of God as a problem for the “free will” defense, as assuming exactly this is what is required in part 1 of the arguments.

Rw: But I’m not disputing the fact that you base your defense of the gospel on these assumptions. I’m questioning the validity of them.

Tercel: You say that “Both assumptions are negated by the reality of suffering”: But is the Christian point that, “yes this would be true if our belief did not include the idea of this free will thing”. The argument from suffering attempts to show the Christian’s position as inconsistent. The Christian is free to invent as many ideas as they like (devil, free-will etc) assuming the truth of their own system as much as they want: What is being required of the Christian is to simply demonstrate a possible way in which their beliefs do not conflict with reality.

Rw: The point is Tercel, I’m not the one blaming God for human suffering. It’s derived from Christian doctrine. I’m only pointing out the obvious contradictions when comparing this doctrine to reality. This doctrine holds that God created man and the world in which he resides and possesses foreknowledge of every man’s activities throughout his life. It further holds that nothing transpires in this world that isn’t God’s will and within His sovereign power to control. Remember, this is Christian doctrine and not my own. I look at the world, at humanity suffering and struggling to survive, and I look at this doctrine and what else can I conclude. Now the apologist, at this point, will begin to peel the onion and defend his faith by declaring that God doesn’t superimpose His will over man’s will or exorcise His sovereignty over man’s affairs, to which I will say, “why not?” Then the apologist will ultimately be forced to return to the free will issue to justify his position. And remember, I didn’t start this criticism, it’s inherent in the comparison between the doctrine and reality. Since reality is non-disputable what does that leave us with to debate? Ultimately it is the Christian who is making the dents in his own assumptions by virtue of the doctrines which he has developed around those assumptions. I’m just pointing out the leaks in his dike and watching to see how many fingers he has left to plug the holes. Eventually the levy will break.

Rw earlier: These assumptions are not necessary to, and as I’ve demonstrated are, anti-thetical to the proper conceptualization of a FREE moral agent.

Tercel: But whatever “proper” conceptualisation you think a free moral agent should have, isn’t it up to the Christian to define what they believe and up to you to try and prove “contradictoriness” with what they give you as their beliefs?

Rw: When I defined “free moral agency” properly I did so for clarification. It is your prerogative to accept or reject that definition and to furnish another. This you did by declaring free moral agency as the capacity to choose or reject God. From that point I made an effort to demonstrate the restrictive and limiting factors in your definition that render it less than accurate. Why is it that the believer sees the primary moral issue, justifying free moral agency, to be God or not God? What if you were an orthodox Calvinist?

Rw earlier: Can it be shown that acceptance of these moral strictures alleviates suffering?

Tercel: I don’t think it’s difficult to realise that if everyone accepted the Christian moral structures then the world would contain significantly less suffering.

Rw: Are you sure? Since Christian doctrine alleges that man doesn’t choose God but God chooses man. If such a measure would actually make a significant difference in human suffering and God refuses to choose enough men to accept these Christian morals to make this difference, doesn’t that lead us back to the same conclusion?

On the other hand, I can see where such an event would place a huge burden of responsibility on the church and its leaders and would likely be a heady experience. Ever heard the phrase, “absolute power absolutely corrupts”? Don’t we have some historical precedent telling a story quite the opposite of yours?

Rw earlier: Can it be shown that only those who have rejected these strictures are suffering or cause suffering?

Tercel: No. Need it be?

Rw: It would help your cause, don’t you think?

Rw earlier: Can it be shown that God or not God is the primary moral choice?

Tercel: I don’t think so. But again, why does the Christian need to prove all their beliefs?


Rw: I’m not seeking proof Tercel, just a resolution to the contradictions. I do expect the doctrines to make sense; to align with the reality. I look around me and see men suffering for their own mistakes. I’m down with that, dog. No God needed. I see people suffering for no good reason other than they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s cool. Shit happens. No God needed. Then, when I turn to leave I’m slapped up side the head with this big thick book telling me God created all this and nothing transpires up in here without God’s permission or in violation of his will. I turn back and take another furtive look at this world waiting on me to bust one bad move just to jump on my ass with all the suffering I could ever covet. I look back at this book. I didn’t write the book, I just read it. The smoke clears and I begin to see that suffering is a fact of existence. But I’m told that this God knows all, sees all, can do anything, and loves me. So I take another long look around me at the reality of the situation. I’m not asking anybody to prove anything, Tercel, just tell me why? Why is there such a wide disparity between the book, the God it proclaims, and the world in which I found that book?

Tercel: Surely to refute the argument from suffering, the Christian need only demonstrate that there exists at least one possible way that their beliefs can be consistent with observed reality?

Rw: I thought this once also. There isn’t. But you won’t give up trying until you’ve exhausted all avenues of possibility.

