The Theodicy Problem: No Problem for An Atheist

Indeed, as you say, one of the most difficult questions for the believer is "Why is there suffering?" It is interesting to me that this question has become so prominent in our age -- after the invention of pain medicines and antibiotics. That it did not register as strongly in the minds of the Medieval -- or even Enlightenment -- thinkers suggests to me that our shared assumptions about life have changed. But that is a discussion for another time.

I wish to state the oft ignored but analogous problem that dogs the atheist: "Why is there joy?" The questions -- and the conundrums -- are entirely symmetrical to the problem of suffering for the believer. Our existence, our reality, is punctuated with joy, beauty, and wonder. These experiences are (at least) equally random and gratuitous to our experiences of suffering. The answers given by the atheist to explain away this phenomenon are at least as trite and shallow as those given by believers to explain away suffering.

Hello!i have baG with
http://a-cash.info/pharmacyonline/vaigraonline ">.vaigra

Your name is mud

Whole nine yards - The

Put a damper on

Put a damper on

Have a Captain Cook

Have a Captain Cook

Keep schtum

(The) unkindest cut of all

Tail wagging the dog - The

The moving finger writes

Come on down

Far be it from me

New kid on the block

Arty-farty

Paint the town red

Sleep like a top

Draw a blank

http://besting.itrello.com >faxless cash advance no fax payday loan The balance of trade

http://besting.itrello.com >cash faxing loan no payday Tickle the ivories

Nice.

It's silly to blame a deity for natural events, but that is the gimmick. Priests and shamans have forever offered to intercede in return for a handout. We're conditioned to that thinking.

We also have to look at the functioning of the human mind: it seeks out patterns and matches them up. The mind races through myriad combinations and finds the ones that resonate somehow. That causes coincidences to stand out disproportionately. Some accept that as proof of a deity. Again, we're conditioned to that by millennia of priests pulling off miracles in return for collections, by their simplistic use of ghosts and souls to explain how a couple pounds of meat in our heads can hold visions and produce ideas.

When will we grow up?

Hi Gerry,

We were talking about modern Germany, not today's Germany. Take a look back to WWII. You were the one who used the example of the 30 Year War. That took place during the seventeenth century. I use something that took place during the twentieth century? If you want to see the results of an atheist Government today look at North Korea.

To make my last post clearer:

During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All by religious CHRISTIAN regimes!

Where is the body count of atheist regimes in TODAY'S Germany (the Germans have learned their lesson!), today's France, today's England (oh yes, I forgot, there is indeed some religious Islamist body count around), all of today's Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others.

The number of murders prove nothing pro or against the validity ("truth") of an ideology of any regime: Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.

Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the POLITICAL usefulness or danger of an ideology (and that includes religion) as seen by its perpetrators, NOT ITS TRUTH.

Gerry, what it proves is that atheistic regimes have been a lot more brutal in eliminating those that oppose them, so far in history, the bloodiest of all who have been in control of power.

The body count for modern Germany has been the extermination of six million Jewish people in a span of six years. If Hitler had succeeded it would have been far greater.

These mass murders were done on members of their own society. The German concentration camps are evidence to this brutality.

During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All religious regimes!

Where is the body count of atheist regimes in modern Germany, France, England (oh yes, some religious Islamist body count), all of Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others

The number of murders prove nothing pro or against any regime. The delusion of religion is neither proved nor disproved by murder numbers. Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.

Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the social usefulness or its contrary, not the truth of any religion.

Notice that Gerry offers the argument that,

"you are so obsessed with murder numbers to prove your belief."

"Then, what number of murders would be the minimum from where on you would judge religion as murderous?"

The point is that when an atheist regime comes to power the body count skyrockets, showing just how barbaric and immoral the belief that there is no god can be. The twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date in the history of civilization with between 80-100,000,000 people being murdered by atheist regimes.

Anonymous,

how so? Patriarchal caricatures? Your belief in the eternal non-reason seems to have clouded even your sensory perception, maybe even your skill of word choice, let alone your power of deduction ("Maybe that's why she rejected religion").

It is interesting that although Ms. Jacoby always claims to be a "free-thinker" her religious paradigms are always strictly patriarchal caricatures.

Maybe that's why she rejected religion.

Funny how those who say "there are no atheists in foxholes" are the same people who say that during the Korean War, we were being shot at from foxholes teeming with "godless communists."

I have a couple of questions for atheists and agnostics (not sure this is the best place, but what the heck).

What social options do we atheists have to take place of church for gatherings/socializing/rearing children? I live in the DC area, and have been looking but have not found anything suitable.

How do you intend to explain religion, etc to your children? How do you explain to them that you are a (once silent) minority in this respect?

What types of (non insulting)responses can one have to "god works in mysterious ways", and "gods will", "thank god xyz is ok after a crash", etc etc?

What do you say when someone sneezes?
How do you responde when someone says "god bless you" after you sneeze? What about bless you?

For ex-believers - Have you told your parents how you feel? (given that they taught you your prior religion to you) How did that go?

How can we promote ourselves as a political force? We are clearly the minority in the US - I hope that one day changes.

Just wondering...

Freestinker:

Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

~~ didn't think you did. I had seen others comment on that; (figuring this isn't private, thought I'd throw that in :) )

The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.

~~ true enough. I just take "not very likely" to a new level of "not going to happen" :)

You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."

"I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong. "

"I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no."

~~ isn't this near or at the arguement that one cannot prove a negative? (and please, (everyone) don't bother quoting from the bible/koran/etc as an example because one cannot trace todays bible/koran/etc back to the original writers. And, no god did not write the bible)

I don't believe one needs faith in order to fully believe there is no god. Personally, I came to that conclusion by examining what "faith" I had in the religion I was taught as a child, and realizing I was basically talking to myself when praying, that the bible (I was raised prodestant), could not be authenticated (who wrote it and when), that the bible was translated from one language to another over the years and therefore could not be 100% trusted for accuracy, and the basic fact that I was taught a religion that was invented hundreds of years ago, when humans' understanding of the world was all based on myth, religion, etc, and science was but an infant at best, as well as the fact that human's brains were smaller, etc.. I think what people need is basic logic to understand.

For instance, if you were never taught a religion as a child, and as an educated adult were introduced to any of the world's major religions, would you not have instant doubt, given that there is not any shred of proof in any way shape or form that anyones god or gods exist? I think if you look at the god question with a view that has not been tainted by child rearing brainwashing of religious beliefs, one would come to the conclusion that faith is needed to believe in a god. I think the opposite is true as well - those people that have lived only in a religious environment, and were not allowed (etc) to investigate, they would be incapable of using logic/reason to undo their learned religion. Just a thought.

"Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence."
~~ maybe, maybe not. I personally feel that there is a ton of evidence - Darwin's theory of evolution is the most 'proven' theory on earth - more proved than physics, more proved than plumbing, electricity, etc etc. It has been proved for the past, present, and future by virtue of being able to watch in real-time how organisms evolve. Everything that evolution has "proven" goes against all that is religious.

Add to that the feeling one gets when they realize that "I just don't get it" readily translates into "there is nothing to get", and suddenly, all becomes clear to those people.

Part of arguements that I have heard for the existence of god is 'how can so many people be wrong?'. There are tons of examples on how the masses' knowledge is false, but believed anyways.

Michael in VA,

Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.

You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."

I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong.

I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence.

Thank you Susan Jacoby for being the voice of reason, logic and rationality in this tidal wave of religiosity that is based on superstition, mysticism and blind faith. Your example of the grieving mother more comforted by a naturalist explanation of the loss of her 12 year old son to cancer rather than bewildered by the "God works in strange ways" idiom is an excellent one. Our self determination and self accountability qualities as skeptics prepare us far better to meet life's challenges with greater intelligence, responsibility and morality than any religion could possibly do.
Keep up your fine work as a very important light in the murky world of religionist propaganda.
Stan Friedland

"Freestinker:
Michael in VA,
So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open? "

Personally, yes, I would exclude agnostics. The definitions I put up were from www.dictionary.com. (I didn't make them up!).
Like all issues of faith, or lack thereof, its a personal decision - I decided that with my experience in life, having been to church, etc, there is no god. Simple for me.

For me, there is no open part of the question; no doubt in my mind. I don't believe the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes". I don't buy it. While having not served in the forces, but having some near death experiences myself, I didn't suddenly give up my beliefs and start believing in a god. My lack of faith is just as strong, just as valid, as a devote catholics to thier faith. As an aside, this 'foxhole' theory is very insulting to those of us who don't wear the athiest flag lightly. Why on earth would my feelings change about a lack of a god, because I'm facing death? It's not like I'm not aware of my eventual death. What's the difference being closer to death? (I digress).

"Freestinker:

Jihadist,

I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir."

HEAR HEAR!!! Well said!!!

"As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine."
Agree!

My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views."

I cannot agree on this. I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter. Other athiests that I know, facing death, also, did not waver in the face of a life ending. I've proven to myself that my prodestant upbringing was filled with fantasies, falsehoods, and false premises.

-A Humble Atheist.

Mr. Moderate,

The common denominator of the religious and secular atrocities is the "truth" claim of its perpetrators, not the specific philosophy underlying those atrocities, be it Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Pope(s), Ahmadinedjad, King Saul, Atta, every single suicide bomber, Inquisition founder Torquemada - they all "possess" the truth.

On the funny side: Talking about who invented religion, man or god: Do you know the story of the hillbilly who visited a planetarium for the first time? The director asked him, if he liked what he saw. "Yes, it's great, almost unbelievable! Well, somehow I can still understand that scientists find the paths of the planets and even the distance of the stars. But tell me, how come they know their names?

Moderate, your argument rests on secularism being the root cause of those atrocities. I don't believe that's the case with any of them, which is why I find the argument disingenuous. For example, Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941 when it suited his political purpose. However, your point that not all forms of secularism are benign is well taken.

For anyone interested, here's an interesting (and far from complete) laundry list of religious atrocities through the ages:
http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html

Gerry:

That was a joke. Levity, even.

All the best.

Gerry - interesting logic regarding proof/value of religion based on body count.

Could we include the plague? That was believed by the faithful to be a punishment from God. And belief and faith are all that counts when it comes to religion, right.

PRIVER - regarding next years unity walk, keep an eye on http://www.911unitywalk.org/

Does the comparison of murder numbers prove - or disprove - the existence of god, just simply logically arguing, which you always claim to do on such a high horse?

The Moderate,

you are so obsessed with murder numbers to prove your belief.

Then, what number of murders would be the minimum from where on you would judge religion as murderous?

Dear Banana Rama,

Brother Stalin has 100,000,000 motes on his banana. You shall know a thing by its fruit, Bunkey.

And...

My Banana is longer than yours.

E Fav:

What a cool idea- Count me in! :)

Banana rama - I like you

ARMINIUS - where are you?

PRIVER - maybe next year, we can lobby to get Pagans and atheists in the annual "Unity Walk" against religious intolerance that's held the Sunday before sept 11 in Washington.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's banana, but considerest not the big brown blemish that is in thine own banana?"

Moderate: Check your own banana ... it's pretty much ready for the compost heap. Of course, it's had more time.

Dear Chip:

"Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous,..."

I don't. Because they are.

"...and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument."

Sorry it is irritating. But Apples are Apples, Oranges are Oranges, and Murder is Murder. There is no shortage of "supposed" secular atrocities.

YOUR secularism may be of a progressive and liberal kind. Not all secularists are.

Take Sam Harris who advocates torture one day and dumps on Mother Teresa the next for one example.

Or Richard Dawkins who calls religious training "a form of child abuse." Then suggests that the state should intervene to "protect" children from their parents' religious beliefs. Does that smack of compulsory state religion to you? It does to me.

So the brown spots are already on the your banana if this represents your secularism. Rot is not far behind. We know where this self righteous kind of secularism goes.

I will stipulate that you may be better than these kinds, but take a look a the dark side or your own camp an you may get some context to work from.

The religionists are not all bad, and the secularists and Atheists are not all good. To say only your group has the literal truth, and no other ideas should be allow into the public square is to be a fundamentalist.

Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

I'll weigh in. I wasn't "converted" and I don't know any atheist that was. To paraphrase something I read on On Faith: Through many years of Catholic schooling I failed to understand why I couldn't 'get it'. Then I realized there was nothing to get :-(

Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."

-- Are you suggesting our efforts are futile? ;)

Whey are we here? Because we're here.

We're here to disrupt the complacent comfort of the homogeneous community. You cannot show light without the dark, to quote an old PBS painter. Contrast has a way of creating an edginess that is necessary in our discourse. John Stuart Mill was very clear on the need arguing the counter-perspective, even if no one believed it.

The specter of doubt was raised in me at age 12 by myself. Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Carl Sagan finished the job by age 16. So yes, I was "converted" by atheists in a way. But no, I have never converted anyone, and no, it is not my intent to ever do so. We're here just to let y'all know that the "unity out of many" that we seek is not arrived at by simply casting out the inconvenient fringes on either end of the statistical bell.

--FIUS

Archaeopteryx:

My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.

Um.. what?

The short answer is that we don't necessarily like what is happening in America, just like the atheists, and some of us want to be allowed to contribute to the discussion, cause maybe we've got some good ideas too about how to bridge the gaps.

"[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."

So I've formulated the hypothesis that the atheist/agnostics are here simply because they like to argue (i.e. they are not here to preach). I can respect that.

My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.

Freestinker -

I caught the Hitchens interview when it was aired live last Sunday. Good stuff, though nothing new for one who has followed the debates on his recent book tour.

Jay S.,

Provisional Atheist ... I like that one too.

Mr Mark,

There was a fascinating and provocitive interview with Hitchens on C-Span In-Depth this weekend. Worth a look if you haven't seen it before.

"What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect."

Ahhh what I'd give ... for the freedom to pick and choose my beliefs without an objective standard, skepticism be damned!

Moderate, my apologies. I have a bad habit of skimming. It seems we were making similar points. I think I missed the post you were responding to and wasn't getting the whole context.

That said, I think that religion ranks very high on the list of things that can bring out the worst pack animal potential of mankind, in a way that secularism by itself does not. Most religions are tribal systems by design. Mix claims of absolute truth with assertions that unbelievers or adherents to other faiths are inferior, should be converted, are not to be trusted, shouldn't be mixed with, should be killed if they don't submit, and all other such pearls of unwisdom codified in religious doctrines, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous, and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument. The more honest comparison would be not with secularism, but with racism, ethnocentrism, political extremism, nationalism, and so on.

In the context of the current On Faith topic, it wasn't secularism that inspired people to crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon. It was religion.

I have used the term "provisional atheist" for myself in the past, just as I am a "provional evolutionist". Since all evidence-based claims to knowledge are subject to revision based on new compelling evidence (which might or might not ever come), the provisional qualifier should not be viewed as a cop-out, just an admission that human knowledge is incomplete.

I suppose a provisional atheist is not that far from an agnostic, although the latter seems to leave the door open much more for god belief, and may view theism and atheism as co-equal possibilities.

I prefer the term naturalist in lieu of atheist, however, because it describes the philosophy I accept, rather than the philosophy I reject.

Jihadist,

I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir.

As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine.

My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views.

-A Humble Atheist.

"But maybe I'm wrong. So let me start the sociological poll by asking the question: Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"

No. Those who describe themselves as atheists or agnostics come from a variety of backgrounds, some religious and some not. Nearly all seem to be strongly inclined to evaluate any claim to knowledge based on the evidence that supports that claim (many are scientists, so this comes naturally to them based on their training or some predisposition). In my experience, what they have in common is that they have given the question of god a lot of thought and study and ultimately found it lacking. They may have relied on a Dawkins or Harris to better articulate what they are thinking, but those I know were already there.

A Hermit,

Well put and I certainly agree.

However, theists often assume that most if not all atheists are absolute in their denial of the existence of god(s). That’s why they claim such a position requires faith. And it would.

But I agree with you that most atheists consider the existence of god(s) to be highly unlikely but ultimately leave the question still open.

As for Thor, as cool as he seems to be .... I doubt (with a high degree of confidence) that Thor actually exists.

Dear Freestinker -

Re: certitude.

I think we can all take as a given that there are few absolutes in this world, and that using terms like certitude always begs the question. After all, scientists were quite certain that the coelacanth was extinct until one was discovered alive in 1938.

The best we can do is to go with the evidence at hand, and by evidence, I exclude hearsay and eyewitness reports. There's a reason that forensic evidence almost always trumps eyewitness testimony in our courts. There is no such thing as "evidence" for the Bible myths. In fact, archaeology, geology and the other sciences more often put the lie to the Bible, rather than proving its far-fetched tales. Add to that simple and unscientific common sense and the Bible comes out on the short end of the stick.

As rational thinkers, we understand this. The mistake the religionists always seem to make comes in the form of the special pleading they hold for their beliefs. Why, one wonders, do they insist that there is "evidence" for their religious claims when there is as much (or more!) evidence for the existence of Santa Claus? The smart ones dump the evidence claim altogether and go straight for the "faith" card. The ones who are a little less smart throw in the eternal damnation canard to go with the faith card à la Pascal and his Wager.

What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect.

Heaven help us!

Thanks for the chat.

Minimalist,

I share your disposition on the matter.

I especially like your point about agnosicism. Many people use the term (incorrectly imo) to mean that the existence of god(s) is knowable but "I myself just don't know".

I think agnosticism means that the question is unknowable and I'm just not comfortable with such certainty about what is or is not ultimately knowable.

I prefer to think of myself as an open-minded or uncertain atheist.

Dear Freestinker -

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding what you termed, "a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found" for the existence of a god: Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting point when he says that while he knows atheists who wish that there might someday be proof that the Biblical god exists, he would be aghast at such evidence. The thought of spending an eternity in mindless servitude and ceaseless praise of such a being sounds to him worse than the alternative of hell. Hitchens cites present-day N Korea an example of life would be like under such a godly dictatorship.

I tend to agree with him, which is why I call myself and anti-theist, rather than an atheist.

Arminius,

Yes indeed!

I’m interested in getting a bit more specific with the terms we use here. I think many disagreements here are a result of ambiguous terms/labels.

Michael in VA,

So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open?

Mr Mark,

I agree with all your points. For rational thinkers, belief should never equal knowledge. The problem I see with vociferous atheists (including me at times) is the inference of certitude that often comes with passionate statements of disbelief.

What is really meant is: "I won't believe in any god(s) until I see scientific-quality evidence." So there is a presumption of non-existence, and a strong level of disbelief but always a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found.

If the term atheist does not infer absolute certitude, then it's a label that fits me well. If it implies that the question is definitively answered and closed forever then it would not. I could be happy with “agnostic atheist” unless agnostic means that the question is unknowable. I ‘m not sure if the answer to the question "do god(s) exist?" is knowable or not. I could argue that it is not knowable because by definition, supernatural entities are unknowable in the scientific sense. But if some god(s) do exist then they would be natural and knowable but we just don’t have the evidence yet. The scientist in me is very skeptical but wants to always leave the door cracked open should new evidence unexpectedly arise. So I agree with your point that “we can claim to a great degree of certainty is that gods do not exist based on all of the evidence available in the natural world”.

Mr Mark,
Michael in VA,
Arminius,
Minimalist,
A Hermit,
FIUS, and
Jihadist ....

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses to my question about absolute atheists vs. agnostic (or uncertain) atheists. The point I was getting at is that we often define and use these terms in different ways. Thus making it difficult to express or understand exactly what we mean to say.

The responses here show that agnostic and atheist are not always considered mutually exclusive, likewise with agnostic and theist. Also, some use agnostic to mean god(s) are "unknowable" while others mean "I personally just don't know". So it is very important to define our terms precisely, if we hope to fully understand each other.

Thanks again for your viewpoints.

Jihadist-

Let me echo Norrie's regrets. I've enjoyed watching you "fight the good fight" with your weapons of wit, humor, and respect. Merry do we meet and merry do we part, and merry we will meet again (I hope!). Blessed Be, my friend.

Jihadist,

I'm sorry to learn that you're leaving On Faith. Your posts have been wonderful and I've learned so much about so many things from you. Much fun, too.

I'll really miss you and I know that many other posters will also.

My family and I wish you the very best in all of the dimensions of your life.

Jihadist said: "Atheists have Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens et al. who articulated all they felt and think and giving reasons why they don't believe in God/gods, and their rights not to believe unmolested by state, groups and individuals. In other words, no harrassment of them, but their right to assert their non-beliefs, and to harass others for their beliefs."

I think that belief without evidence is, at best, misguided, at worst, idiotic. If that is harassment, then it is what it is.

I expect to be engaged, as I engage others. I do not expect protected status or tax exemption-- and it alarms me to have taxes extracted from me in order to pay for--oh what's a good one?--charter schools to teach bunk.

Long before Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris, we had Twain, Russell, Sagan, Bronowski, and countless others, scientists and writers, who articulated the danger and the folly of an "insufficient taste for evidence."

--FIUS

Dear Chip,

"Moderate, I've seen it argued both ways ad nauseum, and it surprises me not in the least that you ignore the inconvenient facts in favor of those that support your position when the position is anything but black and white."

I don't think you understand my point. It is that I see a "sillygism" here many times a week; most recently from you. It goes like this:

Historical figure X who believed Y committed atrocities and crimes.

Therefore Y caused X to commit the crimes and atrocities.

Further all persons who believe Y, everywhere and for all time, are responsible for these atrocities and crimes because X was a believer in Y.

Now you let X="Hitler" and Y="Christian".

So in order to clarify the structure of your fallacy I suggested different instantiations:

Let X="Stalin" and Y="Atheist"

Oh, THAT instantiation is nonsense! You say.

Actually the "sillygism" itself is nonsense.

And that is why I said "Give it up."

i love you.

Jihadist - do you really believe we are so stupid as to "base" our atheistic search for truth on rants like yours or anybody else's in On Faith? To denigrate an adversary in his dignity, moral and intelligence was a means of Hitler to quench conscience troubles with German soldiers by calling Russians "Untermenschen" (lower humans).