Tercel: Aren’t two things been confused here? Jesus manifested the perfect example of compliance with God’s morality, yes. Yet he still suffered. Why? Because others who weren’t complying with God’s revealed morality chose to inflict suffering on him. To obey God’s morality is never presented as being about saving oneself from suffering inflicted by others: Rather, it is about not inflicting suffering on others yourself.

Rw: Well, I hear what you’re saying Tercel, and I once justified his death the same way. But then there’s this doctrine, like a thorn in my brain, telling me that Christs’ death was God’s will and a crucial aspect of His plan for man. So then I ask myself, how exactly did God orchestrate these events to persuade men to murder Jesus? Then I found my answer. It didn’t help much though. These men, the ones you say weren’t complying with God’s law, were Jews who were the only men given the law and believed that they were doing God’s will in having Christ crucified. Strange turn of events…eh? You say they weren’t complying with God’s law. Doctrine says Christ had to die and that His death was crucial to God’s plan. God had to have orchestrated these events thus making it seem strange to me that these men are being condemned for not complying with the law when they were instrumental in the fulfillment of this most crucial aspect of God’s plan. Apparently God’s law addresses the infliction of suffering on others but His plans seem to indicate that this law means squat when God begins to enact some aspect of His plan. What was the term Meta used…collateral damage?


Tercel: Neither would I agree that suffering is a prerequisite for proving ones faith. Indeed, James wrote that he proved his faith by his actions, and indeed Jesus commented in a similar vein that good trees produced good fruit and bad trees bad fruit. Suffering, I think, can prove faith, and can increase it.

Rw: Haven’t you noticed all the references to fires and trials and tribulations working patience, and afflictions and troublous times and on and on and on? I don’t see how anyone can read the NT and not conclude that there will be tests and races and perplexing experiences and vexation and through it all one is to give God the glory. Why? What are they praising God for? These things are a part of life anyway. People endure these things all the time and do mature as a result of them, with or without God. But where was this loving God? Tucked neatly away in their minds watching them and silently listening to their pleas and prayers?

Tercel: I am not sure I even see a conflict here… If God cares and has moral wills about our behaviour in general, then why should our behaviour as a reaction to suffering be an exception?

Rw: Because, according to doctrine, it is the test of your faith. To cling to God and proclaim Jesus and believe with your whole being that God has a reason for allowing you to suffer.

Tercel: Perhaps this is true under your definition of free moral agent. But as I asked above, why must the Christian confine themselves to your definition: It is after all, their beliefs that are being attempted to be proven inconsistent.

Rw: Because the Christians version is confining. The proper definition liberates us from the God/not God conyndrum.

Tercel: I would say the Christian IS still a free moral agent, because they can still choose to reject the decision of acceptance they have made.

Rw: Where’s the freedom when your choices are confined to God/not God?

Tercel: I don’t see what you’re getting at here. I don’t see suffering as something you can alleviate by changing your own morals/causes etc.

Rw: The above has nothing to do with alleviation of suffering but about proper assignment.

Tercel: Suffering is, I think, something we inflict on others. As such, I think applying the idea of free moral agency can explain suffering as it shows the suffering as a direct result of actions of others who were not acting fully in accord with the moral decrees of God.

Rw: True. Suffering CAN be explained in this way. But the explanation falls apart when compared with the doctrinally defined omni-max attributes of this God. God, or his morals, aren’t needed to explain suffering or to alleviate it. Since reality shows us man as the one causing suffering (sometimes), and man is the one doing the suffering, and man is the one alleviating suffering…why does man need a God to explain or dictate man’s morals?

Tercel: Of course: I enjoy thinking about all the complex questions. My thoughts on the matter tend to go two (not necessarily exclusive) ways. One, it seems the question can be solved if we do some qualification of the omni’s. Say Omniscience. God, I think, is omniscient with regard to this particular world of space-time… but what about the parts of creation beyond this universe? Say the creation of Satan: Did God know Satan would choose to oppose God before God created Satan? Etc. By qualifying a few of the omni’s in some small ways such as this, I think we can sufficiently answer many of the deep questions without even touching any of the standard Christian ideas of God being omni-max with regard to this universe.

Rw: O’kay, then can you qualify God’s omni-max attributes with his need for a world of people to forgive?

Tercel: Two, I appreciate that I’m not omniscient. I’m not really in a position to make any authoritative declarations on how God could have done it better. In fact, my experience has been that the more I understand (or at least think I understand) some of the ideas behind what I see as God’s plan, the more I appreciate what God has done and why he has done it that way.

Rw: Then perhaps these challenges will improve your understanding enough to assist me in my need for understanding.

Tercel: As I see it, to affirm the reasonableness of these other moral codes is to affirm moral relativism. Moral relativism is (to put it mildly) not a concept which I see as having a very philosophically stable basis…

Rw: Every time you disobey one of God’s laws you affirm moral relativism. If you saw your wife labor strenuously to prepare you a special 7 course meal which she was obviously proud to set before you, and the food tasted horrible, would you tell her so or lie when she asks you how you like it?