To place the serious search for one's personal handling on life and death as an atheist on a superficial "statistical" or sociological level ("a fad") is not only utterly unconvincing as to the reason, as to the contents of the underlying questions, but it also evades every serious try at empathy into somebody else's feeling and thinking but your "tribe's" - it is a well-proven way to maintain one's usurped "superiority". And people wonder why, lo and behold, we are getting angry sometimes?

It shows again the condescending basic attitudes of "truth possessors". The claim to possess the truth, Mr. Moderate, is the real "tertium comparationis" in your arguments, not the comparison of real or fictional numbers of murders, committed by this or that group, as you try to prove your religion with all the time. It is the truth usurpation problem that is the core of this discussion, not the vaccillating statements of Hitler, Stalin or whoever. Just for the records (to use Moderate's way of arguing for a moment): The 30 years' war diminished the German population by two thirds. Not before 200 years later the population reached the prewar level! I think even Mr. Moderate would brand this war a religious war, even if "religion" always, I'll admit that to Moderate, inevitably is connected to power grabbing. It starts with the horrible notion of "original sin", a super ingenious means of infiltrating and sickening unsuspecting minds.

And here we can find the analogy between Stalin, Hitler, Bush, Robertson, Hagee, Ahmadinedjad, et al., with different degrees of resulting disasters.

Let us state the basic difference between us: You are truth possessors, we are truth seekers. I, personally, put the latter on a much, much higher position in a scale of morality. Atheists, together with scientists, never claim to be in a possession of truth, they only defy that claim forced upon them by religionists. Atheists think truth is something dynamic, evolving, like the cosmos itself, while religionists think it is eternal, static, stalled. Not such an "eternal life" for me, thanks!

The Jihadist will be back. She like other "liberal" Muslims has to feed on other peoples' flaws. That way they don't have to consider their own flawed religion and states of militaristic Islam like the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran based on the "holey not holy hallucinator", "pwtfft"s and plagiarized messages.

Moderate, I've seen it argued both ways ad nauseum, and it surprises me not in the least that you ignore the inconvenient facts in favor of those that support your position when the position is anything but black and white. The point was simply that the holocaust was not the result of secularism as you so simplistically implied. Talk about tired canards. Men bound together under any ideology or creed under the leadership of persuasive demagogues can become dangerous. So it is with any such group or tribe believing their way is the only way, and woe to all who oppose it, be it political, social, religious, racial, ethnocentric, nationalistic, and on and on. Secularism by itself isn't an us versus them kind of thing. Its purpose is precisely the opposite. To single it out as the source of all things bad is, to be blunt, moronic. It's the equivalent of saying "the terrorists came in a bus. Buses make people terrorists!"

ARCHAEOPTERYX:

I'm not sure about your question: “Do you know any atheist who was converted by another atheist?”

I was not converted and don’t set out to convert others. What I experienced myself and see in other is a falling away from religion, for one reason or another (e.g., science education, unbiased historical information on religion, reacting against fundamentalist religion). I would have fallen away much sooner and much more easily if the facts about religion and the human support system were as accessible as they have been the last couple of years.

I certainly have experienced anger – for being personally misled and lied to and for seeing attempts to mislead the country and upset our precious secular democracy. These are justified reasons for anger, no? Anger, properly channeled, can be healthy.

Dear Chip:

Just a thought from Vladimir Lenin to round out the discussion:

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism."

Dear Chip,

"Hitler, as I'm sure you know but conveniently ignore, was a Christian."

Don't even try that hoary old canard. It has been answered so often it should be in an FAQ. Ever hear of Guido von List? K. M. Wiligut?

But since you fell for it, I will repeat some questions from an earlier discussion for you:

How do you explain the extermination of the Catholic priesthood in Poland?

Why did Heinrich Himmler say “Judeo-Christianity is the greatest plague delivered by history.”?

Why did Martin Borman say “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”?

Why did Alfred Rosenberg say: “One is either a German or a Christian, you cannot be both.”?

Why did Adolf Hitler say “Life is will to power...”?

I recommend a couple of excellent books to you:

“Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman“ by Abir Taha, Author House 2005.

“The Occult Roots of Nazism” by Nicholas Goodrick-Clark New York University Press 1985.

I can go on, but suffice it to say: you are misinformed on this topic.

Hitler was an anti-theist. He was not a Christian. The Atheists on this site like to manufacture lurid crimes to lay at the feet of "Christians".

They don't like owning up to the patron saint of Atheism, Uncle Joe Stalin, and his 100,000,000 murders in the name of creating the new socialist and atheist man.

Are Atheists Stalinists because Stalin was an Atheist? Stupid question. Right? But that is the level you function on when it comes to Christians.

Give it up.

I found Jihadist's suggestion that someone do a sociological study of vocal atheists here in On Faith quite intriguing.

One of the things that I've noticed is that there seems to be alot of angry atheists tuned in here, and that rabid athiest panelists seem to get the lions share of the comments. What is the source of all this ire I ask? If you think that theism is stupid and destructive, then are you also angry at all the other forms of human stupidity? Or is it just Christians that make atheists mad?

As an atheist/agnostic myself, I find all this talk a bit odd. I mean, my experience has been that you seldom see an atheist proselytizing. I've always felt that the decision to identify myself as an atheist was very personal, at least in the end, so outside influence was of limited importance.

But maybe I'm wrong. So let me start the sociological poll by asking the question: Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?

Hello Norrie Hoyt

I'm out of hospital and at home. This post to you is the last in On Faith from me for some weeks or perhaps forever. Many things happening here and there. The world economic and financial situation needs closer attention. None of the US presidential candidates seem to be focussing on the US economy seriously.

Thanks for the clarification on US and British based laws on libel and the links you gave. I'm irked that the lawyers cost me not for the amount itself, but the fact that the sum I am forking out to them so far can literally feed a hundred orphans three square meals a day at US $20 per pax per day for a year. Price of freedom of speech is as high as freedom from hunger it seems. I'm still given to cost benefit analysis and opportunity cost when I give out for causes and charities. I hope the excitable blog writers will be more conscientious in figuring out what is libel/slander themselves rather than rampaging like a mad, maddened and maddening herd. There are Malaysian laws that can get one for "incitement to hatred." Some Malaysians do taunt fellow Malaysians on race and religion that will make some posters here seem like polite old ladies having tea and complaining about the weather.

Anyway, on 13 September, Ramadan will start. I've been looking at the prepared lists for charities to give out to, and repast for breaking the fast of Ramadan at my residence and for mosques. Not to mention the schedule of round robin visits to mosques for prayers and charities here and there.

Food for Ramadan is quite tricky in some ways. Malaysians are very picky about food. Have to have lots of interesting dishes for breaking of fast during Ramadan. They love lamb, quails, pomfrets, prawns, crabs, tilapias, mussels, carps. So, have to pre-order them from now for the whole fasting month and for the festival at the end of Ramadan, Idl Ftr or Eid. Good thing my appendicitis put me in a "fasting" mode, being feed through the IV some sort of liquid sustenance.

I never knew you have cats in your family. My children have two cats - half-Persian half alley cats. Not so furry, not too insolent, nor as seemingly lazy and indifferent as a full Persian cat and more lithe and active. They named the cats, both females, Manggis and Embun, which are in Malay. "Manggis" is mangosteen and "Embun" is dew in English. Don't ask me why one is named after a fruit, and another after a perishable drop of water that happens during the cool dawn of the day.

My best regards to your family and you.

J

Moderate, secularism has little if anything to do with most of the wars and atrocities believers like to lay at its feet. In almost all cases they are the result of political, racial, and nationalistic ideologies embraced so blindly and fervently that they have more in common with religious fundamentalism than with secular neutrality. Hitler, as I'm sure you know but conveniently ignore, was a Christian. Granted, he was an odd flavor of Christian, but he was Christian nonetheless. When you hold up secularism as some kind of bogeyman in that way it just makes you sound foolish and blinded by bias, and it cheapens any valid points you have to make.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited." -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

E Favorite - if you can believe the ever-growing reports of out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences it might not be so bad.
Check the website http/www.near-death.com/
for confirmation - it has been said by those that allegedly know through acquired meditative abilities and experience that the afterlife has the same character and 'reality' as dreams but with the caveat that there is no longer a physical body to contend with (thus a pure life of the mind and thought albeit with the feel of a solid tangibility). There are said to be many worlds where you may find yourself after your demise - frankly, the mystery to me is why humans keep coming back as humans to good old Gaia - why not try life elsewhere in the universe?? The curious thing about religion is that it's usually got a very limited perspective - in that our world and our lives are portrayed as the only life in all of existence...we must now recognize that this is likely to be absurd in the extreme -
in the vastness of the Cosmos (which may even be multi-dimensional) there are surely older and more evolved civilizations (and some that are long dead). We tend to think small on this planet but afterall, homeo sapiens is relatively young as a lifeform (can it be possible that we've only had written languages and a societal structure for a mere few thousand years??) Maybe 20 or so years ago Julian Jaynes wrote a book called the The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind which stated that the origins of consciousness (and self-consciousness) were relatively new to man and only a few thousand years old. On the other hand, Neanderthal gravesites have yielded artifacts that may indicate a belief in an afterlife - certainly early Cro-Magnon evidence supports this. Now we're talking 25-50,000 years ago. I've always appreciated the imaginations of great science fiction writers - maybe they're tapping into the Collective Unconscious that Carl Jung was so fond of talking about. But here I am rambling again -

all the best.....

Arminius and Freestinker

Ignore what the atheists here say to you for a bit. After all, they are a still a minority group as yet who feel "repressed" socially. Never mind their laabellings on believers as deists or theists.

Let us have some more fun figuring out this newly vocal atheists as a sociological and politicised group without substantive, quantitative research, but based purely on very casual empirical observations in On Faith - what they say and do.

American atheists seem to be in an exciting stage(for them) of discovering their voice and identity as atheists - in finding out that there are others who think and feel the same way, and thus, getting a sense of individual and group "empowerment".

The budding vocal atheist movement (don't call them "strident" or "militant", they get really upset) if one can call their new asssertiveness as a group, has some parallels with the women's and gay movements of the sixties and seventies in the US.

For the women's movement, there were a series of high profile women writers such as Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, Gloria Steinem, providing grist and/or "ideology" (a.k.a. reasonings for beliefs and rights) for the women's movement.

Atheists have Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens et al. who articulated all they felt and think and giving reasons why they don't believe in God/gods, and their rights not to believe unmolested by state, groups and individuals. In other words, no harrassment of them, but their right to assert their non-beliefs, and to harass others for their beliefs.

As you know, in the women's and gay movements, there are very vocal, very persistent frontliners that can be quite strident and/or "militant". too.

"Militant feminists" comes out with the phrase such as "male chauvinist pigs" and "All men are pigs". There are strident and/or "militant" atheists who came out with phrases such as "All believers are delusional" and "I am anti-deist".

"Militant" gays came out with "We are everywhere" if I can remember, but quite mild in fact. But ut some were and still are given to "outing" high profile gays. This is just as atheists who want to "out" believers whom they think are closet atheists by taunting them as hypocrites and such to liberate them from delusional beliefs so it seems.

So, what do you think? Some other points or theories on this new and interesting social development re atheists?

By the way, as you can remember, the women's and gay movement toned down a bit after about a decade and their political activism became a bit more sophisticated. But achieving their respective objectives is still spotty - from abortion (women) to gay marraiges (gays).

I don't quite see as yet how Americans or many other people in other countries in the world can accept as yet, a first female president, or a first gay president, or a first atheist president. Or better, a first female black president who is an atheist.

So many sexists, homophobics, racists and anti-atheists still among us.

Best regards
J

Hi, Terry, regarding types of atheists. I don't know any (and I've come to know a lot lately) who simply resist theism.

They all seem to enjoy living life in the moment.

As far as death goes, the only thing I'm sure I've seen among atheists is an happy rejection of hell.

As for myself, I wouldn't say I'm particularly spiritually mature, but accept that when I die, I'll go the way of the rest of humanity. Not sure where that is - no one has ever come back to tell - but I think it's back to the cosmos.

Moderate - well, I can't disagree on either the first or second point....we're definitely in Iraq because of our own government's political agenda (and one I never supported) - the chaos that's been set loose between religious factions is another matter - and beyond our control for the most part....as my mother used to say, look before you leap.

The universe was definitely created or appeared in some fashion - or manifestation as the Buddhists would say. Religious seekers will (and should) look for answers wherever answers are to be found - and the end of the road is 'knowing thyself'. For me the conundrum is simply put - is God far away or very close (or both)? Is God different than me, or made of the same stuff?? Does God have a separate (and unknowable) identity, or are our identities intertwined like eternally entangled particles (as the physicists would say)?? What happens when you die (or do you??)? What happens when your spiritual work is done?

But here's the thing - how can one presume to find the answers from start to finish in a single lifetime? For me, believing (or having faith) does not translate into knowing - it's only a start. Life is short, but I won't be hurried. The 'win or lose everything in a single lifetime' aspect of Christianity is so off-putting to me that simple logic prevents me from buying into it. I can understand the atheistic ethos very well - but unfortunately this leads to a purely materialistic orientation and for me that's a pre-mature dead-end (unless there are covert spiritualist/atheists lurking out there that we don't know about).

That said, if you're an atheist that simply resists theism that's one kind of atheism. If you're an atheist that is able to live in the fullness of the moment with love and compassion and have dealt with your own impending death on your own terms and to your own satisfaction, you are probably far beyond most of us in your own spiritual development - you could be a bodhisattva and just don't happen to remember it.........cheers!!!

Dear Terry,

We are in Iraq because Cheney wanted their Oil. The Sunis are in the war in major share because they want to get a share in the oil revenue from Shiite and Kurd areas.

The Holocaust (conducted by secular criminals) is never far from the mind of the Jews that I know. They think that a Jewish homeland makes them safer in the world. I am not sure you can call that a strictly religious issue.

I agree with you that religion is created by people. However, I believe that the Universe, and us in it, was created by god. It is our conundrum meditate on the meaning of that. Religions are the varied response to that imperative.

Moderate - yes, secular politics has killed many more in a vast number of (ongoing) wars, when compared to wars inspired by religious difference - but wait... isn't that what's going on over in Iraq?? Supposedly all about differences in religious ideology, and that's just among believers in one religion - I guess we're the 'secular' dimension in that war ... or maybe not.

The folks over here that have always supported the war in Iraq most vocally (and politically) seem to be forever mentioning Christian values (the Jewish values are always just barely covert - but we all know Israeli interests are a factor). In the end, it's just hard to separate out one ideology from another (politics vs. religion) when entire populations an cultures are involoved.

My theory? Religion was created by, of, and for the people - spirituality can be and often is a different matter..... to me this is a quest by the one, not the many.

Norrie and Moderate - I also hold the Cathars in high esteem but mentioned that many strange and anti-social behaviors were attributed by the Church as a justification for their ongoing extermination. Many were mystics and contemplatives of a high order and had developed siddhis or psychic powers not uncommon with practitioners of various schools of Yoga, Taoism, Zen, Dzogchen and Tantric Buddhism as well as many Catholic and Protestant saints and mystics. The fact that they were able to self-immolate by walking voluntarily as a group into a massive burning funeral pyre shows the saintly resolve of many early Church martyrs.

As to the question at hand in the beginning - why does God seemingly allow the perpetual suffering of one ongoing human catastrophe after another if He is a kind and loving God??

As Norrie says, the Gnostics would attribute all of this to the imperfect Cosmos of the Demiurge that Moderate first mentioned - He is a mighty but created Deity that is not the Ein Sof of Judaism (and the Original Source found in all religions under many names) but is the old testament Yahweh of hellfire and brimstone, and is a self-absorbed pretender that doesn't seem to know any better. Humans can defeat the Demiurge & transcend human suffering through real Knowledge (gnosis) of the true Source (God) and re-aquire their birthright as perfect beings. They believed that Jesus was indeed the Redeemer - but that he showed the way to achieving salvation rather than serving as the instrument of salvation by proxy. Naturally this did not sit well with those that would give a different shape to the early Church and ultimately mysticism (the self pursuit of God) would be replaced by rules for salvation - doctrine and dogma.

Moderate - an excellent compilation of Gnostic writings can be found in the recent 'The Gnostic Bible' by Barnstone and Meyer. You will see that historically they have had (and continue to have) what can only be called admirable spiritual goals with a deep understanding of the Sacred and the Profane.

Ah Sunday - a good day for preaching!!! Amen.

Dear Anon/Terry:

Yes, religionists did conduct massacres and executions. Many of these had secular motivations. The Spanish Inquisition for example was conducted to secure the Iberian peninsula after its reconquest from the Moors. As such it was as political as it was religious.

Secular societies and leaders have killed vastly more, though. The perspective here seems to concentrate on the religious crimes to the exclusion of secular ones.

Religion is always compared to nonexistent perfection, rather than the real world around it.

The basis of comparison of religious wars should be secular wars.

The basis of comparison of religious crimes should be secular crimes.

History records that the only thing more dangerous than Mankind with God is mankind without God.

"From what you're saying here Paul sort of single-handedly edited the Gospels himself (maybe 50 ++ years after the fact) and made all the right decisions as regards 'the most truthful and accurate' of the many extant Gospels, thus giving us the 4 that we have today....a monumental work to be sure if true - one has to wonder at the degree of scholarly objectivity in those days however."

Not exactly Paul single-handedly. In fact far from it. Luke was a far better writer, and we find in Acts (also written by Luke) that Paul and Luke traveled together on a canonical journey from 57 to 64 AD ending in Rome. There was time for them to work on the Canon during this time. Luke wrote the Gospel according Luke (or it was written by a different author also named Luke). He tells us that he interviewed the eye witnesses in to set down an “orderly account'. He also wrote almost certainly wrote Acts. Clement tells us that Luke translated Paul's Letter to the Hebrews from Hebrew into Greek, which explains why the Greek was so much better than Paul's other letters. So there are strong indications that Paul and Luke collaborated extensively. The Gospel of Luke, Acts, and the Letters of Paul, and the other two Synoptic Gospels may have been brought together into the Canon before the death of Paul in Rome.

A lot of the nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship relied excessively upon translations and commentaries. A lot of it is, in fact, commentaries upon earlier commentaries. Gets pretty squishy that way. As Pope Benedict said the figure who emerges in the search for “the historical Jesus” is always surprisingly similar to the authors dong the search.

Arminius – I can see that you've done some study of the Gospels. The only thing that differs significantly from what I’ve read is your statement that it’s “very, very likely” that Mark had access to eyewitnesses.

Let me know if you’re going to address other things I’ve asked about. I don’t want to press you. As I said, I wanted to understand you, and think that I do have a better understanding, and maybe as much as is possible in this venue.

Anon/Terry,

I appreciate your mention of the Cathars. We should all strive to keep the memory of that noble people alive.

I'm sure you're well versed in the Cathars' story, but what you mentioned in your post might be misleading for those who have no knowledge of their extermination.

For those folks:

Yes, 200 Cathars were burned at Montsegur at the conclusion of their last stand. They voluntarily accepted their fate and were burned together in one huge pyre. They could have avoided that horrible end by converting to Catholicism, but they refused and remained true to their religion.

Many thousands of Cathers were killed during the Albigensian Crusade. The Cathers were exterminated not just physically but also culturally.

This cultural genocide was so complete, with all of the Cathar writings being burned, that most of what we know of the Cathars' beliefs comes from Catholic transcripts of the Inquisition trials.

The non-Cathar culture of the vibrant land of Occitania/Provence was also exterminated, and replaced with the sterile and intolerant practices of Northern France and the Catholic Church.

This was a grievous wound to all humanity, which continues with sad consequences to the present day.

BTW, Anon/Terry, I disagree with your saying that the Cathars had "strange beliefs." I think their beliefs are a more accurate interpretation of the universe than orthodox Christianity's.

In particular, I agree with their dubbing of Yahweh, the creator of the material world, as "the Ignorant Demiurge", a lesser diety who was stupid and thought he was the Ultimate Godhead when he wasn't. Yahweh/Demiurge was also predominately sadistic and cruel.

No wonder the Roman Church has acted as it has through the centuries - an inevitable consequence of its worship of that Bozo/Demiurge.

Best wishes.

For those interested, copies of original gospels, epistles, pseudo versions and related documents and a best-guess estimate as to their origins and date of publication can be found on line at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Contemporary NT exegetes have analyzed these documents in detail and from these analyses over 100 books have been published with signficantly different conclusions. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Moderate - to say the Elaine Pagels 'got it all wrong' concerning her coverage of that group in The Gnostic Gospels seems alittle over the top - and I recommend a reading of The Gospel of Thomas (and others) as a more quintessential Gnostic rendering from that time period (from the Nag Hammadi Library text). From what you're saying here Paul sort of single-handedly edited the Gospels himself (maybe 50 ++ years after the fact) and made all the right decisions as regards 'the most truthful and accurate' of the many extant Gospels, thus giving us the 4 that we have today....a monumental work to be sure if true - one has to wonder at the degree of scholarly objectivity in those days however.

You mave have seen in my ammended comment that while the early Church stoned and burned dissenters and heretics - and no doubt mainly after the Church was validated at the Council of Nicea in 325AD - they didn't crucify heretics because as you said this would be blasphemy of the sacred cross.

The Church burned and beheaded a variety of famous in infamous dissenters well into the 16th & 17th century (how can we forget Joan of Arc, & Gallilao barely escaped but recanted his heliocentric theory - his contemporary Giordano Bruno did not - and of course Thomas Aquinas himself, to name a few). Let's not forget the slaughter of about 200 Albigensians (Cathars) in the 13th century - many strange beliefs (didn't believe Christ was actually crucified because this would be impossible as God) and practices were attributed to this group of 'dissenting' Christians as a justification for burning about 200 at one time (to their lasting credit the Knights Templar refused to paricipate in this action ordered by Pope Innocent - eventually they were eliminated themselves for their vast property holdings - the Church's hand are far from clean throughout history). Even the early saints were careful with their own mystical observations relative to God and Christ (St. Francis and St. Theresa come to mind) lest they offend official Church doctrine - and lose their heads).

Catholic christians were of course not the only christians that used radical recourse to the opposition - Henry VIII was a lovely person, and let's not forget our own Salem Witch Trials (often called political in nature but nevertheless those witches were hung with the blessings of believing Christians). Well, As you say, all in all maybe not great numbers taken over nearly 1500 years, but Church leaders were often as ruthless as Constantine himself - the progenitor of Christianity as the offical Church of Rome (can he be considered an early Church Father??).

As you can tell, I'm just not particularly inclined to accept the Gospels as the gospel truth but I appreciate your references and will try and check out your recommendations.

I'm not an atheist but after my early years as a Catholic I've long since departed from mainstream Christianity and am more pursuaded by Buddhism these days. Well, I'm rambling now -

Thanks again for your response and observations.

Dear Arminius:

Definitely check out the wo books to you by David Trobisch "The First Edition of the New Testament", and "Paul's Letter Collection". He went back to the oldest surviving codices and minutely surveyed them for editorial and textual consistency. The degree of inter codex-agreement is consistent with the production of a First Edition done at one time by one set of editors. It is not consistent with every Church Father rewriting the stuff to suit himself over four centuries. Excellent quantitative historical study those books are.

A lot of the twentieth century scholarship was basically the opinions of guys sitting around in faculty lounges talking to each other, like The Jesus Project.

Trobisch a actually used earliest historical manuscripts to assess the redactional frame.

The subjective (although widely held)views you give on the Gospels are going to have to be revised in light of modern statistical work.

E Favorite,

Damnit, what are you, a shrink?!? (BIG grin!)

Tired, and getting grumpy. I will address the origin of the Gospels a bit here. Yes, I have put some time in on their origin. This off the top of my head, subject to correction.

No one knows who wrote them, except that someone named Luke wrote Luke (and the Acts). As to dates, I agree with the most commonly accepted dates:
- Mark, sometime between 60 - 70 AD aka CE.
- Matthew and Luke, between 75 - 85 or so.
- John, after 90.

John is usually considered the least historical of the Gospels, despite the most complete narration of Jesus' trial. Luke was the most literate writer, Mark the least. (I've read a bit of the Greek, this is true).

Since Mark was written no later than 70, it is very, very likely that the author - I'll call him Mark - spoke with first hand witnesses. They would have been 60 years old, at least, but it is reasonable. For the other gospels, it is a stretch. Figure this way. Since the latest date for the birth of Jesus is 4 BC aka BCE (this is the generally accepted date of the death of Herod the Great, he who received the Magi), then, since Jesus began his ministry at age 30 (Luke, I think), and it lasted for 3 years (based on John, who mentioned 3 passovers during this time), then the latest date for the death/resurrection is 29 AD/BCE. (I had loads of fun back in 1997 telling fundies that this was the true millennium). So, anyway, if a disciple had been 25 in 29, then in 65 he would have been 61. Very possible there were first hand witnesses for Mark; Jesus had more than 12 followers. It is also possible that Mark himself was a witness. Remember that the low life expectancy then was caused by deaths in childbirth and infancy. If you reached 18 or so, you had a good chance at reaching the 'three score and ten'.

Yes, the four canonical gospels were chosen out of a field of 50 or so. I have looked at - tried to read - the surviving ones that were not chosen. On that basis, the choice of the 4 does not surprise me. The Gospel of Judas, being Gnostic, is simply not understandable. Altho the theme of that work cannot be ignored. No, I don't have an answer.

Enough for the evening.

Dear Anonymous,

"Elaine Pagels is a highly respected scholar that writes extensively on the early Christian era and she makes it quite clear in her writings that the true authors of the gospels are completely unknown."

The old saying goes: The Iliad and Oddysey were not written by Homer, but by a different author of the same name.

Also, Elaine Pagels got the the whole thing with the Gnostics completely wrong in her book on that topic.

Gnostics existed for hundreds of years before Jesus. They were dualists who had a variety of sources of salvation from the Demiurge (inferior God). They were the New Age folk of their own time. When they heard of this Jesus Saviour, they incorporated him into their Esoteric Gnostic Myth about how souls would return to the true god from the. Pagels mostly talked about the Nag Hamadi Library in her book. My impression when I read it was "interesting but very shallow."

"In addition, the prevailing Christian view (mythology) that we have today is simply the results of the dominant thought of early Church leaders (Irenaeus, Athanasius, St. Augustine (later but in the same vein, Thomas Aquinas), et al).

There is good evidence that the New Testament was edited by Luke and Paul while Paul was in Rome, and they took Mathew, Mark.

The notion that the New Testament grew like a coral reef over hundreds of years held by the twentieth century academics is wrong.

I recommend two books to you by David Trobisch "The First Edition of the New Testament", and "Paul's Letter Collection". He went back to the oldest surviving codices and minutely surveyed them for editorial and textual consistency. The degree of inter codex-agreement is consistent with the production of a First Edition done at one time by one set of editors. It is simply not consistent with the idea that every Church Father rewrote the stuff to suit himself over four centuries. Excellent quantitative historical study those books are.

"For example, the Gnostics were an early Christian polyglot group that subscribed to alternate and contrary views, and were largely exterminated for their temerity."

Do you have any evidence that they were "exterminated" as opposed to being expelled and ignored? The early Christian church was on the run, and was getting exterminated regularly. I don't think that they were doing any extermination.

"And of course this 'disappearing' strategy was employed by the Church for hundreds of years as a punishment for heresy of all kinds (burning at the stake and crucifiction were de rigor)."

I know of no instance in which the Christian Church or states in Christendom crucified anyone. It would have been blasphemous. I doubt it ever happened. Can you offer a credible scholarly source for it?

The Spanish inquisition (over a thousand years later) engaged in torture and executions in approximately two percent of the heresy trials that they conducted. There are very detailed records available in Spain down to the present. The death toll may have been as few as 800, or as high as 2,000.

Nasty business, that, but compare it the the Secular Roman Marcus Licinius Crassus crucified many more slaves after the Spartacus rebellion in a week than the entire Spanish Inquisition executed by burning at the stake over two centuries.

E Fav:

Glad you liked it. :)

LOL stories like yours about "Frieda" make me wonder sometimes how others outside of our borders really do see America's citizens, when you take out the actions of the government.

Arminius,

I really liked your sunset story because I too have had very similar experiences where interactions with Nature at her most jaw-dropping beauty have moved me to tears. It's fascinating to me that yours led back to the Bible and a church.. and mine ultimately led me to my home in Paganism.

It shows me that our experiences are often so similar, and how wonderful it is that we can draw different conclusions from the same phenomena. Why would the Divine want us all to think the same if these types of experiences are supposed to lead us ultimately to where we feel most at home?

Priver – You’re keeping me laughing – and reminding me of a secular story along the lines of “Harold be thy name.” A guide in the US Capitol was perplexed when a tourist asked him how the statue atop the Capitol got the name “Frieda.” The guide couldn’t imagine how the stupid tourist got that idea, until he recalled that the standard ending of his spiel on the statue, was “And her name is Freedom!”

Arminius – Thanks. Regarding the gospels, I think I understand about living the message of love, but I don’t understand taking the message of eternal life at face value and not worrying about it. What is “face value” and what don’t you worry about?

I also wonder if you have studied how the gospels were written, how they were selected for inclusion in the Bible or if you’d be particularly interested in knowing those things? It seemed important for you to accept the gospels, on some kind of personal level, but not to understand them on an academic level, is that right? It sounds, too, like you’re trying to accept some of the tenets of Christianity too (e.g., not lusting….). So I still wonder – how does this relate to your sunset experience? It sounds like when you knew there was a God, you also knew there was a Jesus. But also did some checking (e.g., re-reading the gospels). Is that how it happened?

You say, “Logic and spirituality are oil and water.” What about logic and religion?

What do your non-religious children think about your religion?

Regarding militant atheism – my mention of it was somewhat off the cuff and certainly off-subject. I’m not fond of the term. I think the media invented it, not atheists themselves. I think it really means outspoken atheists, for instance, people who used to describe themselves as “not very religious” who will now just say “I’m an atheist” and discuss their position, similar to the way Christians would discuss their faith. What do you think?

I’m glad you’re grateful for this conversation. I certainly am.

E Favorite, for some reason I had to read gladly the cross-eyed bear about four times before I got it, and then I couldn't stop laughing. Now my forehead hurts from smacking it so hard. I think I need coffee.

Arminus, I enjoyed your sunset story. I had a similar experience one day about ten years ago. I was over at a friend's house when a fast moving thunderstorm came through. We took shelter inside while it passed, and when we went back out the setting sun was illuminating these thick stringy remnants of cloud from underneath in brilliant purples and oranges. I excused myself and drove home like a maniac to fetch my camera, then ran to the park across the street and snapped pictures until I ran out of film. It was achingly beautiful. The kind of sky Maxfield Parrish might have painted. Surreal and other-worldly. All the while I was amazed watching the people around me go about their business, eyes on their shoes, seemingly oblivious to the magnificent sight above their heads.

I can very much understand how such a thing might make one see the hand of god. I know I felt that way, in a metaphorical sense at least, that evening in the park - awed, humbled, and feeling connected to the universe in a way that only that kind of rare serendipitous beauty can inspire. Just happy to be alive and aware in the brief time the spectacle lasted. Few other things have made me feel a profound sense of wonder as intensely. The first time I saw the Aurora Borealis was one. Drifting on my back on a glass-still lake with the arc of the Milky Way stretched above me from horizon to horizon was another. Things like that truly make life worth living and in those brief moments rational thought would just get in the way. Plenty of time for that later.

I'm probably pretty close to what might be considered a militant atheist, but that doesn't mean I'm not also a romantic. Thanks for sharing.

E Favorite,

I’ll give your questions a shot.

‘Level of acceptance with the Gospels’: I buy into the message and the teaching. I take the message of love to heart and try to live it. I take the message of eternal life at face value and don’t worry about it. Some things Jesus said bother me; I am divorced, and, even at age 64, can look at a woman with a bit of lust. Other passages disturb me – “I come with the sword….”. I keep searching.

Holy Week is real to me, and very personal and emotional. Of course it may not be real to others. I accept that.

As for the sunset, logic cannot be applied there. Logic and spirituality are oil and water. Two different paths, but both are good.

My kids are basically non-religious.

I threw in ‘militant atheists’ as a tongue-in-cheek comment. Some of them are, the ones who insist that I am insane, for example.

I am grateful to you because you are making me think and examine where I am coming from. And red wine would be fine!

Chip and others,

Here I am, a believer, laughing my ass off! Thanks! And I love 'Life of Brian'.

Mr Mark,

I'm a little disappointed in myself. I was tired, grumpy, and had consumed one beer too many. My comment was out of line. Sorry.

Mr mark, Thanks for the "Chorus of the lonely Shepherds" info. Now I don't feel so silly about my reaction. I am amazed, though, that I hadn't heard that before.

Singing the Messiah in college choir was one of the best times for me.. where I discovered what music can do.

As a Jew in choir I even once found myself singing a solo for 'oh happy day'.. out of 200 plus people in the women's choir, she chose the only Jew in the group to sing about Jesus washing my sins away. As a young kid I used to think that 'well, the music is so pretty- does that mean I have to be Christian now? I don't really want to..'

Our version alternated between braying in between 'like sheep' and 'have gone astray' and our own verse- All we need sleep cause it is day...

And Python certainly did say it best.. 'always look on the bright side of life'..

anybody who says that religion has to be so solemn should be made to watch things like Life of Brian.

Here's to all those out there who may have, as I did, gotten tossed out of a church for mishearing a prayer and asking someone if God's name was Harold. (Harold be thy name)

Dear E Fav -

The Messiah chorus you mention (All we like sheep) is known as the "Chorus of the Lonely Shepherds" in my circles.

Chip - Great post.

Hermit and priver and Mr Mark enjoyed your stories - I bet there are a lot of them.

I'm starting to wonder if the terms "free spirit" and "golden shower" were originally taken from hymns.

Have you heard of "Gladly the Cross-Eyed Bear"

I recall reading an article about a pastor's kid who couldn't figure out why they were singing about a bear in church.

I had a similar experience the first time I practiced the Messiah piece based on Isaiah 53:6. Unfamiliar with the bible verse, I was astounded and confused as the chorus belted out "All we like sheep!" "All we like sheep!"

I was quite relieved to finally hear the whole verse: "All we, like sheep, have gone astray"

I haven't laughed this hard while reading On Faith in a long time. Thanks everyone! Mr Mark and A Hermit, those are classic! I'll be passing those stories on to others if you don't mind. Priver, I think I'd have gotten along famously with your grandfather.

I've often wondered if any hope I had of attaining faith was doomed by my father exposing me at a young age to Monty Python. To this day I think Life of Brian is as rational a basis for religion as any other, only much funnier.

Chip's story reminds of a story my Grandfather liked to tell. Seems there was a young lady in front row of the choir of his church who had a habit of leaning forward as she sang the high notes. On Sunday morning, in a particularly passionate performance, she leaned too far, fell out of the choir loft and was caught by the ankles by her choirmates.

As she hung there, her robe and skirt drawn past her head by gravity exposing her to the congregation the quick thinking minister shouted, in his best prophetic voice, "Any man who looks up at that poor woman will be struck blind by God!!!"

Grandpa, a rakish young man at the time, turned to his brother with his hand over one half of his face and said, you know; I think I'll risk one eye..."

Chip:

"The final straw was one day during church youth group when I was rummaging around in the kitchen behind the chapel and discovered that the body of Christ is manufactured in a factory in New Jersey, and his blood is actually Welch's grape juice. I'd discovered the man behind the curtain and paying no attention just wasn't an option for me."

This made me laugh and reminded me of the time I caught my grandfather under the table drinking the wine that we were supposed to leave out for Elijah to drink during Passover.

Even as a former Jew, I can relate. Thanks for that. :)

Mr. Mark,

I would have loved to see the rest of that hymnal! :)

Chip writes:

"When I started to enter puberty several years later I did enjoy seeing the female members of the flock in their Sunday finery, which inspired many adolescent daydreams far more entertaining than the sermons I ignored in their favor."

Ha!

I had a similar experience. During my senior year in HS, I dated a rather buxom young lady from my church. We often sang the Sursum corda at the end of our Lutheran service which concludes with the words, "uphold me with thy free spirit." As my gal pal used to wear a Playtex Free Spirit bra, those words always elicited a playful wink between us.

One other church story - during my years in NYC, I worked as a freelance singer and usually had a church gig on Sunday. I sang for a while in Murray Hill at the Swedenborgian Church just off Park Ave. on E 35th street. The church hired a paid quartet (I was the tenor) and an organist. We'd meet Sunday about an hour before the service, read through the anthem and get it ready to perform. We never had time to go over any of the hymns - we just sight read them during the service.

Anyway, the church used a very, very old hymnal. One fine Sunday, we launched into the closing hymn and were doing fine until we reached the third verse and found ourselves singing the text, "let fall upon me your golden showers."

Needless to say, we all lost it and pretty much called it a day.

Dear Gerry & Anon -

I'm glad you enjoyed that site.

My linking to it was in no way an attempt to say, "here it is, the be-all and end-all, Bible debunked, case closed, if you don't believe it, you're an idiot." I posted the link as a starting point for what I considered to be a well-reasoned argument...and an argument I hadn't read anywhere else. Certainly, it is as compelling an argument as the "Jesus is a rehash of Mithras, Sol Invictus, et al," and it is certainly a more-believable argument than "supernatural beings exist who took human form, died and were resurrected to save mankind from sin."

I had hoped that Arminius would find the ideas interesting if not - to his way of thinking - compelling or conclusive.

Oh well...

Chip,

A great post !!!

Sheila, my story is very similar. I'm not sure I ever believed, but I became aware of my disbelief when I was eight years old, upon hearing the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday school. I simply couldn't fathom that I was being told such a tall tale by an adult who fully expected me to believe it was true. I felt insulted. Immediately after I asked my parents to allow me to attend "big people church" with them instead. It wasn't any better.

When I started to enter puberty several years later I did enjoy seeing the female members of the flock in their Sunday finery, which inspired many adolescent daydreams far more entertaining than the sermons I ignored in their favor. Luckily lightning never struck my pew, and the emergence of a bit of lace beneath a hemline still makes me thank a higher power. During that time I also, through weekly practice, learned that I could wiggle my ears. That skill will no doubt impress whoever is in charge of the pearly gates when I arrive.

The final straw was one day during church youth group when I was rummaging around in the kitchen behind the chapel and discovered that the body of Christ is manufactured in a factory in New Jersey, and his blood is actually Welch's grape juice. I'd discovered the man behind the curtain and paying no attention just wasn't an option for me.

Soon after, I informed my parents that I would no longer be attending church with them. I made exceptions on Christmas Eve and Palm Sunday. The former because it made my parents happy. The latter because the Canadian Brass would perform and the acoustics of the church made them sound truly glorious.

I stopped believing in God when I was sick with chicken pox at the age of six and decided to cut my hair on a Saturday.I did.The heavens did not fall.

In addition, I hated the high holydays. I do not know tht basic cause but my father went insane on the holidays. Perhaps he was hungry. I ate. Again, God did not punish me. Another blow against God.

Perhaps the major blow was when the rabbi put his hand up my thighs.

Since that time I have lived happily, ethically, honorably without the patriarchal god, with my comfort in life coming from friends, music, literature, and writing.

In my above post I have to ammend early Church strategies for heresy - obviously it was the Romans that crucified early Christians. Later on, the Church employed stoning & burning at the stake as a punishment for heresy and 'enemies' of the Church (after all, the wanton use of the deeply religious symbol of the cross would have been heresy itself - a stake without the cross member was sufficient to the task).

Mr. Mark - thanks for the corroborating links to the purported historical invention of Jesus....there is indeed much evidence to support this hypothesis. Elaine Pagels is a highly respected scholar that writes extensively on the early Christian era and she makes it quite clear in her writings that the true authors of the gospels are completely unknown.

In addition, the prevailing Christian view (mythology) that we have today is simply the results of the dominant thought of early Church leaders (Irenaeus, Athanasius, St. Augustine (later but in the same vein, Thomas Aquinas), et al). For example, the Gnostics were an early Christian polyglot group that subscribed to alternate and contrary views, and were largely exterminated for their temerity. And of course this 'disappearing' strategy was employed by the Church for hundreds of years as a punishment for heresy of all kinds (burning at the stake and crucifiction were de rigor).

Flavious Josephus, the great Jewish historian and chronicler of the early Christian era is not known to have mentioned Jesus in any context as a comtemporary social phenomenon - rather unusual to avoid mentioning such an impressive (if socially disruptive) presence if Jesus was indeed a social reality.

Great writers such as Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade have thoroughly and ingeniously covered the mythmaking propensities of the human mind (and spirit) and the roles and functions of mythology in general. Certainly all of the world's religions are chock full of religious super-heros that far exceed the ordinary in every way, and give us deeply imperfect folks with mundane lives something to aspire to in the process (a major function)- in our imagination we can be all of these things and more, and at least a few have achieved the impossible heights. Could Jesus be one of these beings??

Mr. Mark,

thanks for this very informative link, I learned a lot from it. It seems, the author has gone through a huge amount of reading and studying to produce such a coherent historical picture.

Even if Jesus existed (which he never downright negates), it remains a fact that the present brand of Christian ("eternal truth") belief has been generated by (is a concoction of) numerous political, factional, philosophical, historical factors and interests, and it has not appeared as the present "faith" before the Nicaean Council.

The light-handed dismissal of this article by Arminius is a secret to me. Does he want to abandon any claim to at least a minimum of intellectualism?

Arminius – you raise many interesting issues, which makes me want to quiz you more:

When you say, you “reached a level of acceptance” with the gospels, it sounds to me like you didn’t completely buy in to them. Is that so? If it is, what bothered you about them and how did you resolve that?

When you say, Holy week “is REAL to me” are you acknowledging that it’s a personal thing? That you realize it might not be real to others?

When you say “forget logic” and “screw logic” – do you mean you don’t care if the Christian beliefs that re-emerged from your sunset experience have any basis in reality or fact?

Regarding your children – where are they in terms of religion?

When you mention “militants” - which you have in at least one other post, what do you mean? What does “militant atheism” mean to you in practice? Do you have any specific examples of militant atheism?

When you say you’re grateful for my help, how am I helping you?

Thanks for the offer of a few beers. If we have the opportunity, let’s make it red wine, instead. I used to prefer beer, but now limit it to venues where the red wine is wanting. I had more than my share tonight.

After the beginning, and Creation was created, and God was rested, and the weeks passed, God saw what he had wrought, and cried "do over".

Satan said "wait, wait, perhaps if you came down to earth as a man, the people would better understand your purpose for them."

God thought for a moment and arranged to have himself born of a virgin woman, so that the people would know he was someone special. The woman was promptly stoned to death for the crime of fornication.

God then said, "well, one more try" and arranged an announcement so that the blessed Virgin would be allowed to carry to full term. And he was finally born. The prospect of the almost interminable boredom of living in time was unbearable, but fortunately he was omnipotent and could skip all that.

Once He began preaching His original word, he expected that the missteps made by the faithful would be corrected. To his astonishment they treated him as any other lunatic. They pointed to the first books, declaring them faultlessly transcribed. He countered with his rigorous knowledge of what He himself had said and showed the flaws in man's interpretation of his original intent in the first covenant. (how do you transcribe a burning bush after all)

Satan pulled him aside and said, "God, you may have to resort to miracles again, couldn't you walk on water or raise the dead? Throw them some kind of bone, so they know you're the One?"