Tercel: As I pointed out to HRG, we’re all human and we’re all fallible. I don’t kid myself into thinking that I know God’s morality perfectly.

Rw: But I wasn’t seeking a perfect response, just a detailed outline would suffice. At any rate, I appreciate your efforts to discuss these issues with me Tercel. If you get a chance would you please let Meta know that I tried to post on his board but I forgot my password, so I signed up again and EZ boards confirmed all my info but never sent me an e-mail so that I could complete the registry.

Tercel

Hmm, no, I argued that they are difficult to identify completely and absolutely precisely. I didn't mean to imply that we cannot have any understanding of them whatsoever.

Well it rather depends whether one defines Christian morality as "morality as practiced by X (pick a group) group of Christians", or "morality as corresponding to the ideals agreed upon in the writings of Christians - both in the scriptures and until the present".

I am not trying to argue here that "free will" singularly explains all suffering in the world: Rather, I think it constitutes but one line of argument which only gathers sufficient strength to ward off the argument from suffering when it is combined with other ideas.
That all said, your sister's suffering could surely be potentially explained in terms of the free will of demons?

That is a difficult question indeed. Does the fact that suffering exists at all rationally disprove the existence of the loving Deity? Now I think there are various reasonably good possible explainations that can be given for why suffering might exist despite there existing a loving deity. Which raises the question: if suffering was increased by the tiniest imaginable amount would that rationally disprove the said deity? Presumably not. If the suffering was increased another little bit, would that rationally disprove the said deity? The question would seem to arise: Can we have a situation where x+1 amount of suffering proves the non-existence of God, but x amount wouldn't?
So if a possible reason can be provided as to why the deity might allow some suffering, at what point does the quantity of suffering render the deity's existence impossible? My answer to that question would be that I think it is at the point where the bad outweighs the good.

Tercel

Tercel

I strongly suspect you're being sarcastic here. But I did mean "possible" and not "actual". It is not necessary for me to believe any given possible construction I can come up with. All that is necessary to demonstrate that my beliefs aren't definitely inconsistent is to demonstrate that there exists at least one possible way in which they are consistent.

No, no and no.
1. You should not believe in my God without reasonable evidence
2. My God is not an incoherent concept.
3. My point was that you should not conclude that my God is an incoherent concept if there exists the possibility that it is coherent.

Tercel

Pompous Bastard:
I accept that any extra ideas and entities pulled in to demonstrate the Christian belief system as consistent do raise the level of evidence required for Christianity as a whole.
But I'm not quite sure about increased unparsimoniousness - ideas such as the devil or free-will are generally part of the parcel of the standard Christian belief system.

HelenM

Interesting.

Perhaps it's like this - you can take a small part of a sphere and show it's approximately locally flat...

But it really isn't flat, is it?

And then there's the table where you saw off a bit of a leg to make it stand firm...but now you need to saw off a bit of a different leg...

And there's the cat in the hat's ring which didn't go away, it just moved from place to place (until VOOM!, anyway)

And there's the Emperor's New Clothes - I mean, so what if a group of people all pretend the emperor has splendid clothes on - but an outsider is going to think they are crazy and wonder why they are co-operating in this communal pretence...or a child would be honest, as in the story.

It sure is easy for a Christian Apologist to tell a group of Christians that this or that is a wonderful apologetic - and they all agree - wow, yes, that's really convincing...

So, try it here...

I hope some of this made sense to someone

love
Helen

Tercel

Meta writes:
Tell him I don't know what to do. It shouldn't have to send an email, just go ahead and try to post.

Spirit Branded

Hi RW (I hope you know and remember me)

I am a Christian because it has always been my perception that those who choose freely to align their will to God's generally benefit from doing so ... and where they do not ... it is not because the process is invalid ... but because it is not always easy.

Blessings and Peace

SB

Panta Pei

"I am a Christian because it has always been my perception that those who choose freely to align their will to God's generally benefit from doing so ... and where they do not ... it is not because the process is invalid ... but because it is not always easy."

Ok, your sentiment regarding theists is false or, at best, a self-imposed ignorance of the real world and the human condition.

Overall life is great and, at times, it sucks. It just is not always easy. This applies to everyone.

Please feel free to explain how your particular club members are any better off than the rest of humanity

And while your at it, tell us mere heathen mortals just how it is that you know the will of your deity?

Ron Singh

Hi Rainbow Walking and Tercel. Rainbow Walking, If you're talking about Metacrock, then I'm guessing that you're talking about the "Challenging Atheism" website. In that case, I had the similar not gettin an e-mail problem. What happen was that my e-mail was placed in the Bulk Mail section of mail, if you have a Yahoo! man account. Tercel, do you also go to that website? and what is your name there? Seeyah.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/challenging_atheism" target="_blank">www.geocities.com/challenging_atheism</a>
my handle is Sikh.