God took this wise advice and did a little magic to help the recruitment effort. Again, he was astonished when people continued to ignore his divinity. Again Satan intervened, "You must understand, these people starve, suffer, die and are generally miserable--and you forget how well I tempt them." And god scoffed, "Well how hard can that possibly be? And what could you possibly offer them that cannot be exceeded by my shining glory? I'm going to cancel this whole experiment"

Satan said, "Wait, wait, wait, come with me to the desert and we'll have a chat. If you can withstand my best offer and you think it's so easy to die, I can arrange that. Then you'll at least know."

So God signed and Satan arranged everything, the betrayal, the crucifixion on the Hill of the Skulls.

God marveled at his friend's efficiency in the whole process, but when he read through his contract again, he noticed that he wasn't allowed to use his omnipotence to skip through to the end. The Lord of Hosts soon understood that he really had to die--all the way.

After it was accomplished, God was totally freaked out, to Satan: "Whoa, that was tougher than I expected, the Magdalene's body, magnificent... and the end, that chilling moment when I doubted my own existence! How powerfully these creatures feel, who I have created!

"Still, if I could do it, it shouldn't be so hard for them. I'll give them one more chance, one more miracle, I'll come back so that all who believe in my resurrection and pass through the valley, as I have done, will be assured my Eternal Companionship. To Hell with the rest."

Satan smiled, said: "Thank you"

Submitted for your amusement,

--FIUS

PS Freestinker. I cannot know what I cannot prove and I cannot prove that no god of some sort exists. I have my doubts, but I cannot know it, to my satisfaction, so to me it is "off the agenda" for my life's timeline. Whatever is, is-- and I'm content to let it be what it is. Write me down as an Agnostic on the overall god question.

Of the God of Abraham / christ of Christianity / prophet of Islam trilogy of terror I am more sure. It is bunk -- but as you've noted on another thread, I have no supporting evidence other than intuition. But write me down as an Atheist on the Yahweh question.

--Faithless

Dear Arminius -

I believe you took "a look" at the site I linked, but I had hoped you might have read a bit of it. I know how extensive it is, and there's no way that you could have gotten a sense of the man's argument in the 23 minutes between my original post and your reply.

BTW - the site is worth bookmarking for the links to the scholarly works of others, many of them well-known Biblical scholars. But, if you prefer to be dismissive and to call "flat earthed" an article that you couldn't be bothered to investigate in any depth - even after you asked me for "the facts" - then you'll excuse me if I fail to offer you additional links to support my position.

Truth be told, I'm a little disappointed in you, Arminius.

Mr Mark,

I took a look at the site. It seems a credible candidate to be lumped into the flat earth society and such. Wishful thinking. Right down there with 'Chariots of the Gods', that dain bramaged book of some decades past.

Most historians accept the historical presence of Jesus. What the Gospels said he did can certainly be disputed. Check out Widipedia - yes, I know, that place can be suspect. But the articles are well documented.

Arminius asks:

"What are the facts?"

I'd recommend the following link which contains an extensive article that I consider very compelling, well-reasoned and well-documented. The author posits that the figure of Jesus is the product of Jewish mythology:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Nella Lung, you said:

"Many theists are intelligent people. Once they hear all the facts and are given the ability to think freely and boldly, they too, will most likely abandon the clever superstitions and myths of old for reason and modernity.

So give me the facts, please.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

I, too, am an atheist. Thanks for your wonderful article. Today, in a world torn apart by baseless faiths, we need more atheists who are willing to speak up and reach out.

Many theists are intelligent people. Once they hear all the facts and are given the ability to think freely and boldly, they too, will most likely abandon the clever superstitions and myths of old for reason and modernity.

And to all my fellow atheists, it's time to let the world hear us!

Wiccan,

Thanks for your post. Aren't Coon Cats wonderful?

We had wanted to get a MCC since our last cat, Asland, who seemed to have some MCC characteristics, passed to his next existence.

No pet stores seemed to carry MCC kittens, at least not in our area. We tried the internet, but most of the breeders seemed to be Ma and Pa operations, not near us, who only have one or two litters a year.

These small breeders also tend to insist you sign a contract that you won't let the MCC outdoors. This seems to me to be an absurd, cruel imprisonment for any cat, and particularly for one with the MCC nature.

My son advised that I should sign the contract and then forget it - no one could enforce it. I told him I don't do things like that.

Then, after coming out of a meeting held 90 miles from home, my wife noticed the adjoining building: it was a pet shop with a sign: Maine Coon Kittens Inside.

We really lucked out with Archie and Belle. They have all the wonderful MCC characteristics, physically and psychologically. We weren't looking for purebreds, but they are, with their parents having those absurdly long, absurdly funny pedigree names.

We live in rural Vermont on ten acres. We let A & B outside during the day. We get them in at dusk.
The coyotes are nearby and we hear them baying at night.

There are also fishers ("fisher cats") all around, who think cats are the delicious new white meat.

An ecology lesson: Fishers were imported to Vermont in the 19th Century to rid the state of the porcupines who were harming the timber industry. Fishers were the only predators who could kill porcupines despite their quills.

The fishers knocked them onto their backs and then slit their bellies (all the product of the benevolent God, was it not?).

The porcs are now all gone from VT and cats are the new nourishment.

I always enjoy your posts.

Best wishes.

I've lived without a god idea for 60 years and find that it is a very satisfactory and satifying life stance within which to live, both through the good times and the bad.

I've lived without a god idea for 60 years and find that it is a very satisfactory and satifying life stance within which to live, both through the good times and the bad.

Salve, Wiccan!

I went to the link, and was, as our Australian friends say, gob-struck! Copied and saved to disk, in a growing treasury of Rumi. Thanks!

Vale, et pax tecum.

Mr Mark,

Hello, Music Man! And well versed you are in that, I am envious.

Anyway, you said:
"Well, I would say that non-believers are so because of the facts, believers remain so *in spite of* the facts.

OK, then. What are the facts?

E Favorite,

First, if I ever have the pleasure of meeting you face to face, I would like to buy you a beer or three. Or, if you don’t drink, we’ll hit Starbucks or whatever.

You are right, my ‘fall from grace’ was not a thought process. I was pretty well versed in religion at the time – hell, three semesters of religion, OT, NT, and comparative religion, plus massive exposure to the services. I just got disgusted with it, decided they had no arguments that I could buy, and left. Maybe lazy, I don’t know. It made no sense. When I look at it now, from that angle, it still makes no sense.

Re the sunset. Yes, ‘Glory to God!’ was totally spontaneous. No thought required. That’s the whole point – the thought came after this outburst. But it was a full-blown spiritual experience. No doubt in my mind. Something in my spirit erupted, and joined with that fire in the sky. Forget logic, I cannot explain it otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with the conclusion that you reached in your pursuits. For my part, I did not feel misled, just befuddled by the lack of anything to hang a belief on. As a footnote, one of the priests of my youth was a bona-fide nuclear physicist. I wish that I had listened to him better than I did. For me, the pursuits of science and religion are equally valid and parallel lines that meet at the infinity of God. (Have at it, you militants! – not you, E Favorite).

Now we get to the tough stuff. This is very difficult to explain. As I said before, I walked into All Saints on a Wednesday noon, and realized I had come home. Screw logic, I just knew that. Yes, I dived into the Gospels. After about four readings, including Acts and Paul’s letters, I had reached a level of acceptance. But reluctantly, at least at some points. Yet, yet… somehow, Holy Week is very, very intense for me. It is not intellectual, it is almost visceral. Can’t explain it, won’t try. But it is REAL to me. Even when I make bread (I bake my own), I think of the Last Supper. The pain, the sacrifice, the passion of the Christ is very real to me. I don’t know why. Maybe has to do with a lot of Scot-Irish heritage.

So, then, this is not where I stand, this is where I am. The journey continues. I am grateful for your help.

Oh, yes, my kids. I married at 30, had my first child, a daughter, at 42. Somewhat behind my peer group! Anyway, my girl, 21, is double majoring in dance and psychology, and wearing herself out by doing great things. My son, 18, is just in college, and has shown an unexpected interest in philosophy. His former interest was computer programming – my background.

Take care, keep in touch, and God bless.

Assalaam Alaikum, Jihadist. I'm sorry about your misbehaving appendix, but you seem to have found a way to pass the time during your enforced rest. :-)

Salve, Arminius! I found out about Rumi from this very forum. What a treasure he is. A lady named Pamela quoted one of his poems about Moses upbraiding a sheperd about how he was worshipping, only to be upbraided himself by God. http://www.iamlookingforgod.com/2005/05/moses_and_the_s_1.html

Namaste, Norrie. You know that my family believes that favored humans are allowed to reincarnate as housecats. My brother and I found Peter the Great, a Maine Coon Tuxedo, at the Fairfax County Animal Shelter 12 years ago, and he has ruled over us since then. Athletic, intelligent, and very mischievious; a glorious animal.

And to Maurie Beck, Live Long and Prosper (IVI)! What a fascinating post on "Exodus to Arthur, by Mike Baillie". I'm reading a PBS Nova transcript about it right now. I've always thought that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered more from bad press than the wrath of God: http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/960630/sodom.txt.

To Everyone: Blessed Be and have a great weekend!

You're right I could say the same for the hijacked Teaching of Christ, and the profiteering Evangelicals. I love science, I was mereley being an @ss, just to try and get a rise out of you, I know it's the least effective way to speak, but still I love the mind behing your words MR Mark. I know science is great, but gravity and nuclear fission, and the Table of Periodic Elements already exsited even before we "invented" these things, science will save us, but only if it is balanced by a moral use and used to benefit.

The Modern Miracle of Health is so successful because of the techniques refined during WW2, I know that religion is bad, Christ never walked around saying Build a Church here, or start a fundraising event here, that was a result of helping people, True Enlightenment is reach by balancing what you can control and knowing what is beyond your control, as for me apologizing is one of my favorite things...I am sorry that I was rude, I did read your post I was mereley being a jerk.

And yes you're right science is leading the way for a future, be it better or worse that is not up to science that is where the choices of men shall decide to take it...

Laughing on the Inside-MONK

Arminius writes:

"But no one has really gone to the core of the matter: where is the proof, or non-proof? Most non-believers seem to be, by definition, agnostics. IMHO, an atheist will say that because the existence of God, any god, cannot be proved, then God, or gods, do not exist. And a believer will offer proofs that God or gods exist, proofs that will not stand the test of logic. This oversimplification might at least be a starting point.."

Well, I would say that non-believers are so because of the facts, believers remain so *in spite of* the facts.

As a human being, I should offer some thanks to mankind for coming up with religion. It was, after all, our first attempt as a species to offer a "scientific" explanation for our natural world. It just happens that it was our most-infantile and off-base explanation.

To hold to such infantile beliefs in this day and age is a reflection of the fear and guilt that religion employs as a one-two punch to keep the believers in line. Strangely enough, the religious have no problem discarding our other early and now-discredited attempts to make sense of the world. When was the last time that a believer summoned an alchemist for his opinion before the pharmacist mixed his prescription, or the last time a believer requested that a witch doctor be present during his cancer surgery, or that NASA consult with an astrologer before launching a probe into the far reaches of space?

But who knows? If the Bible demanded that believers attempt to spin straw into gold to gain salvation, there might still be an alchemist on every corner and a religionist across the street accusing scientists of not being able to offer "proof" that alchemy was a chimera!

Back at ya.

E Favorite,

I have downloaded your response, and will reply after some thought. That sunset did not really give an answer to me, it opened a doorway. I am a seeker. I am indebted to you for helping me seek. More when I can figure some of this stuff out.

Thanks for the invitation, Arminius – my goal is certainly not to hurt your feelings – it’s to understand you. But I know from experience that feelings can get hurt in the process.

It sounds like you drifted from the church, but not actively toward atheism, right? When you say you “decided it was worthless and dumped it all” it sounds like it was not based on any objective (e.g., historical, scholarly-biblical research), but rather a decision based on your direct experience with the church, is that right? Regarding your assumption that “this is how most atheists get that way” I’m not so sure. What I find is that when people don’t talk with others about their feelings, they assume all sorts of things that may not reflect reality. What you describe is similar to why and how I gave up Catholicism, but unlike you, I didn’t give up religion entirely then (but I didn’t attend church) and still believed in God. I know someone else who quit both Catholicism and God as a child, because of psychological abuse by a nun (even while keeping it a secret and continuing in Catholic school). There are lots of other stories too.

When your sunset happened, I’d say (my opinion/speculation here, of course) that “something” definitely happened – it sounds like a full-blown spiritual experience of the type discussed on this forum a few months ago. But, not only are you sure that something happened, you are sure of what it meant –that there is a God, in part because you uttered “for the Glory of God.” I’d suggest that the words might not be so filled with meaning, but instead could be a spontaneous reaction, just as someone might say “Oh God” or “Sacrum Merdum” (in translation) when something really good, bad, or surprising happens – unrelated to anything religious.

When I had my experiences, I also knew something happened. Unlike you, I didn’t interpret them. In one case I did have an insight about my own humanity and my place in the universe. It wasn’t about the existence of God, but a knowing that I was fully human in a way I had never felt before. I’ve since learned that this feeling of oneness with the universe is pretty common element of these experiences.

That experience made me curious. I realized I had little academic knowledge about religion, so I started to research it. In the process I learned how little I knew about my own religion – which embarrassed me; how much I’d been misled, which angered me; and how incredibly shaky were the foundations of Judaism and Christianity, which shocked me. It still does.

I am not suggesting that you or anyone else should have gone into research mode the way I did. People are different. I also know people who did extensive research on religion without the prompting of an experience such as yours or mine. However, I do wonder if actually having additional reliable information beyond your innate “knowing” that God exists would have made a difference in your decision to return to the Episcopal church. What do you think? My other question, bluntly put, is, “OK, so you know God exists, how does that then relate to the Jesus story or any other religion’s story?”

I’m also curious about your children. Are they grown? Are they religious? How did it all happen?

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Dear XYMERIAN MONK -

Thanks for your comments.

You do yourself a disservice in your argument by shifting the goal posts and attempting to redefine my post into a "science good, religion bad" argument, but you can only do that if you willfully ignore what I actually wrote, ie: "in a world that for better or worse is dependent on and defined by the march of science."

I think the phrase "for better or worse" is unequivocal in its meaning, especially in context of my entire post.

You also offer up a typical strawman when you write, "that is why science has taken away hunger, and poverty, as well as suffering and War." The same sarcasm can, of course, be said of religion, so what's your point? More importantly, your sarcasm rings hollow as it also ignores the "or worse" modifier of my earlier post.

Still, thanks for engaging in the dialogue.

First sorry if this double posts...

Mr Mark:

The problem that religion faces it that it has no new or compelling arguments to make in this science-aware world. The belief in the supernatural is losing steam as civilization matures and progresses.

Thank you for explaining that. I mean who really wants to Follow Jesus anyway, I mean Love your Enemy and Love another are soo outdated. That is why science has taken away hunger, and poverty, as well as suffering and War. I thought that it was science that invented the Nuclear Bomb and Chemical Warfare, as well as better chemicals to benefit torturing...but no that was all "those" fanatics that LOVE...so when is the World Scientific minds going to go to Ethiopia and Angolia and serve those kids "knowledge" instead of food?

Science itself is not evil, neither is a personal relationship with Christ; however, you have to factor in that small Human element...that is where the world has lacked in its progression..Greed, Corruption, Deceit, and Hate...the power of science can not fix those things, but what do I know I'm a Monk.

P.S.

China is the worlds largest atheist nation and look at what they have done to my people in Tibet. So glad all that is wrong in the world can be taken away with scientific progression...LET THE HEALING BEGIN!!!

Liberated-MONK

Arminius writes:

"Most non-believers seem to be, by definition, agnostics."

True - at least in the sense that except for the pantheists, all theists are "atheists-minus-one," that minus being the one god that they do believe in out of the thousands invented so far by mankind.

Yes, Arminius, you've only to eliminate that one remaining god from your faith portfolio and you'll be full-fledged atheist, rather than the 99.999999% atheist you are now. :)

Mr Mark:

The problem that religion faces it that it has no new or compelling arguments to make in this science-aware world. The belief in the supernatural is losing steam as civilization matures and progresses.

Thank you for explaining that. I mean who really wants to Follow Jesus anyway, I mean Love your Enemy and Love another are soo outdated. That is why science has taken away hunger, and poverty, as well as suffering and War. I thought that it was science that invented the Nuclear Bomb and Chemical Warfare, as well as better chemicals to benefit torturing...but no that was all "those" fanatics that LOVE...so when is the World Scientific minds going to go to Ethiopia and Angolia and serve those kids "knowledge" instead of food?

Science itself is not evil, neither is a personal relationship with Christ; however, you have to factor in that small Human element...that is where the world has lacked in its progression..Greed, Corruption, Deceit, and Hate...the power of science can not fix those things, but what do I know I'm a Monk.

P.S.

Cina is the worlds largest atheist nation and look at what they have done to my people in Tibet. So glad all that is wrong in the world can be taken away with scientific progression...LET THE HEALING BEGIN!!!

Liberated-MONK

Gerry -

Thanks for your thoughts on music.

Yes. it's a strange thing. As a musician, I can listen to the last minute or so of La bohème and know exactly what compositional tricks Puccini is employing to make his effect, yet nine times out of ten, I end up in tears along with the rest of the "amateurs" in the audience, swept up in the emotion of the moment, a moment that was created in an extremely calculated way by an extremely gifted composer.

I HATE when that happens!

Mr Mark,

Well, I did not mean to upset anyone. Of course the questions that Freestinker asked have been asked a lot here. I do think he managed to package them better than normal. What he seemed to ask is 'Where are you really coming from? Have you examined the basis of where you stand, especially in relation to what the critics say of you?'

And the answers are coming in. And so far they are reasonable. But no one has really gone to the core of the matter: where is the proof, or non-proof? Most non-believers seem to be, by definition, agnostics. IMHO, an atheist will say that because the existence of God, any god, cannot be proved, then God, or gods, do not exist. And a believer will offer proofs that God or gods exist, proofs that will not stand the test of logic. This oversimplification might at least be a starting point.

Freestinker -

One more thought.

The problem that religion faces it that it has no new or compelling arguments to make in this science-aware world. The belief in the supernatural is losing steam as civilization matures and progresses. If one truly examines that which gets one through the day in this modern world, one would freely admit that religion has been relegated to the sidelines - a caprice, as it were, in a world that for better or worse is dependent on and defined by the march of science. Religion is faced with the reality that science and enlightenment have already dismantled and redefined enormous swaths of human experience that were once the province of religion.

As an atheist, I say, "thank god for that!"

Mr. Mark,

one more word about music and science:

An important part of the fascination music has for me is the fact that mathematical proportions (numbers) of time chips (vibration frequency of pitch, time comparisons of phrases, development of motifs, the time structure of a Sonata or Symphony, adapted to the auditory processing and memory stretch of our brain and finally the mastery of time modification of a great performing artist transcend into an emotional quality that can move one to tears.) For me, as an atheist, one of the great miracles of nature.

The effect does not require any knowledge of its scientifically explorable origin. But I refer to Robert Schumann's demand for a balance of "Kopf, Herz und Hand" in music and music performance.

Mary Cunningham,

You wrote:

"Try not to state your conclusion before you marshal your facts."

In college and law school the conventional wisdom (endorsed by the professors) was that the way to the highest grades was by first stating your conclusion and then stating why and how you got there.

Of course it really worked only if your conclusion was correct.

With a wrong conclusion boldly stated at the outset, it was hard to get a high grade even if your subsequent analysis was good.

But when your boldly stated conclusion was right, then you were likely to get a high mark.

Regards.

ARMINIUS writes:
"Freestinker:

Well, by damn, you seem to have opened a glorious can of worms! This is going to be fun. So far, I have heard a lot of babbling but no straight answers."

I'm surprised by your post, Arminius. First, because Freestinker asks a question that has been cogently addressed many, MANY times over on this blog, and second, because the answers offered in this thread alone put paid to Freestinker's oft-exploded argument

Perhaps straight answers aren't what you're looking for, or perhaps you don't recognize a straight answer when you see one. In these days of the Larry Craig debacle, it's confusing to imagine what some people consider to be "straight" answer. :)

Freestinker asks: "Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?"

I can honestly say I don't remember encountering any atheist who took the position of absolute denial. For me all questions are always open to revision, although the likelihood of overturning any of my opinions is directly related to the quality of the available arguments for and against it. If I'm interested enough in a subject I'll look at those arguments, consider their merits and implications and come to some kind of conclusion, in which I will have some degree of confidence from the tenuous and extremely provisional to something approaching certainty.But unequivocal, absolute certainty? I don't think that's possible on any question. People of faith might claim such absolute knowledge; I'm a little more humble myself...

In the case of God's existence I would say I have a very high degree of confidence in concluding that God does not exist.

That goes for all gods, of course.

To put it in perspective, Freestinker answer this for me; what's your opinion on the existence of Thor? Belief, unequivocal denial of existence or highly confident doubt?

Regards

A Hermit

"Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?"

Maybe there is a god, but given the evidence that currently exists there's no basis for rational belief in one. Perhaps some day evidence will be found that will convince me there is a god or gods, but I currently place the odds of that happening as so incredibly small as to not be worth much consideration. I do not claim to know there isn't a god, so in that sense I am agnostic, but I do not believe there is a god, and that makes me an atheist.

Hi Freestinker,

Speaking only for myself, I'm open to the possibility of some sort of deity, or deity-like entity. It's a weird, wooly Universe, so why not?

My disbelief enters the picture because I find the claims of human religions to have no verifiable historical basis; often contradict observable reality; have little internal consistency; and the moral positions are simple reflections of humanity itself (see, for example, the mix of great good and great evil endorsed by the Bible).

Faith is another quality I lack; I tried, believe me I tried. It's hard not to, being raised in a multigenerational family of pastors and church workers. I have no doubt in the sincerity of the faith and personal experiences of others, but in a way that's the point: what makes the personal faith experience of a Lutheran any more or less valid than that of a Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or shaman? The experience is real and valid to each of those people, but without a personal experience there is no rational reason to differentiate between them, or to declare one religious experience more sincere than the other.

I am not an agnostic; agnosticism is a position that one cannot truly "know" the existence of a god. There can be agnostic atheists and agnostic ("faith alone") theists; my sister, a recent seminary grad, is one of the latter.

I believe it is possible to have evidence of an entity that claims god-like characteristics, if it exists -- I just do not find any of the claims of human religions to be reliable at all, so I reject them all. My sister has a similar position (being a liberal christian she takes the historical claims, especially Genesis, with a grain of salt) but she has faith. I do not.

I'm pretty vocal about my atheism and not afraid to get punchy if some dingus like Stevens-Arroyo says ignorant crap about us, but as a whole I have good experiences with theists, and a friendly attitude toward them. My sister lives for Bach, and went into seminary to focus on devotional music. It inspires her, uplifts her and gives her life meaning, and I can't find fault with that at all. It's just not for me.

Freestinker:

Well, by damn, you seem to have opened a glorious can of worms! This is going to be fun. So far, I have heard a lot of babbling but no straight answers.

The atheist haters make a few important mistakes:

First, they think atheists are underdeveloped emotionally, because they don't cherish this warm cozy fuzzy feeling of "MAYBE there is a supernatural being" ("Maybe" is, of course, reinforced by "certainly", the feeling is thus enhanced, Pascal's wager.)

Second, the endless reiteration of the "moral" issue: Atheists are at least statistically (measured in prison inmates proportion) many many times more "moral", even when measured by the positive elements one can find in the Christian morality. And measured in the atheist terms of morality: They do something because they think it is right, not because they are afraid of being punished (and "redeemed" by our dear Lord etc.etc.) They don't believe in "redemption" and behave without the threat of hell and the hope for reward.

Third, they usually are certainly no less informed about religions and their history; from what I can conclude after reading so many posts, quite to the contrary. Normally believers couldn't care less about the history, about the political and philosophical strifes for theological sophisticated definitions, which finally became a historical inheritance by which we suffer up to this day, and which constitutes the material of most of believers for their "eternal truths".

Fourth, atheists don't "lack" anything, as believers so fervently reiterate. It is believers that lack the "cool", beautiful critical and at the same time highly emotional awe and wonder towards the awe-inspiring, mysterious and self-generating universe (may I recur to the snow flake example: God did not make them hexagonal, the chemistry and molecular structure of water procure this form), which they, in most cases, don't know and really don't care much about, especially the ID-brand.

Fifth, atheists don't try to "convert" anybody. Conversion would imply a religion to which someone is converted. The desperate and futile attempt to call atheism a religion has been debunked ad nauseam and doesn't have to be defended against anymore.

Sixth, atheists, or rather secular humanists are a far cry from a monolithic organisation. More often than not they have experienced what it feels like to believe in any sort of religion or superstition, and they have awakened to the possibility and dignity of the self accountable human mind.

Mr. Mark, thank you for your beautiful contribution to music and religion. I happen to be a professional musician myself, and nobody ever has criticized my work for a possible lack of faith. Music and religion do not correlate.

Freestinker:
"For self-described atheists:
Let me ask the question this way.
Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?

Just curious."

Personally, A) unequivically deny the existence of god. Personal reason: I did some investigation of the religion I was taught, found zero "proof", did some history on how the bible was written, and decided I was talking to myself during praying, no one else. I would have to say that my prior faith was probably not all that strong. Much like my (lack of) affinity for authority.

I think this may be mixing atheist and agnostic, not sure.

Some definitions may help:

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Freestinker writes:

"In other words, if the existence of god(s) is unknowable (i.e. not provable), then the same must hold true for those who claim that god(s) definitely do not exist. That claim is likewise, not provable."

True, but what we can claim to a great degree of certainty is that gods do not exist based on all of the evidence available in the natural world.

The mistake that the religionists make is in ASSUMING that there is any more weight or gravitas attendant to their belief in a god existing than there is in the belief that the Easter Bunny exists. There is no proof of either, so why would one assume that disbelief in one (god) carries a greater risk than disbelief in the other (Easter Bunny)? Because some desert nomad with the knowledge set of a 21st-century 5-year-old said so and wrote it down in some book? Have at it!

I guess it all comes down to how much BS, myth and discredited opinion one is willing to accept whole-hog as being the EQUIVALENT of knowledge and fact that have been proven over and over again.

Thanks for the chat.

Arminius,

Why am I not surprised that you read Rumi? I love his poems.

For self-described atheists:

Let me ask the question this way.

Are you an absolute atheist who unequivically denies the existence of any god(s) or do you lack belief but also admit that the question is ultimately still open?

Just curious.

E Favorite,

Go ahead and express an opinion or three. I have a rule of thumb for living: If ya wanna try to hurt my feelings, ya had best get up real early and pack a lunch.

Basically I drifted away from the church. It offered nothing but words at the time, and it made no sense. And nobody really agreed on anything, especially between denominations. And differences with other religions were even worse. I could see no way through the confusion, so I decided it was worthless and dumped it all. And, I think, this is how most atheists get that way, because when you look at the whole circus, it does not make any sense at all.

This period lasted 30 years or so. I raised two kids, the best two things I ever did, and taught them to make up their own minds about religion.

Then the sunset happened. I now believe that God must have put His hand on me and jerked my spirit, for a brief moment, out of the confusion so that I could realize that there is something great, wonderful, and beautiful beyond the noise and sweat and fighting that we see in His world. And if you stand in that place for an instant, you can see the beauty of His creation.

Here's a poem by Rumi, the Sufi mystic:

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase each other
doesn't make any sense.

I guess something like that happened to me. I can feel the militant types gathering.... Well, if I am insane, then it is a beautiful and peaceful madness. No voices, no burning shrubbery. But a lot of beauty and peace.

Jihadist,

I've just now caught up with your post of Wednesday, September 5th at 6:15 P.M.

My family and I are very sorry to hear of your illness. We wish you the best for a speedy recuperation. Feel good soon!

We have two new members of our family (did I mention this already?). They are brother and sister Maine Coon Cats, Archie and Belle.

If you are interested in cats and aren't familiar with Maine Coon Cats, you might find it an interesting diversion during your recovery to look into them on the internet.

The first thing I'd do is go to Google IMAGES and look at pictures of them. They're quite striking in appearance. Their origin is rather mysterious. They seem to be the only breed which emerged uniquely in the United States.

Folklore surrounds their origin. One story says they were bred from five cats sent to the American Colonies by Marie Antoinette. Early on people thought they arose from the mating of domestic cats with raccoons (hence their name) but that's physically impossible.

Maine Coons were only recognized as a breed in the 20th Century. They have always predominated in the northeastern U.S. but are now bred worldwide.

They have wonderful personalities and physical characteristics. If interested, check out http://www.maine-coon-cat-club.com/whatis/ (a great British post which accurately describes Archie and Belle).

*****************************

So much for the suggested entertainment. Now I'll turn to the LESS IMPORTANT matters of ON FAITH(the Universe loves cats more than anything else).

*****************************

I was fascinated to learn of your support of Malaysian blogs/sites and of the libel controversies surrounding them. I wouldn't have thought that Malaysia had the litigation mania prevalent in the U.S..

In any system of libel law there is a tension between making it easy to bring and win a libel suit and making it difficult.

If it's easy to bring and win a libel suit, discourse in society will tend to be suppressed.
If it's hard to bring and win a libel suit, free discourse in society will be encouraged, but some people will actually be defamed and damaged, but will have no legal remedy.

It's fascinating but very complicated to try to compare British and American law in this regard. If you go to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=American+vs.+British+libel+law&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web, you'll find 418,000 references on this point.

One U.S. Supreme Court case is most important. The 1964 case of New York Times vs. Sullivan makes it very difficult, and frequently impossible, for a "public figure" to win a libel suit. A "public figure" is any person who comes to broad public notice and attention, voluntarily (politician) or involuntarily (victim of crime or accident).

This decision promotes the American value of having the broadest possible public discourse.

Recently there have been suits filed in U.S. courts by people who lost libel suits in England, seeking to invalidate those judgments in the U.S.. Much fun for the lawyers but not for the parties.

BTW, many lawyers in this country would, I'm afraid, bill you not only for the fruit and flowers they brought you, but also for their time spent in arranging this (@ $300 per hr).

Hope your Malaysian lawyers are more civilized.

Hope you're already better.

As always, the best to you.

Mr. Mark,

My point is that atheism with certitude, as opposed to atheism without absolute certitude (agnostic), requires just as much faith as religion because there is no evidence to support the claim that god(s) definitely do not exist.

I'm not suggesting that atheism is a religion. I'm just saying that to conclude for certain that god(s) do not exist without any evidence (absolute atheism) also requires a leap of faith, albeit a smaller one than most religions.

In other words, if the existence of god(s) is unknowable (i.e. not provable), then the same must hold true for those who claim that god(s) definitely do not exist. That claim is likewise, not provable.

Freestinker sez:

"What tickles me is that so many atheists (with certitude) think their conclusions are logically sound and based on reason."

?????

Atheists and rationalists do base their conclusions on logic and reason. The religionist's argument is that we are *limiting* ourselves to logic and reason. There is no logic or reason involved in believing in the supernatural as there is no empirical proof for the supernatural. Indeed, once there is empirical proof for the supernatural, it ceases to be supernatural as proof must - by definition - exist in the natural world.

Why would anyone doubt that conclusions based on logic, reason and empirical evidence lack certitude? As there is no proof and no certitude to religious beliefs, there is no reason or logic behind the same.

Faith has nothing to do with logic and reason. You're making a cheap argument that's been refuted many times over.

Proof based on faith is opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Jihadist,

You make some excellent points about atheists with certitude. I cannot disagree.

And if atheism means certitude on the question of the existence of god(s), I must point out that the absence of evidence makes this claim as irrational as those who claim with certainty that god(s) do exist without any evidence.

What tickles me is that so many atheists (with certitude) think their conclusions are logically sound and based on reason. However, without evidence atheism with certitude requires just as much faith as any religion.

I’m curious to hear from some avowed atheists on this point.

Is atheism (with certitude) rational thinking or just another flavor of faith?

Dear Mary Cunningham -

Thanks for your response.

I went back and forth about whether you were employing an analogy or a metaphor. As the definition of a metaphor is, "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them," I took your use of the phrase "love of god" to be a metaphor as love directed at a "being" (god) is different than love directed at a non-being (music). If you prefer to call it an analogy, that's fine. So, it's an analogy.

You say, "love of music shares many features of love of God," and take me to task for not addressing the statement. Well, that's your opinion. Mine is very different. I would say that love that I feel for beings (my kids, fellow humans) shares none of the features that I associate with a love of music, chief among them that I love (appreciate?) music on an intellectual level that does enter into the equation when it comes to loving sentient beings, be they real (humans) or imaginary (gods).

Re: Mozart, Freemasonry, atheism & the Church. As early as 1738, Clement XII had prepared a papal bull against Freemasonry but didn't publish it as the Emperor himself was a Freemason. That didn't stop Maria Theresa from banning the Order throughout her possessions in 1764. In 1784, Carl Theodor outlawed all secret societies (the same year that Mozart joined the Freemasons). When Joseph II died, the Clergy began to storm against the Lodges. As Mozart biographer Alfred Einstein points out, "The mere fact of membership in a lodge constituted a protest against the Church." (Source: Einstein, Mozart - His Character, His Work. OUP 1945, 1975)

Perhaps my saying that the Freemasons were "banned by the Church" was overreaching. If not banned, then they were certainly not welcome (at the least, they were held in high suspicion), and membership in the Masons was seen as an affront to the church.

Let's just say that for a composer who was dependent on the patronage of both the Church and the royalty for his daily bread, joining the Freemasons wasn't exactly an act of toeing the line of the power brokers.

As far as your observations about Wagner, his own words on the subject are revealing:

"ONE might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal presentation. Whilst the priest stakes everything on the religious allegories being accepted as matters of fact, the artist has no concern at all with such a thing, since he freely and openly gives out his work as his own invention. But Religion has sunk into an artificial life, when she finds herself compelled to keep on adding to the edifice of her dogmatic symbols, and thus conceals the one divinely True in her beneath an ever growing heap of incredibilities commended to belief. Feeling this, she has always sought the aid of Art; who on her side has remained incapable of higher evolution so long as she must present that alleged reality of the symbol to the senses of the worshipper in form of fetishes and idols,— whereas she could only fulfil her true vocation when, by an ideal presentment of the allegoric figure, she led to apprehension of its inner kernel, the truth ineffably divine." (Wagner, Religion & Art, 1880).

Sounds good to me!

As to the many religious composers out there: yes, they are more numerous than the atheists. That wasn't my point. The point is that you don't have to be a true believer (like Bach) to write compelling religious music, anymore than Wagner needed to be a god, a giant or a dwarf to write his "Ring."

Re: Mendelssohn. Born in 1809, Felix Mendelssohn was baptized as a Lutheran in 1816 as his father (Abraham) sought to renounce his Jewish religion. Upon baptism, the names "Jakob Ludwig" were added to his own. His father also added the name "Bartholdy" to their surname, and Felix signed his name as "Mendelssohn-Bartholdy" throughout his life. Mendelssohn died in 1847. He spent his life as a Lutheran, not a "devout Jew" (indeed, his 5th Symphony - actually, the second full symphony he composed - was titled the "Reformation," and was completed in 1830 to celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Lutheran Church. The piece features quotes of the "Dresden Amen" with a finale based on Martin Luther's tune, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God.")

Thanks for the dialogue. Like you, I appreciate that words have meaning and that the selection of which words we use is important, especially in the context of debate. Perhaps I can be forgiven for employing a bit of less-than-precise language in response to your bald-faced assertion that, "it's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other. I doubt if they'll ever meet."

I will endeavor to be more precise in the future.

Mary,

Ah, yes. Strangers and sojourners, aren't we all? Lol.

I will tell you sometime about my parish, if you like. I am in love with the place - place doesn't even seem the right word... but will probably frustrate uninterested persons if I post here.

God bless.

Stan,

I never said that atheists don't like beauty. Of course they do. Beauty is what we are made for.

Only people who like shopping malls don't like beauty ;-)

To: Mr Mark and (later) Ryan Haber

Next another logical error. “As far as atheists not understanding the spirituality of music.”

Firstly, just because love of music shares many features of love of God (an assertion which you fail to address) doesn’t mean love of music *is* love of God. Jesus’s Kingdom was like a vineyard, Burns’ love like a red, red rose; neither man meant that heaven was a vineyard or love a flower.

Think three overlapping circles: one encompasses those who love God, a second middle circle those who love music, a third those who deny God. Now circle one (those who love God) can overlap circle two (those who love music) but it need not be coterminous with it. For example a devout Catholic could also be deaf. Similarly, on the other side, deniers of God could be great lovers of music. In music they could find their new God. Wagner, for example, tried in his operas to substitute culture for religion. The overlapping circles also deal with my assertion of a divide between religion,music,poetry and philosophy,science,and atheism. But this is the weakest part of my post. For example, a non-believer--like Wagner--could substitute music for religion. But that proves the similarites, maybe?

I have a few quibbles. The Catholic Church did not proscribe Freemasonry until well into the nineteenth century, so Mozart’s freemasonry is not an attribute of atheism. (The great Irish Catholic Daniel O’Connell was a free mason.) Insofar as religious composers go, you forgot Edward Elgar, arguably the greatest of all English composers since William Byrd, another Catholic. Bach was a good Protestant, as was Handel. Felix Mendelssohn, I recall reading somewhere, was a devout Jew, well, at least he was the son of the chief rabbi of Frankfurt, the two are probably not synonymous.

I recognize this is a blog for atheists and that I am an alien here. However, assuming sometime you might like a good exchange I end with a observations:

1)Recognize that an analogy is always about the subject of the sentence: Jesus was not defining vineyards and Burns was not concerned with flowers.

2)Try not to state your conclusion before you marshal your facts. (In an ideal world you would just state your facts and let your listeners form your own conclusions.)

3)Good discussions contain as much about courtesy as any thing else.

Ryan Haber:

Thank you for your acknowledgement. This blog is slowing up, and face it!, it is for atheists, not us.

I would just say that Catholic churches in Britain and Ireland are, for the most part, pretty poor, or, more kindly, architecturally not particularly distinguished. English Catholicism never had much money. Remember Henry VIII’s huge confiscation of the great Catholic cathedrals, churches and monasteries of England...kind of a reverse Robin Hood, he stole from the poor to give to the rich (his ‘nobles’, not very noble really). After Catholic Emancipation (1829) there were some great churches built, anything by Augustus Pugin, as well as the Farm St Church and the Brompton Oratory in London. Worth Abbey was rebuilt, but the great monastery at Glastonbury was left in ruins, a reminder maybe of what English Catholics had endured.

The need for churches conflicted with the more pressing need of ministry to the desperately poor Irish, who in response to the calamity of the Famine began pouring into London from 1845 onwards. In fact, my small church in the East End, was one of the earliest London mission churches built by the Church, a block or two away (and predating by decades) a Salvation Army hall. The Salvation Army is gone, but we are still here, still a vibrant church, still working class, although now the Irish have become Cockneys, the old immigrants are West Indian and the new migrants Eastern European. There are one or two asylum seekers from West Africa and a few Sri Lankans all named Thomas. In short a fair microcosm of the non-Latin American Catholic Church. The church is not much, but the parish has managed a good organ (and part time organist), our priest can sing!, and there is beautiful music...To hear high Mass sung Latin (or English), my husband and I go to the Brompton Oratory,(John Henry Newman's church) and their choir is wonderful.

Hopefully, we can discuss the philosophic basis of the faith another time.

God bless...

Mary Cunningham

Mr Mark,

I wrote earlier atheists analyze too much, but your scorn got in the way of your intellect here. I refer to your latest post about scientific music and atheist composers which completely—wilfully?-- misses the point.

Let’s back up. My first sentence was:

“Love of God is like love of music.”
Sept. 6 2007, 12:14 pm.

* Your* first sentence was:

“Thanks for the absolute hogwash about music.”

Now the definition of an analogy—not a metaphor, look it up—is clarifying one thing by comparing it to another. So the post was not about music—it was about love of God. When Jesus said: “The Kingdom of God is like a vineyard”, believe me he was not talking about a vineyard! He was trying to explain the concept of the Kingdom to his listeners. I was talking about the religious impulse, or the love of God, which is found almost universally in humanity—like the love of music--although I admit both of them in varying degrees.

I expanded the analogy with the next two assertions describing some features of music that (implicitly) resemble the religious instinct:

“Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit and not many respect it overmuch.”

Now *these* were what you could have criticized and we could have had some discussion, assuming it possible to have a discussion with someone who starts out by colouring his piece so prejudicially. The assertion of “no evolutionary benefit” was actually my weakest point as some anthropologists have written there is some evolutionary advantage in religion, group solidarity &tc.

Mr Mark,

I wrote earlier atheists analyze too much, but your scorn got in the way of your intellect here. I refer to your latest post about scientific music and atheist composers and completely—wilfully?-- misses the point.

Let’s back up. My first sentence was:

“Love of God is like love of music.”
Sept. 6 2007, 12:14 pm.

* Your* first sentence was:

“Thanks for the absolute hogwash about music.”

Now the definition of an analogy—not a metaphor, look it up—is clarifying one thing by comparing it to another. So the post was not about music—it was about love of God. When Jesus said: “The Kingdom of God is like a vineyard”, believe me he was not talking about a vineyard! He was trying to explain the concept of the Kingdom to his listeners. I was talking about the religious impulse, or the love of God, which is found almost universally in humanity—like the love of music--although I admit both of them in varying degrees.

I expanded the analogy with the next two assertions describing some features of music that (implicitly) resemble the religious instinct:

“Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit and not many respect it overmuch.”

Now *these* were what you could have criticized and we could have had some discussion, assuming it possible to have a discussion with someone who starts out by colouring his piece so prejudicially. The assertion of “no evolutionary benefit” was actually my weakest point as some anthropologists have written there is some evolutionary advantage in religion, group solidarity &tc.

The Jihadist has developed an affinity/understanding for/of atheism? Wow there is a shocker!! She is even writing an entire commentary without using the words "Allah be praised". Hmmm, maybe her Malaysian blogs are promoting atheism in an Islamic country? Maybe it is time we offer her political/religious asylum?

Probably not since I just remembered that famous phrase:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

E Favorite

What can anyone say.

For every Arminius among theists, there is a Canyon Shearer.

For every E Favorite among atheist, there is a Mobius.

Arminius

What else can Mobius do? Burn you at the stakes for believing in God? I'm only too happy to be one of those "militant theists" against "jihadist atheists" as and when I feel like it, but usually don't as I'm not on any mission here.

I'm also picking up interesting new terms and labels hurled by theists and atheists at one another here. And quite a few American inventive invectives I've never heard of before too.

Never mind. Atheists are all right if one get pass their usual cliches and one liners to describe theists, some of which are increasingly tedious by militant repetition. It's that word again, "militant". Uhhh....!

Best regards as always

J

Arminius - Thanks so much for your response. I’m not sure what you want my opinion on. I have lots of thoughts on what you said and want to be careful. It can be difficult, in this venue, to express oneself well when discussing sensitive issues.

When you say you were an atheist/agnostic, it sounds like your beliefs simply waned, is that right? Nothing in particular happened? It wasn’t based on anything that you learned? Would you consider yourself to have been a strong agnostic/atheist, or was religion something that you just didn’t think about? During that time?

One of the things that that strikes me is that our experiences were so similar, but our conclusions so different. One of my experiences was in an Episcopal church on Good Friday and even then it did not occur to me that the feeling came from God. It came from within – a swoon in thanks for a for a sorely needed rest from an overly busy life. I was incredibly joyful and grateful, but didn’t think about whom to thank.

Here’s my quandary, Arminius – I could go on, but I fear it would appear that I am trying to tear down your faith, and to some extent, I probably am – not YOUR faith per se, because being acquainted with many liberal Episcopalians, I know you are the least of the problems for secularists and may be functionally secular yourself (e.g., strongly supportive of separation of church and state). Still, after all I’ve learned about Christian history (some in Episcopal adult ed) I can’t square the information with sincere belief and think a lot of Episcopalians, including clergy, feel the same way – but stick with the lovely community anyway, crossing their fingers behind their backs as they say the creed.

Mobius:)

I know. Thank you for recognising that. Depressing isn't it? I'm one of the wretched who seek refuge in reiligion 24/7. Anything you can do to help the wretched of the earth who seek refuge in religion? We have no place to go. Taking refuge in the bosoms of Dawkin's and Hitchen's books is one posibility. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

And yet, alas, Oh Einstein! Oh my Einstein! Good Einstein! Dear Einstein! don't have the same punch as Oh God! Oh my God! Good God! Dear God!

Thanks again for your most enlightening observation. I now see the light at the end of the tunnel towards being a "bright". God be praised!

Regards and have a good weekend.
J

Thank you.

Religion is the refuge of the wretched.

E Favorite,

You are asking a lot. I will try to honor your request.

How did I become an atheist? Actually, it was atheist/agnostic, depending on how I felt when I got up. I am a cradle Episcopalian. Baptized, confirmed, altar boy. Even went to an Episcopal college. What led me away from that? Boredom. The Episcopal church then suffered under the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It was liking being outside, looking in, through the wrong end of a telescope. No feeling, just rote repetition. At least that is how I felt.

So I gave up on it. For 30 odd years. Then, one day, I was driving north at sunset. A bunch of trees to the west blocked out the sun, but I noticed a lot of red sky. I looked forward to the sunset. Then, I passed by the trees, and saw, all over the sky, the most incredible sunset I had ever witnessed. Cool, right? Right. So, what did I do, say, Oh my goodness, far out, wonderful? No. I shouted – I did not say, I shouted – ‘Glory to God!!!’

Sacram merdam. I drove down the road, narrowing avoiding accidents as I continued to look. Then I wondered, what the hell did I just shout? Say WHAT?!? Where did that come from?

It took me a few days to unravel it. I have always loved the beauty of this world, and I am thankful for it – I appreciate it, from the heart. So there was a glorious sunset that I was thankful for. So….. if I am thankful for it, just who do I thank? Who else but God?

And that is where it started. The meaning was implanted in my heart. Cannot explain it, cannot prove it. But I KNOW it is there.

Since I had a pretty good familiarity with the Bible, I had, thank God, the good sense to go to the Gospels first. So, after my first pass at them after 40+ years, yielded “What the heck is this stuff? No way!”. Second pass – well, maybe. Then, on an exploring whim of midtown Atlanta, I discovered an Episcopal church that had a noon service on Wednesday. I went. When I walked out after, I realized that, after 30 odd years of searching and doubting, I had finally come home

I won’t go into the theology here, except to say that all – all – of my acceptance of Christianity stems from the Gospels.

Thanks for asking. Would like your opinion.

the ancient Tribes of Israel had a place where the word: Hell comes from, Sheoul, that was translated into Greek Gahenna...to English Hell

Concerned:

I have to ask what that person feels the need to scream from a mountain top his beliefs, You should not care so much (or obviously so Little) about what we as a collective audience thinks...what is the point of throwing a boulder to crush the mosquitoe on my shoulder..that is a saying my father would say to me as a child when I would try and insert my views.

The point you get, for you are obviously inteligent, albeit persistent in pushing your views; however, what has happened to you to make such a hatred of things that we as people hold "sacred" does it affect you as an American citizen to be forced o bow to God? NO

In the United States of America, you may freely join in in the religious debates; but in my country you can not, that is why I love America...everyone is free to have an opinion or a beleif that no one can break or take...you should be rejoicing that you have such a gift..

_MONK of XYMER_

I am taken aback by the numbers of those who post on this site, to my amazement I find several posters to be the worst.

Why Log onto this site and give such a rebuke to someone whom you have never met and their views affect you little? Why instead of assisting the world in its strife and pain would you spew so much hate towards another person and then have the nerve to demand an answer you are no worse than most, but no better than those who hold my country...

_MONK of XYMER_

E Favorite,

You asked me where I am coming from, and you asked nicely. I am trying to reply, and will submit my text tomorrow. It involves a lot of soul searching, which I think I need.

Thanks for asking, and God bless.

Let's bring a roman from the 1st century bce here to this forum for a short time. What would he think when he looks at the primary extant religions of today, particularly christianity?

Let's see, there's yahweh, jesus, and satan - three different gods, and for many mary is a goddess - after all people pray to her and beg for intervention. It seems to me this roman would see the christians as having not one god, but 4.

Then there's all those seraphim and angels (demigods) and fallen angels (uh, more demigods).

the story's pretty good too, yahweh is a fickle, angry, jealous god - just like zeus ... or is it jupiter? Anyway, this god invents a great paradise, seems to get lonely so he creates some poor creatures, gives them all sorts of wonders, then teases them with - knowledge!
the terrible evil women eats this knowledge, and for that reason ALL of us throughout the remainder of history have to pay for that crime.

I don't think the ancient jews had a hell, but I can surely be corrected on that since I don't know. the christians came up with this hell place where the dead are tortured for eternity, for not suppressing their reason in favor of unprovable faiht - our smart brains must suppress our strongest survival trait in order to avoid eternal torture in hell.

What a hideous, ugly story. How can you buy this crap with a straight face?

E Favorite:)

Of course. Why do you think some prefer the term "humanist" or "secular humanist" to describe themselves?

Actually, as the perception is that atheists prefers science, facts and logic, I almost use the term - carbon-based bipedal specie to be scientifically correct.

In Arroyo's previous thread on a previous question, I put out sub-categories and sub-sets of atheists to test reactions. It infuriated quite a few. Even Godfrey, the poet, comes out as a warrior-poet with fighting words in his post in response. Proof that easy generalisations and characterisations of atheists is as fallacious as easy generalisations of theists.

Best regards as ever.
J

I know people have various reasons to either believe or not believe in the existence of God. But I do not agree with your premise you gave for denying the existence of God. Given that we know the vastness of the universe and its age, if there is one who created it then it will be too simplistic to deny the existence based on the experiences such as those you have cited.

Jihadist - so you noticed -- atheists are HUMAN.

We knew it all along.

Arminius - I want to quiz you, but fully understand if you don't want to be quizzed - just say so.

I was recently a liberal Episcopalian. I stayed about a year after shedding my beliefs because I hated to give up singing in the choir. Luckily, I found a secular choir that sings sacred music.

I also liked the people – and the only time God came up was during the Sunday service. I fully understand the concept of a completely compassionate atmosphere at church. When I did leave, people urged me to stay, irrespective of my beliefs. Some confided that their beliefs were also lacking.

You mentioned spiritual experiences that got you back to religion. I had a series of “spiritual” experiences that set me in the opposite direction – though I backed up my insights up with research – the type the Roger mentioned, on Christian history.

So, my questions – what were the circumstances of your spiritual experiences? What did they tell you? how did you decide to go back to church and why the Episcopal church? When you dropped atheism, did you then accept Christianity, that is the whole Christian story of Christ dying for your sins, being crucified, resurrected, etc.? How did you become an atheist?

Any response appreciated.

Hello Stan

I had been enjoying reading the posts here.

As for your post, yes, I am one of those believers fascinated by atheists and atheism. Not quite for the reasons you stated thought.

I do find atheists in On Faith interesting, have a good sense of humour and do suggest to me good links and books to read.

At their best, as former theists, they recognise aspects of organised religions that are ridiculous and which I share with them but still remain a believer, or the atheists' preferred usage, theist. I do share with most that sepration of church and state is best for all.

Some of the reasons I am fascinated by atheists are what you may call anthropological and sociological reasons. In spite of what atheists say, they, being human after all, do need others to ally with, to relate to by common beliefs, values and principles. In this way, atheists do act like believers too here in On Faith in:

- Espousing what they believe in, meaning what don't believe in on God and religion.

- Taking on others who don't share theire beliefs as some believers do with adherents of other beliefs.

- Sometimes, always, denigrating the beliefs of others in promoting the primacy of their beliefs and the one "true one" to end all and be applied to all universally, like some religions.

- Tenaciously and persistently stating their beliefs, i.e. non-beliefs and why with reasons given and tenaciously quoting authors ideas and passages from their books as some believers would from scriptures.

- finding like-minded atheists to relate to, to associate with and to reinforce one another by mutual non-beliefs, objectives and sharing of experiences.

- Getting touchy-feely when non-atheists ask on their values as some believers are when asked on their beliefs as akin to an inquisition.

- Getting riled up when others break atheists into categories such as "Politburo atheists" or "militant atheists" as some gays and feminists were when called "militant gays" or "militant feminists".

I still see some still upset that Arroyo come up with "Politburo athiest" and "militant atheist". He's called a bigot several times by some atheist posters.

A bigot is when someone label, term or characterise you with something you don't like, but when you apply it to someone else, you are not being a bigot but only pointing out what is obvious and true, eh?

The irony was that, months ago, many atheists happily and consistently call believers idiots, moronic, delusional etc here in On Faith. Still do, but not too much, and of course all atheists believe so of all believers. Is that not a form of bigotry in generalising all believers as atheists are upset that Arroyo should generalise, categorise and characterise all atheists?

After all some dictionaries define a bigot as one who hold strong religious or political beliefs and opinions, and is intolerant of anyone who disagrees.

If calls for seperation of church and state is not political, if the rivalry and conflict of beliefs between atheists and believers is not political, what is it then, that is going on here?

I only see it as a discussion, exchange of views and experiences. Like you, I may or may not agree to some views.

Thank you, best regards
and have a good weekend

J

One thing that has always intrigued me and many others are biblical and pre-biblical stories attributed to God's wrath that may actually describe natural catastrophic events. There is evidence that the Flood was actually brought on by the failure of a glacial ice dam, allowing water to rush in to the Black Sea at the end of the last Ice Age (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/index.html). A similar event happened in North America when Lake Missoula broke through a Pleistocene ice damn on multiple occasions, flooding downstream reaches under hundreds of feet of water all the way to the Pacific Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods).

Below is an article on the possible causes of biblical events.

FIRE, FLOOD AND COMET

From NEW SCIENTIST, 9 January 1999, p. 42

Review: Exodus to Arthur, by Mike Baillie Batsford, £ 15.99, ISBN 0713484520

Fire, brimstone and pestilence have ravaged the Earth since the dawn of time, wiping out cities, even whole peoples. Or so the ancient prophets and storytellers would have us believe (there’s a fair bit in the Bible). But could they possibly be describing real events?

As a renowned authority on tree rings and their use in dating ancient artifacts and events, Mike Baillie might seem an unlikely author for a book which tackles a lot of mythology. But he’s a perfect candidate, since he recently helped complete a 5000-year continuous and global record of annual growth patterns. It revealed five major worldwide environmental shocks. To find out what they meant he turned to the early texts.

His conclusion comes as a shock. Not only did the five episodes coincide with the onset of “dark ages” for society, but they were triggered by cometary impacts. If Baillie is right, history has overlooked probably the single most important explanation for the intermittent progress of civilization. Worse, our modern confidence in benign skies is foolhardy, and our failure to appreciate the constant danger of comet “swarms” is the result of a myopic trust in a mere 200 years of “scientific” records. Our excuse is that Christianity probably suppressed the dire warnings of earlier sages in an effort to downplay their influence, as Baillie points out.

The tree-ring record points to global environmental traumas between 2354 and 2345 BC, 1628 and 1623 BC, 1159 and 1141 BC, 208 and 204 BC and AD 536 and 545. Baillie argues that the tree rings are recording first the biblical flood, then the disasters that befell Egypt at the Exodus, famines at the end of King David’s reign, a famine in China that ended the Ch’in (sic) dynasty, and finally, the death of King Arthur and Merlin and the onset of the Dark Ages across the whole of what is now Britain.

The biblical account of the Exodus and contemporary annals from China speak of cometary activity preceding calamity. Previous writers have wondered if the hail or red-hot stones that befell the Egyptians was due to the eruption of Santorini, the Aegean volcano that destroyed Minoan civilisation. The pillar of smoke that guided the Israelites may have been the plume. But a single volcano is an unlikely cause of a global downturn.

So Baillie goes a step further, arguing that a series of cometary impacts around the size of the 20-megaton explosion at Tunguska in Siberia might be enough to trigger earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions and ocean floor outgassing. This would explain why comets are seen as portent, along with the occurrence of flooding and poisonous fogs – all reported at the time of Exodus and during others of Baillie’s five catastrophes.

As he admits, he has ventured beyond his professional expertise in exploring mythology. Is it correct to assume that references to angels and dragons are descriptions of comets? Science would be much poorer if acknowledged experts felt unable to speculate as Baillie has done here. But science also tends to seek solutions, and if the author is not carried shoulder-high for broaching this important subject, it will be because his doomsday scenario offers little in the way of an immediate technical fix. If a couple of lumps of interplanetary rock the size of several football pitches hit Europe tomorrow, tens of millions would die (sic). And some astrophysicists reckon that an event of this order is likely at least every 5000 years – killing at least a quarter of the human population.

Baillie proposes seeding space with our DNA in an effort to survive, but that doesn’t sound quite as much fun as carrying on as we are. Let’s hope both he and the astrophysicists are wrong.

Ben Rudder is an anthropologist.

Copyright 1999, New Scientist

The topic of one's faith is a touchy subject for anyone...those who have "no" faith are slow to listen to those who "have" faith. And those whose faith is "absolute" are quick to condemn those who have "no" faith..and yet I see no answers coming from either side, NO ONE WINS an argument..the utter lack of beleif in a personal God affects me little in the way that some of you seem to have taken offense to someones dibelief.

We are victims of our own egos, man is a prideful being, we pride ourselves in our inventions and we pride ourselves in our intellect; however, we pride ourselves in our accomplishments; and yet, few pride themselves in terms of failure. We see situations that oppose what we hold to be "sacred" as evil or wrong, and yet I see the same thing in the times of Jesus....

The pharisees said to Jesus he was wrong and evil and that he was a false prophet, yet Jesus carried on without even giving a thought to their actions against him why?

We as the HUMAN race have failed, be you Jew, Muslim, Mormon, (one of the hundred protestant religions), or Bhuddist, Hindu or Monk the simpelist of all things is TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER... and we say that is too hard??

_MONK of XYMER_

Mary Cunningham - you said, "It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other."

Philosophy is misplaced in your equation. Philosophy talks deeply about religion, either pro or con. Indeed, it talks about nearly everything that people think about. But in itself philosophy is a dead end. The value of philosophy is that it tends to create a bridge between apparently conflicting disciplines, such as religion and science.

Mary Cunningham - It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other.

What a strange worldview you have. I'm an atheist and scientist and I love music and words. One thing I will admit to; music is able to transport one to a different realm, what some might call a "spiritual" dimension.

You also wrote that "Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit ..."

Not so fast. Music, like religion, is ubiquitous and found in every culture. There is a great deal of evidence that religion has an evolutionary basis, and recent research suggests that music might have an evolutionary basis as well (Fitch 2005, McDermott and Hauser 2005).

Fitch, W. T. 2005. The evolution of music in comparative perspective. Pages 29-49 in Neurosciences and Music Ii: from Perception to Performance. New York Acad Sciences, New York.

McDermott, J., and M. Hauser. 2005. The origins of music: Innateness, uniqueness, and evolution. Music Perception 23:29-59.

E Favorite,

I am Episcopal. Liberal.

Ryan Haber, you say, “God, what a beautiful world You've made!” Please consider that humans made all that beautiful church music and art and architecture and ritual.

ARMINIUS - What is your Religion? What denomination is the church you go to?

ROGER – did you know that student clergy and theologians are taught about the same things you mention during their formal academic training? Granted, it might be slanted differently, but they learn the same stuff. I’d be fascinated to know how they process it in such a way that allows them to then go out and preach and teach things they know are not so. Wouldn’t you like to know?

How about you, Mr Mark?

Arminius-

Had to laugh when I read your comment on music and math. My son did a science project on Pythagorean harmonics many years ago, and I have spent the time since forgetting all that I knew about them.

Hey, Wiccan!

Glad you're here. 'Arminius' is a 'nom de guerre', because of a historical war game I am fond of. Nope, I'm not your sister. But a brother, maybe, of sorts.

I have great trouble understanding anyone who is fat and happy and insists that this world and life is some kind of trial. It is a gift. I fully realise that there are too many in this world, even in this country, for whom life is a trial. This does give me guilt, because I do not do enough to help. My religion does not give me guilt, only joy.

I share your opinion. I am a retired journalist. Few yars ago I lived a whole year in Rome doing research for a book I intended to write: "The Origins of Christianism". I lost my faith as I discovered that religion was an instrument created by man as he was trying to understand and explain natural phenomenons. Things which he was far fom understanding he explain by the existence of gods... thus, he knew more than the others and started to take advantage of the flock. The comtemporporary preachers are their descendents and are taking advantage of credulus individuals.
Long before Jesus Christ, Allah, Yawhe, etc. People beleived in one God born of a virgin as of virgin Mary...and monotheism... One have to search about Gilgamesh, Horus,etc... May I suggest to those who are searching for the thruth:
Luigi Cascioli The Fable of Christ, -10020 Roccalvece - VT - Italia or the most interesting book of a gentile schoolar: The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S. One Adventure Place, P.O. Box 74, Kempton, Illinois 60946 USA. - (Roger Delorme, Sherbrooke, Que. Canada)

I share your opinion. I am a retired journalist. Few yars ago I lived a whole year in Rome doing research for a book I intended to write: "The Origins of Christianism". I lost my faith as I discovered that religion was an instrument created by man as he was trying to understand and explain natural phenomenons. Things which he was far fom understanding he explain by the existence of gods... thus, he knew more than the others and started to take advantage of the flock. The comtemporporary preachers are their descendents and are taking advantage of credulus individuals.
Long before Jesus Christ, Allah, Yawhe, etc. People beleived in one God born of a virgin as of virgin Mary...and monotheism... One have to search about Gilgamesh, Horus,etc... May I suggest to those who are searching for the thruth:
Luigi Cascioli The Fable of Christ, -10020 Roccalvece - VT - Italia or the most interesting book of a gentile schoolar: The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S. One Adventure Place, P.O. Box 74, Kempton, Illinois 60946 USA. - (Roger Delorme, Sherbrooke, Que. Canada)

I share your opinion. I am a retired journalist. Few yars ago I lived a whole year in Rome doing research for a book I intended to write: "The Origins of Christianism". I lost my faith as I discovered that religion was an instrument created by man as he was trying to understand and explain natural phenomenons. Things which he was far fom understanding he explain by the existence of gods... thus, he knew more than the others and started to take advantage of the flock. The comtemporporary preachers are their descendents and are taking advantage of credulus individuals.
Long before Jesus Christ, Allah, Yawhe, etc. People beleived in one God born of a virgin as of virgin Mary...and monotheism... One have to search about Gilgamesh, Horus,etc... May I suggest to those who are searching for the thruth:
Luigi Cascioli The Fable of Christ, -10020 Roccalvece - VT - Italia or the most interesting book of a gentile schoolar: The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S. One Adventure Place, P.O. Box 74, Kempton, Illinois 60946 USA. - (Roger Delorme, Sherbrooke, Que. Canada)

Hi, Arminius!

"I came back because of some spiritual experiences that showed me the beauty of God's creation, His love for us, and the joy of celebrating that."

If you were named "Arminia" I'd swear you were my sister. She and I both just can't understand those Christians who "love" God but hate His creation. Any world where you can see and feel such beauty can't be all bad. :-)

Isn't it great that essays by an avowed athiest consistently generate the most activity on this forum?

Well done Susan!

Dear Arminius -

Thanks for your kind comments.

You are the admitted exception that proves the fear & guilt rule.

You are my Poulenc...

Mr Mark,

First, let me commend you again on your excellent comments on music.

Next, you said: "The reason religionists cling to their delusions are many, but surely the chief motivators are fear and guilt. Of the two, I believe that guilt is the stronger. The very thought of losing one's faith evinces such high levels of guilt that most believers just run screaming."

In the immortal words of Charlie Brown, "Good grief!" Not all of us religious types are like that. I seem to be the exception here because I came back to belief after 3+ decades of atheism. I came back because of some spiritual experiences that showed me the beauty of God's creation, His love for us, and the joy of celebrating that. My church is the same way - you do not find guilt or fear there. That church is, quite literally, the only place on the planet where I am completely at peace.

I don't go around shouting my belief, or putting down the belief - or non-belief - of others. I just try to live what I believe.

Thou shalt wipe front to back

Thou shalt not shart

Mary and Ryan - get a [chat]room for god's sake! Go and make beauty together :)

PS. Atheists like beauty as well (and music).

Andrea:

I did see that. Was funny.

What is the propper way? Do you put your hands together and pray it comes out looking like the virgin Mary?

Or do you just yell "Oh God!" everytime it hurts?

Stan -

Good points.

The reason religionists cling to their delusions are many, but surely the chief motivators are fear and guilt. Of the two, I believe that guilt is the stronger. The very thought of losing one's faith evinces such high levels of guilt that most believers just run screaming.

C'est la vie.

Russell,

Don't know if you caught a comment on the last question...something about how to crap properly in the eyes of God, you know, a holy crap. I'd appreciate your imput.

Mr. Mark; Thanks for the comment on music; I was writing one too, but I'm an amateur Bluesman, not a pro so I should leave the commentary in your vastly more qualified hands but I can't resist adding a few observations.

People may have strong preferences in music and art, but those preferences do not usually lead them to question the morality of those with different tastes, or to declare one school of or style as the "one true music". And many of us are far more eclectic in our musical tastes than the religious are in their faith; I love Blues and Jazz, but I love the occasional Opera too and have been know to weep unashamedly at the symphony.

Mary says that music has no "evolutionary value" but this seems to me to ignore what music is. Music, like all art, is a powerful form of human communication, and communication, in all its forms, has very obvious "evolutionary value.

Thanks again for the excellent comment Mr. Mark; I bow to the maestro...

A (Hard Rockin') Hermit

I don't have a manifesto, but I do have some sage advice:

Sex is NOT bad. The people who think sex is bad are the ones who have bad sex.

Never argue with a deeply religious person, you'll go insane.

If you see a man on the corner asking for food or money.......do one of two things, either give him what he asks for, or tell him to be more creative for next time.

Never fart during sex.

If you are caught in a bathroom stall looking for gay love, then just fess up, and at least offer the cops a "bribe".

More words of wisdom to come later.

Mark Eaton:
Luke:

You missed the point of the book entirely. The point of the book is to look at what God has done WITH Job, not what has God done TO Job. God has TRUSTED Job's faith enough that He can say to Lucifer "Everything that he is and everything that he has you can destroy, just do not take his life" knowing that Job would not give up his faith in Him. Now that is something that I want, for God to trust ME. That is what suffering is all about. God TRUSTING us with trials. Knowing it will not destroy us or our faith."

What about Job's first family, his sons and daughters who were killed to prove God's point?
Surely Job raised them to trust God as he did? Or maybe God didn't trust them?

Mary Cunningham,

I love your posts, one HIC to another. Moderns do exult humanity too much, imagining that we have infinite capabilities and can solve any problem. Moderns do expect too much out of life - perfect contentment, and anything less is a dirty trick.

Your analogy to music and deafness is good as well. Something can be self-evident in itself, without everyone seeing (or hearing) it. Blind people don't see even the brightest light. Too true.

I do wish to suggest a correction on one point, though.

"Poetry, music, religion" on one side, versus "philosophy, science, and atheism" on the other: that's very much how the ancient Greeks saw the matter. Ever since at least St. Justin Martyr, patron of philosophers, made his great apologies in the AD 160s, Holy Church has not seen it that way. Our faith isn't just a set of myths - it is true, and so it ought to be compatible with the rest of true reality.

We are convinced that though it is not provable, our faith concerns real things that are really coherent and part of the real world of reality. As such, a philosophical system that is adequate to the task ought to help us (1) understand our faith better; (2) articulate it to others in a way that they see its reasonableness. Moreover, because our faith and scientific inquiry both ponder the same real world (only different aspects of it), an adequate philosophy ought to be able to help us see how faith and scientific inquiry (or reason in general) can fit together coherently and without conflict. Because there is in fact God, an adequate philosophy ought to be able to show the inherent inconsistencies found within atheistic philosophies.

That all said, I think you are on to something in the nature of religion that is lost to most Americans, and increasingly, Westerners in general, because we are utilitarians and functionalists. Utilitarians and functionalists have little use for beauty because it is not very functional. While faith contains understanding about who God is; religion (both ritual and informal practices of faith) is the means by which we enter into that relationship. While the Catholic faith (for instance) is reasonable and intelligible by reason, the Catholic religion is sensual and desirable by the will. That is, the faith can be articulated as a set of propositions (though doing so shallows it out immensely) but the religion is more like a work of art, more like a poem, more like a sculpture or a cathedral (not coincidentally) - more like a love affair.

American churches are so often so ugly because we have little use for beauty. Just look at a shopping mall or an airport - both American architectural innovations - and you'll see what I mean. Protestant religion (distinct from faith) IS Catholic religion MINUS "all that useless ritual".

Why do I believe the Catholic faith? Because I have articulable reasons for believing it true, that it accurately describes the real reality about God and is completely compatible with the rest of what I also know, about tables and rockets and people and history.

Why do I practice the Catholic religion? Because the faith teaches me to do so, and in doing so, I have come to know the Living God, to enter into a love affair with him that has left me dazed and confused, exhilerated and befuddled, longing, yearning, sighing, singing, gazing and all the other things that make life alive. Dipping fingers in holy water upon each entrance into a church is not true or false - it is beautiful. Beautiful golden chalices are almost utterly unfunctional - but they are so beautiful. A pageant of vestments and chants and polyphony are mostly unnecessary - and yet so breathtakingly beautiful.

In that, our Catholic religion is very much like music or poetry. It is a very cramped soul that looks at a sonnet by Shakespeare or a quatraine by Dickinson and says, "Well, why couldn't she have just said 'I feel sad?'" But there are people who say that. Our literary- and art- critical establishment are FULL of such cramped crabbiness.

Even the drama of free will, our present discussion. It is ENTIRELY unnecessary. That is the very first principle of the Christian faith - God did not need to create us, but did so freely out of love; it follows that he did not need to create us in any particular way, but created us with free will so that we could freely love him, and find fulfillment in a relationship with him.

What role terrorists and cancer have in this drama, I cannot say. People who are set on having the person they have lost, and refuse to be happy without that person - quite naturally they will think terrorism and cancer aren't worth having around. Clearly, those things aren't good, to be sure. But even with terrorism and cancer and tsunamis, there is so much beauty in the world, in life. Somehow, all the tragedies don't blot out the beauty... somehow, they even make it stand out in high relief. We are amazed by great acts of heroism largely because they needn't have been at all... Just as we are horrified by the insane acts of depravity, because somehow we sense that they needn't have been.

God, what a beautiful world You've made!

Just thought I would mention that the numbers of comments for the 12 panelist's comments on this issue are as follows: 12,49,7,2,10,91,28,351,12,6,4,4. Which one had the 351 - more than all the rest combined? Susan Jacoby - the only atheist in the bunch.

Why might this be? Maybe because the theologs don't have much to say? Basically all the other 11 responses boil down to: We don't know the mind of god, suffering teaches us good things, everything was fine until people used the free will god gave them, we are being punished.

Or maybe because people are secretly fascinated by atheism - its a kind of forbidden fruit. Believers have always had doubts, but their institutions have used various emotional manipulations to suppress them and make people feel guilty. Maybe a whole generastion of people is on the verge of saying, "You know what! Maybe the emperor really does have no clothes! I evetually came to realize the Easter Bunny and Santa were fictional - maybe the same is true of god too! Hey this feels good. I'm free of superstition at last!" Say it without guilt - THERE IS NO GOD. It's really OK.

We know the earth is no longer flat. We shouldn't keep slaves. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. The earth is billions of years old. We share much DNA with chimps. Species go extinct. Continents move. These are all things we have learned, all facts that have gradually made the likelihood of a supernatural creator existing tend to zero.

Time for a manifesto. Atheists of the world, vereinigt euch!

Kate – building on what others have said – I know plenty of Christians who are not deluded or irrational – I used to be one myself!

In my case, I simply didn’t think about my religious beliefs the way I did other issues in my life. The whole societal and religious system was (and is) set up to discourage rational thought about religion. Good thing, because it’s not ultimately rational, it’s all about faith, at its core, which any believer will say. The few times I was ever involved in a discussion about religion when a person would challenge me, saying what I believed wasn’t rational – I’d simply agree, saying “That’s way they call it faith!” end of discussion. Good for me, because I couldn’t have carried on much from there.

It’s very frustrating when a person I know who is perfectly rational and intelligent, starts going off on God. Not because it makes me think that person is totally deluded - I already know they’re not - but because this compartmentalized behavior is so hard for me to identify with, now.

It’s a rough time we’re going through, now, but good that it’s happening, I think in the long run. Reminds me of the feminist and civil right movements – they were rough – a lot of misunderstanding and sorting out of attitudes – but really good in the long run. Not that those issues are completely worked out, but society is dealing with them a lot differently and enormously better than before.

CAMBELLITE, you ask "Where was God when my relative was dying? God was the compassion of a stranger. It's that simple, and that complex. Paradox is like that."

I'd say the best of humanity was in that stranger.

@Mark Eaton, RE "God created carbon, iron, magnesium, and fire but we should not blame Him when the steel fails in a building and it collapes killing hundreds. Steel is a man-made object. Why do you want to blame Him when something bad happens but not praise Him when something good happens. If you get a promotion at work, He should get the praise. But do you give it to Him?

I give Him praise for all good things and give Lucifer the credit for all bad things."

I don't blame god for anything. I don't believe he exists. I take full responsibility for the results of my actions, be they good or bad. Anything else is simply puerile.

@SOK7, RE "It is beyond your power to stop a hurricane, and I doubt there anything you could have done to stop what happened on 9/11...

...but what are you doing that might keep even one baby from starving? What have you told your congressman to do concerning Darfor? Have you ever contributed to the American Red Cross. Would you be willing to pay a dollar a day so that a starving child could receive 3-meals a day and an education? Or is that someone else's problem?

You build empathy through suffering. You build character by how you choose to respond to suffering."

Suffering isn't a prerequisite for empathy. It requires only caring about the welfare of others. I completely agree that we should do what we can to come to the aid of those who are suffering when we can do so without causing more of it. We have a responsibility towards our fellow man. Not believing in an interventionist god or the consolation prize of an afterlife makes that principle all the more important. But, since the discussion is about god, who is supposedly merciful and omnipotent, we must ask ourselves how he can allow such things. He can't possibly be both omnipotent and merciful when there's so much suffering and pain in the world without also being a sadist. I see the monotheistic world view as inherently sadomasochistic. Love based on fear isn't really love. It's a form of slavery.

If I believed such a god existed I could not worship, love, or respect him. I might fear him, but that would only make me hate him. Any system that revolves around suffering, no matter how richly it's rewarded, is needlessly cruel and corrupt. If you were omnipotent and could have created the universe in any way you saw fit, would you have created one so full of misery? If your answer is no, that makes you far more moral than your god.

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"
Doug McLeod

Does the term "evil" as used here refer to some objective idea of right and wrong or just something contrary to the preference of a particular observer?

A nice example of a spiritual atheist lyric written by Neil Peart of Rush.

The Larger Bowl by Rush

(a pantoum)

if we're so much the same like I always hear
why such different fortunes and fates?
some of us live in a cloud of fear
some live behind iron gates

why such different fortunes and fates?
some are blessed and some are cursed
some live behind iron gates
while others only see the worst

some are blessed and some are cursed
the golden one or scarred from birth
while others only see the worst
such a lot of pain on the earth

the golden one or scarred from birth
some things can never be changed
such a lot of pain on this earth
It's somehow so badly arranged

some things can never be changed
some reasons will never come clear
it's somehow so badly arranged
if we're so much the same like I always hear

Mark Eaton: of course, no offense was intended. I use generalization losely. I have known some mighty fine human beings who happen to be fundamentalist christians.

Russel D: I'd be honored to buy the first round.

--
This whole forum is a fascinating expression of the limitations of language. Here we all are, trying to use words to describe things that are by definition, indescribable. Of course we misspeak, misunderstand, get worked up over something that's usually nothing.

But we're still talking about it. That, to me, is a miracle worth noting.

Mark Eaton:
***The point of the book is to look at what God has done WITH Job, not what has God done TO Job. God has TRUSTED Job's faith enough that He can say to Lucifer "Everything that he is and everything that he has you can destroy, just do not take his life" knowing that Job would not give up his faith in Him. Now that is something that I want, for God to trust ME. That is what suffering is all about. God TRUSTING us with trials.**

God let Satan torture Job because Satan threw down a double-dog dare. You'd think God would be above such schoolyard pi$$ing contests, but apparently not. If God had truly been expressing his love for Job, he would not have said "Do whatever you want as long as you don't kill him" when Satan challenged Job's motive for loving God, he would have simply told Satan to bugger off.
I don't ever wish to be used by someone else in that way. I'm so glad that my gods don't pull that sort of stunt.

Mary Cunningham:
"It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other. I doubt if they'll ever meet-- in this millenium at least, assuming there is an earth for them to meet upon. "

You need to re-read this and figure out for yourself how insulting this is to atheists, as well as poets and musicians. Do you really think all atheists can't possibly enjoy music? How far apart do you think science and music are? They are closer than you think - math and music are intertwined. Frankly, math and everything (save for philosophy) are intertwined.

Also, religion is a form of philosophy - so how can they be on opposite sides of your fence?

You did however, correctly put science and religion on opposite sides - they are. At least science examines itself every so often.

Someone else here made a list of the athiest musicians in history - I'm sure it's not a complete list....

Mr Mark,

I was about to write something to correct Ms Cunningham, but fortunately I read yours first. An outstanding rebuttal! I could never equal it. You did, however, neglect to mention the math connection, starting with Pythagoras, 5th century BC(E).

Campbellite:

Very well said sir.

I would share a beer with you any day.

Andrea:

DODGEBALL season is upon us!

There is no basis for the assumption that suffering was designed for some specific purpose. I suggest that we deal with suffering on its own terms. Any lessons or meanings in the suffering are ours to make, instead of being decided for us.

The theodicy problem is only a problem for those who posit a LOVING, GOOD deity.

Given the existence of everything from the scabies mite(only infects humans), Guinea worm, &c. all the way to floods, hurricanes & earthquakes, none of which could possibly be our fault, the only rational recourse for true believers is that their deity is either evil or else utterly uncaring about humanity. Given the size of the universe, the latter seems more likely, not to mention more cheerful.

God is the good stuff, and Satan is the bad. Oh OK. Well if Satan is cancer, then if a dictator or murderer got cancer, does that mean that Satan is just as good at dishing out justice?

Dear Mary Cunningham -

Thanks for the absolute hogwash about music.

Perhaps you don't realize that there is a great deal of SCIENCE behind music, from the construction of viable instruments to the harmonic structure of the tones themselves. Music needs no help from god. It can be dissected scientifically and put back together at will. Anyone who has tuned an instrument to a Strobo-conn is availing themselves of the science behind the music. Anyone building a piano or a violin is dependent on science to construct a great instrument.

What about concert halls? Do you think there is no science involved in their construction? Different halls have different acoustics. It may interest you to learn that a different acoustic may significantly alter the way a musician plays a piece.

As far as atheists not understanding the spirituality of music, it happens that Mozart, Hector Berlioz, Johannes Brahms and Giuseppe Verdi were atheists, yet all wrote Requiem Masses that must be considered among the greatest in the genre. Of course, you have no understanding of "absolute music", ie: music that has no "meaning" or back story but exists purely as music to be enjoyed as music. There is such music, reams and reams of it, though you may not hear it very often at your local fundy church.

And, speaking of composers: Beethoven quit the Catholic Church and adopted Goethe's Pantheism, as did Robert Schumann. Bizet scoffed at Christianity, Debussy described himself as a Neo-Pagan. Mozart left the church and joined the Freemasons (who were banned from the church) and on his deathbed, refused and sent away the priest his wife had summoned. Of creeds and churches, Franz Schubert remarked, "Not a word of it is true." Richard Strauss embraced Nietzsche's philosophy and wrote a tone poem based on his "Also sprach Zarathustra." Tchaikovsky was a theist for most of his life but became an atheist after reading Flaubert's letters. And, of course, Richard Wagner was an out-spoken atheist who caught hell from Nietzche when he wrote the spiritual "Parsifal."

There's always the exception to the rule: Francis Poulenc was a carefree atheist until a close friend was decapitated in a car crash, at which point he vigorously resurrected his dormant Catholicism (and the music world was better off for the change. His religious works are truly outstanding).

Poulenc aside, it boggles the mind to imagine the music world devoid of the atheistic composers I mentioned above.

As a performing musician myself with a degree from an accredited university, I find it haughty on your part that you would elect to expound on matters that lie clearly outside of your area of experience, let alone expertise. Your comments on music are the equivalent of opining that the space shuttle gains its orbit because the sky is blue.

There is no divide whatsoever between science and music. Indeed, while science could well exist without music, music could not exist without sound science behind it.

I think what you may be trying to say is that one need not understand the science behind music to enjoy music, or to feel that music is important to your life. That's an obvious truth - most human beings aren't trained musicians (one need not know that the Elvis song 'It's now or never" is sung to the tune of the old Itaiian song "O sole mio," or that the tune of Neil Sadaka's "Never gonna fall in love again" is lifted from the third movement of Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony to enjoy those latter-day adaptations of a good tune, but one would be incorrect to believe that Rachmaninoff stole the tune from Sedaka!). I would imagine that for many people learning the science behind music rather takes the gild off the lily. There's something to be said for the inner workings of any art remaining a mystery to the general public, be it the artwork of the scumbler or the slight of hand employed by Penn & Teller.

Perhaps - just perhaps - SOME people approach religion in the way they approach the arts. While it may be good for the historian to know that most of the specific incidents in the life story of Jesus closely mirror those of other mythical gods that preceded him in history (including the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection), for the believer, it may create doubts that impede one's "enjoyment" of their faith.

Your metaphor was poorly founded and argued. Try again.

Cambellite:

Thank you. Us Fundies take no offense. When I lost my 26yr old son in July to cancer, I felt the same as you. No one could understand. It was the silence of friends and loved-ones that comforted me, along with God giving me strength to accept the loss. Has He dimished the pain, not that I can see. He has just given me a peace that I could not expect or express. It was amazing and still is.

Russel D: "Faith in a God is good and all, and it allows people to have hope, but when it comes down to it, it's the inner strength and personal conviction that will help and save you. NOT the belief that God will get off his rump and help you out."

I would say that the inner strength that you and your wife discovered, is the stame stuff that I call God. God isn't out there, rolling dice, God is in here, the strength and conviction and stubbornness and refusal to lay down and take it that keeps me going, every day of my life.

It's a tragedy that ignorant Fundamentalism has become the definition of Christianity in American culture, because truthfully, I think the Fundy's have it all wrong. They missed the boat. They have ears but do not hear. When you try to disect the faith with that scalpel of course it falls apart.

Try reading the stories as myths to be lived out, rather than commandments to be obeyed. Pretend it was written by Homer and see how you feel about it.

When a family member lay dying last year, angry and bitter at the world for failing to live up to unrealistic expectations, I went to a church to pray. First time I'd set foot in a church in two decades. As I sat, in the back, bawling my eyes out (I must have made quite a racket) a woman came and sat with me. She didn't say anything, didn't tell me I was a sinner. She just sat there and breathed slowly and prayed. And after a few minutes she rubbed my back and left.

Where was God when my relative was dying? God wass the compassion of a stranger. It's that simple, and that complex. Paradox is like that.

Michelangelo:

I really dislike it when people cherry-pick scriptures to fit their needs. You obviously forgot to include these:

Job 1:12 God allows suffering to come to Job
Exod. 34:7 Inquity of the father visited on the children and generations to come.

There are guaranteed results of God laws that He has put into place. The law of the sower you listed above. The law of "be sure your sin will find you out" is another.

Karma does not exist. It is a man-made construct to explain God's laws without including God himself.

Re: Job

God allowed Job to be tortured by Satan for no purpose other than he could. He knew Job wouldn't turn away from him, so why did he do it? Why did the almighty God have to allow one of his people to be tortured, his sons and daughters to be killed to prove a point to Satan? This is where God lost his moral authority.

I'm not sure this is the main reason that most atheists are atheists. I'm an atheist because I know that there is no such thing as magic or invisible creatures, and because it's clear that humans have a propensity to make things up and then believe them with utmost fervor.

You're statement "The only answer offered by believers is that God gives man free will and that it is our fault--not God's--when bad things happen to good people." is incomplete, which is why you don't see how it can be an answer.

When bad (or good) things happen to good people, is is precisely _OUR_ fault. The Good Book teaches the concept of Karma:

* Mat 26:52 All take the sword, perish by it.
* Gal 6:7 God can't be mocked, a man reaps what he sows.
* Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds

Thus, you're conclusion is based on a faulty and incomplete information. You're assuming that every bad thing that happens to a "good" person, doesn't deserve it. You're assuming a person is "innocent", while being blind to the Karma the person has created for themselves.

You have lived before, and you will live again. The ONLY true knowledge, is the knowledge gained via experience.

If you are ever a parent, you will learn the concept of Tough Love.
i.e.
You tell your child not to touch the stove, knowing that it is hot, and will burn. Your child however, lacks the -experience- to KNOW what is hot, and is naturally curious. They of course, touch the stove and get burned.

As a parent, we never want harm to come to our child, but at some point, we have to respect the fact that our children will make poorer choices, because in the long run, they will gain an important lessons -- gnosis -- sometimes the ONLY way to TRUELY learn is by first hand experience. Its similiar to trying to explain color to a blind man -- they have no frame of reference to understand.

Your statement "The gulf between believers and atheists on this point is unbridgeable." is also incorrect. I have an atheist friend who converted to mysticism after seeing what he was missing in his understanding. Without the proper foundation, people will forever be led into error.

MichaelangeloTruth@yahoo.com

The theodicy problem seems to be just a part of a larger dilemma we face if we try to believe in a God that intervenes in the affairs of mankind. The modern dilemma is – how do we make any sense of the past, present and future if the intervention of a supreme being can occur at any time and without any known cause? Since our Neolithic ancestors didn’t know what we know they invented gods to help them explain and control life’s events. Today, however, we know much, much more about cause and effect than our Neolithic ancestors; interventionist gods are no longer needed to explain how our world works. In today’s world believing in these gods now hinder our efforts at understanding. Is this ironic or what? We live in a universe that is indifferent to the plight of humans – it treats us all the same. None of us can violate its laws. Although we don’t understand all these laws, we know that ultimately our fate is determined by the laws of physics and the mathematics of probability. If we get any help in this life it is from other human beings. I find this comforting. I can read the newspaper and make some sense of both the good and bad I see there.

Luke:

You missed the point of the book entirely. The point of the book is to look at what God has done WITH Job, not what has God done TO Job. God has TRUSTED Job's faith enough that He can say to Lucifer "Everything that he is and everything that he has you can destroy, just do not take his life" knowing that Job would not give up his faith in Him. Now that is something that I want, for God to trust ME. That is what suffering is all about. God TRUSTING us with trials. Knowing it will not destroy us or our faith.

Lepid,

Thank you! I get a little irked when people use Job as an example of God's love. Love, indeed!

Luke,

I never liked chess. Give me a dodgeball analogy.

It is true that it seemed kind of sadistic to punish Job just to prove a point to Satan. Kinda makes you feel like a chess piece, eh?

Ok He-Man, who are you really? That's hysterical.

Michael Sweat:
**In the book of Job, it is clear that (bad) things happen to good people. We know that even from our own experiences. However, Job's story also makes clear that God is at work and has a plan for each of us, whether we can understand why these things happen or not and whether we understand God's dealings with us or not.**

In the book of Job, God used Job as a pawn to win a bet with Satan. Ever see the Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd movie "Trading Places"? God and Satan are like the Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche characters.

By the power of Greyskull!

I Have The POWER!

Oh OK, so it's my fault that I deserve death. Oh bring me the suffering that I deserve Lord for thinking naked women are attractive! Oh burn me in eternal torment for getting angry with my transgressors! Let me bleed and suffer for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time and never hearing about the Bible. What a cop-out. It's my fault. The blame-humanity crowd. It's sick and masochistic. So you CHOOSE to be sinful? That's you. The conscience is our weak little link to God? Nonsense. Your problem is that the arguments are too convenient, and then when no explanation is left, you just blame humanity for all of our woeful suffering. If you hate yourselves so much, STOP WEARING SEATBELTS. I am not angry at God - I am angry at the self-loathing psychosis I find in others on a picosecond basis. Ofcourse it is easy for it to fit your worldview when you believe in it. If I believed that little fairies liked to drag things to the ground when I let go of them, then the idea of gravity would make little sense to me, no? It's too convenient that God only cared about Middle Easterners until the Bible just happened to be translated into other languages. So God only speaks one language? He only talks to one group of people? How convenient for the unbelievers to whom he doesn't speak. Oh wait, how convenient that he is trying to speak to me but I am blocking it with the rebellious nature embedded in my DNA (funny, I don't remember DNA being in the Bible). Oh wait, how convenient it is created me in his image but how convenient that it is all my fault. So damn convenient.

Mary C.,

Atheists don't enjoy poetry and music? Not all atheists are science nerds ;)

Also, what if your neighbor is playing their music too loud? Can you file a "noise" complaint?

Love of God is like love of music.

Music provides no outstanding evolutionary benefit and not many respect it overmuch. Some people are tone deaf, some are plain deaf; these can live perfectly respectable lives and have no sense of loss because they cannot hear it.

Other people cannot live with music. It fills their lives, they hear it and marvel, it causes them great joy. Quite simply, it is a part of their innermost being. They view people who deliberately *choose* to live without music with utter incomprehesion.Why would anyone want to live without music?

It's a great divide. Poetry, music and religion on one side, philosophy, science and atheism on the other. I doubt if they'll ever meet-- in this millenium at least, assuming there is an earth for them to meet upon.

Mary Cunningham,

"To sum: we try to measure God in human terms and when we can’t do so atheists say if I can’t measure Him, He doesn’t exist. It is tautological in that we are only measuring what we can measure."

The only way that humans can receive information about the universe is through observation and deduction. But theistic doctrines define their gods as undetectable through that empirical method. There is no reason to assume that there are things that cannot be detected empirically. How did anyone come up with the idea of gods in the first place? If I had grown up completely isolated from religion, the idea of gods may never have occurred to me.

Kate,

"And people of faith regularly are told by atheists that we're stupid, naive, idiotic, illogical, etc. I presume your point is demonstrating that some people have appalling manners."

No disagrement about manners, although I emphasize that only a minority of atheists have that lack of manners. Similarly, only a minority of Christians go around telling unbelievers that they deserve to suffer for eternity in hell, or that natural disasters are punishments for unbelief. However, the latter behavior is much more offensive as a matter of moral principle, and much more hurtful for the person hearing it. So while I condemn atheists who call believers stupid, I also say that believers should abandon the doctrine of eternal damnation before they consider asking for sympathy.

I hear many Christians say that Muslims who oppose Al Qaeda-style terrorism have an obligation to publicly condemn it, and they have a valid point. My response is that Christians who oppose the hatemongering of people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have an obligation to publicly condemn those men.

The god of this world is not the God of Love.

It is Satan.

Take that to the bank.

I thought He-Man was the Master of the Universe.

Kate:

"And people of faith regularly are told by atheists that we're stupid, naive, idiotic, illogical, etc. I presume your point is demonstrating that some people have appalling manners. In that, you and I agree. Many people really need to learn their basic manners. What you believe is none of my business and frankly, what I believe has no impact on your life either. "

I agree - too many people have a lack of manners.
I disagree with the supposition that other's faith do not have an effect on my life. In a perfect USA, that would be true, but it simply is not. Case in point, our current president - he feels he was placed in power by god - clearly this affects me and my family. The idea that abstinence is the only solution to birth control is religious based, not fact based. (ironically, if we had all the birth control available to everyone, abortion rates would certainly go down, I digress). The fact that we have "under god" added to the pledge of alligiance - how am I supposed to explain that to my daughter when she comes of age? Athiests as a whole are certainly a minority - and an ignored minority at that.

"Your choice to not believe in God / gods obviously works for you and I'm truly glad you live in a culture that supports your choice. And if you're tempted to read that last with a tinge of sarcasm, it's not meant as such. "

I didnt' take that as sarcasm (I'm sure there are those that would...). My culture, however, at best tolerates my belief system - it does not support it. There would have to be many changes to support it the way religions are supported. Could I build a tax-free 'church' if I don't believe in god? Could an atheist ever run for president? (hopefully someday!). Can we remove 'god' from anything government related?

"Like IronicalDonical, I too am amazed by the amount of energy atheists put into denouncing and ridiculing God. I would have thought there'd be better uses for time but again, it's their time to make use of as they wish. "

I don't intend to ridicule - I personally just "dont get it" when it comes to god. (raised as a prodestant, by the way). We atheists, and frankly some non-christians, have been put down by the christian majority in the USA for far too long. We as a group have only come to the surface because of how far a right-turn to conservative christianity this nation has taken, that we have simply been awakened to speak out. By trying to force, the doctrine and false theory of intelligent design on our children in public schools, the secular folks of the country were appalled, and had to stand up for their rights. There are many examples that this administration has used religion and the fear of god to push illogical behavior controlling legislation. Personally, if I was a person of faith, I would be insulted by how this administration has used religion for divisive purposes.

Incidentally, National Geographic had a great cover story on Darwin - (athough the front cover tag line was misleading "Is Darwin Wrong?" - the answer is no, he was correct), and that the theory of evolution is the strongest supported theory in the history of mankind. Stronger theory than electricity, plumbing, etc. It is a great read. And at the same time, does not dismiss the faithful's beliefs in a

"And it would be nice to have a dialogue on the subject, it's pretty much impossible -- not because I think atheists are going to Hell. The concept is actually foreign to my theological universe. It's because regardless of how reasonable and respectful and considerate and thoughtful I might endeavour to be towards your religious beliefs (God does not exist), I can never overcome the atheists' basic principle that my faith in something larger than myself is proof positive that I am, in your words, not capable of reason or rationality. "

What I said was in response to another comment:
""Can't someone in their 30's or 40's with a solid education and rational thinking accept Jesus?"

In my opinion - NO, they cannot. By definition, "rational" (having its source in or being guided by the intellect (as distinguished from experience or emotion)), has nothing to do with faith ( belief that is not based on proof). No, they cannot be both rational, and believe in a superstitious being.
"
I think I was not clear enough. Its not that someone like yourself is incapable of reason or rationality. However, When it comes to the god question, (so to speak), people of faith, who have not taken the time/energy/etc to investigate their (and others') beliefs, I do not think can rationally discuss god or the possibility of a lack of god, because that sort of unchallenged faith is counter intuitive to rational thinking. It isn't meant as a blanket statement, exceptions are always present. If one is not open to the possibility of ones' faith not fitting with ones' real-life experiences in the world, how can that person look at the god question with open eyes? My own process of this came because of studying world history in college, and from that, realized that for me, my experiences with religion did not match with my real-world experiences. That was the first, last, and only time in my life that I questioned my faith, and questioned the rationality of what I was taught. During that time, I was not closed to the idea that my view of the world through religious eyes was wrong for me.

But back to the topic of the original article: Answer to why does God let bad stuff happen? Crap happens... get over it. Hurricanes, evil deeds by others.. I'm really not getting what this has to do with God. Politicians hijacking religious principles in exchange for political power? Not exactly a new concept, not exactly limited to America and not exactly culturally contained. This is God's fault? Fine, if you want it to be but please, don't build this mental construct in your head and then use it to "prove" that I'm not quite right in the head.

I agree - bad stuff just happens. Blaming a god for life's trials simply removes the onus of the individual to act. I don't believe anything is god's fault - man invented god, therefore it is mans fault for anything god does or does not do.

I never intended to indicate that you are "not quite right in the head". Quite the opposite.

Simply put, God is powerless, inert, dead.

According experts, god is the prime mover, which has no cause. God cannot move, intervene, nor intercede. To be able to do so would imply a cause other than god e.g. another god. He must remain the causeless first causer. He must remain immobile, and indeed, insentient. He is merely the fabric of existence, the context within which consciousness arises--the ether of yore so to speak.

As such he lives only as we live, exists only as we exist, conscious only as we are conscious. He is not a separate "being" for his beingness would require a start from non-being.

God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. He is simply the background radiation of existence. It is truly a marvelous existence, but there is no requirement for justice, retribution, punishment, fairness, nor reward, nor grace. No heaven, no hell. Just quanta.

One day we'll get over ourselves. We assume that we are so special that we invent god to be like us and create this self-referencing, recursive muddle that we cannot dig our way out of.

We are special in that we have this sentient consciousness, the ability to sense existence with agreeable consistency, and the ability to conceive of the future and the mobility to alter it. This is the foundation of all higher concepts. Nothing more is required.

And if god were not insentient, inert and dead, surely he would be mighty proud that such a rich, complex and beautiful result could arise from e=mc^2.

--Faithless in US

scooter:

So what you're saying is that God lets us suffer to teach us a lesson (I know you put it in prettier words, but let's be honest, that's what you're saying.)

I have to say, as a father myself, i find this whole idea utterly repugnant. I would not abandon my children to suffering and pain just to teach them to obey me.

What you're describing sounds to me like a Father who lets one son run out into the street and get hit by a car to teach his other children not to play in the street. "See kids; if you don't love and obey Daddy you might get squashed like your brother did!" You call this love?! Surely an all-powerful, wise, merciful and compassionate Father could find a better way to nurture his children's love.

The God you describe sounds like an abusive parent to me. "Say you love me or I'll let you die" doesn't inspire real love in return.

Regards

A Hermit

Andrew McCarthy

I liked your piece. To sum: we try to measure God in human terms and when we can’t do so atheists say if I can’t measure Him, He doesn’t exist. It is tautological in that we are only measuring what we can measure.

However, I think atheists analyze too much. OK—I’m just a HIC (humble Irish Catholic) and I know Freud said the Irish were the only race impervious to psychoanalysis so maybe I’m judging others by my own standards but hey! atheists judge me by theirs, why not them by mine, so to speak?

Modern humanity exalts itself too much! It gives us a false sense of what life can deliver. We expect a painless existence with no suffering, and expect to live forever. What other era has ever thought this way? Christians historically have always recognised the material inseparability of humanity from the rest of Creation. Why should we be exempt from the natural processes of decay and bodily dissolution let alone the incidence of disaster and catastrophe? Men and women, in the Christian understanding of the world, are called by God to take part in the development of the earth, *but we remain integrated with it, and with the fate of all living things.*

In the biblical image, all we are is dust. The world, as created by God, is perfect for his purposes, and therefore for ours. Human engagement with it should be a sequence of fruitful discoveries: hopefully therein will be evidence (rightly evaluated) of the divine scheme. But humans are never going to lose the essential characteristics of our humanity. We are an integral part of the mass of living things which exist on the face of the planet, and the terms of our material lives, as provided by the Creator, are set by the common laws of matter which affect all things.

Why is this a reason for atheist rage? We are human, merely human. We are living beings like the millions of other livings things upon our earth. Those facts has never bothered me much, but then I am a HIC.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham
London

Andrea:

You just gotta love hearing about those things. Perfect cannon fodder for the argument about how righteous and good the Right wingers are.

Like I have said before. Christianity is full of hypocrisy. Just another point to give it more truth.

I have said the same thing for most of my life. Since I was 9 or 10, I have had many people close to me die. They have been murdered, committed suicide, had asthma attacks, been in car accidents, cancer, heart attacks, and natural disasters. I have lived in hotels while my home was being rebuilt after a tornado. I have held my best friend as he took his last breath. I know the anger and hatred I felt as I blamed God for what I felt were unfair, cruel, and capricious acts on His part. I know the pain that can only be felt when, sitting alone in the small hours of the morning and counting up the losses of loved ones, you wrestle with God. It took years from my life and those are years that cannot be given back. It was not untill after I met my wife that I realized that I had been wrong, that what God and the Bible said was not that there would be no pain in the world but that He would be there to dry my tears and to ease the pain in my heart. I realize now that He also has walked my path when he sent His Son to die for me, who at the time had done NOTHING to deserve that gesture and EVERYTHING to deserve death. I have prayed and will continue to pray for the hope and peace that I now have and which has been tested by yet more deaths will soon be be felt by the crowd of people that are looking for answers in the world and are doomed to continue a pointless and starving existence. A crowd of which I was the leader of.

Chip says:

"SOK7, starving babies are a character builder, is that what you're saying? How does he decide who gets the axe as a sacrifice to the character of others?"

In the case of starving babies, 99-percent of the time, people decide who gets the axe - either through their actions, or as a direct result of their failure to act.

It is beyond your power to stop a hurricane, and I doubt there anything you could have done to stop what happened on 9/11...

...but what are you doing that might keep even one baby from starving? What have you told your congressman to do concerning Darfor? Have you ever contributed to the American Red Cross. Would you be willing to pay a dollar a day so that a starving child could receive 3-meals a day and an education? Or is that someone else's problem?

You build empathy through suffering. You build character by how you choose to respond to suffering.

I'm fascinated by the statements by some that an atheist just doesn't understand, because he/she hasn't experienced god - in the way that person of faith has.

I note that schizophrenics experience voices and experiences too - and I don't doubt that it is absolutely real for them, but I also don't believe that what they are experiencing is real either.

I understand and agree with the points Susan Jacoby has made. I have exactly the same problem with the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about the "power" of God, but I have chosen a different way to deal with it. Although it is not as comfortable as convincing yourself that God will "protect" you, I have come to believe that God is a force of perfect love that exists independent of human beings, but there are limits to what love can do. It can't control nature or the rules of chance, nor can it compel people to do good rather than evil. (I also believe there is a force for evil at work in the universe, and some days I'm not sure who's winning.)

hello all. I'm going to attempt to answer Ms. Jacoby's very good question she stated in the second paragraph (why the innocent should suffer for the exercise of "free will" by the guilty?).

I think of God as a loving Father who doesn't want to see any of us suffer. However, God is thinking of the big picture in terms of what's happening on Earth. He can't intervene now to stop our suffering at this point without sacrificing the long term wellbeing of all his creatures for all time (meaning eternity). The issue at hand is our separation from God (sin) that we are experiencing today. This separation resulted from one being (Lucifer) parting ways with God's plans for the universe. Because we were created to have free will then God also knows that Sin (separation from Him) will always be a possibility (for all time - even after sin plays out here on Earth). That is why God must allow Sin to run its course this one time. As an example to all of us of just how bad things can get when we separate ourselves from Him. So when we're trotting around the universe (or wherever) a few million years from now we'll have a complete understanding of the ramifications of any decisions we choose to make. We will most likely not choose to separate ourselves from God again as the result of that path will be clearly known. This is why God hasn't stepped in and removed sin and suffering from our lives sooner. It would only leave open future doubt about what would have happened if man where left to plot his own destiny, and the cycle would repeat itself. It must be awful to sit back and watch your children suffer so, but He is doing it out of true love and not lack of compassion.

I feel sad about Ms. Jacoby's statement that she would choose to hate God. God loves each of us more than we know. We may suffer and die during our lives here on Earth (is that really a reason to hate?), but we can live again with Him if we choose.

v/r
scott

Russell,

He didn't mean to touch sandals with that undercover godsquad officer. It was an innocent 'bump"...not footsie.

Andrea:

Accident?

SSSHHHHHYEAH!........Riiiiiiight.

Russell,

But he said it was an accident!

Al,

"Most discussions of the existence of God by atheists include an element of anger, which is difficult to understand if they really believe that there is no God."

From my reading, most of anger seems to be directed not at God but at the claims made about God and at believers for defending those claims. I describe myself as an agnostic pantheist - although I don't rule out the possibility of a supreme being, I see no reason to believe in such a being since there's no conclusive evidence.

My own anger is directed at believers who, as Jacoby noted, see their neighbors' houses destroyed by a tornado and think that God spared their own houses. It's directed at believers who claim that hurricanes in New Orleans and tsunamis in Asia are God's punishments on unbelievers. It's directed at believers who claim that human sin is the cause of all suffering, including Duane Gish's hateful and unscientific notion that meat-eating among animals originated with the Fall of Man. Most of all, it's directed at believers who want public-school teachers to force my children to pray.

People, hit the POST button once and once only!

Hitting it many times does not speed up the posting process, it sends your message to the board multiple times!

It also shows that you don't know how to use a computer, which probably doesn't help your argument!

Andrea:

Job was tortured cause he was giving "funny signals" in the Men's Room. HA!

Atheism is not a belief but a by product. A by product of frustration with faith, intellectual blockage of emotional and spiritual truth; a product of a subtle rebellion that refuses to submit itself to "any being" that can be cruel, capricious, and oftentimes seemingly disassociated with His Creation.

Always question your spiritual system on your behavior not on your belief. Are you refusing God because of past hurts where you may have felt He didn't come through? Are you refusing because of simply not wanting to be held accountable? Are you refusing because of a moral or social agenda that crosses the known line of God s plan. think about it on a personal level and see what you find

Atheism is not a belief in a by product. A by product of frustration with faith, intellectual blockage of emotional and spiritual truth; a product of a subtle rebellion that refuses to submit itself to "any being" that can be cruel, capricious, and oftentimes seemingly disassociated with His Creation.

Always question your spiritual system on your behavior not on your belief. Are you refusing God because of past hurts where you may have felt He didn't come through? Are you refusing because of simply not wanting to be held accountable? Are you refusing because of a moral or social agenda that crosses the known line of God s plan. think about it on a personal level and see what you find

Atheism is not a belief in a by product. A by product of frustration with faith, intellectual blockage of emotional and spiritual truth; a product of a subtle rebellion that refuses to submit itself to "any being" that can be cruel, capricious, and oftentimes seemingly disassociated with His Creation.

Always question your spiritual system on your behavior not on your belief. Are you refusing God because of past hurts where you may have felt He didn't come through? Are you refusing because of simply not wanting to be held accountable? Are you refusing because of a moral or social agenda that crosses the known line of God s plan. think about it on a personal level and see what you find

Charles,

You brought up the example of Job. Why was Job tortured?

Dear Susan,

your point of view is perfectly reasonable if you use a human standard of viewing the events in question as good or bad and God as doler of rewards and punishment.

A God that pampers us and showers us only with goodies is not a "good" God at all. Such a God would stagnate us and leave us spoiled as the children of parents who do raise their kids that way.

If God is infinite and a creator (as those who believe in God hold) then God must truly express itself infinitely in all manner of expressions. this means creating tornados as well as sunshine, otherwise God would limit itself creatively.

Humans grow through challenge, so experiencing these "evil" expressions are really vehicles for growth. Watching a child die may teach us compassion. Watching one's home destroyed by tornado may teach us not to take life for granted and to live by challenge not by security (which is stagnating).

Ah, but the pain you cry. Yes, there is pain. When a child goes outside to play and falls and scrapes his knee, for the next ten minutes the world has ended. The pain is unendurable and unending. A wise parent knows that the pain is temporary and the worse thing to do would be to keep the child indoors forever so that future pain could be avoided. Pain is part of life, part of the growth process and part of the experience of being. It adds to our character and our dimensions.

But consider this. In the scheme of infinity (if we do have immortal souls), a single human lifetime of 80 years is virtually nothing. The pain we experience in a lifetime is a smaller fraction of our total existence than the 10 minutes the child experiences the pain of a scraped knee. In both cases, it seems forever and unbearable, but to a wise God, the pain is temporary and comes with the opportunity for permanent growth. Even death itself is part of that process. It is a break from the trappings of our lives and a chance to ease the pain and regroup. So God has given us that mechanism for dealing with pain as well.

Finally, God does not create these things out of evil but out of love and out of necessity. It is the nature of an infinite being to create infinitely. God gives us the same gift: to express our lives infinitely and with love. With that infinity will come expressions that others abhor. But all of that is part of free will and discovering who we really are and letting us decide who we want to be while we are in the process of becoming infinite ourselves.

When we ask that good question we often forget that God is not just outside of us, but in us. So when we suffer, the one who suffers the most is God -- who is perfect Love. That's key to entering into the mystery of Christ crucified and resurrected.

Important aspects of Christianity's answer:

1. Sufferings exist because otherwise freedom to love is impossible.
2. Much suffering is unnecessary, that's why God still performs many healings.
3. Determining which are necessary can't be formularized because God is a Love relationship.
4. In general, suffering becomes a pointer to the need and reality of the afterlife.
5. Perfect Love will redeem them all sufferings if we allow them to shape us into perfect Love.

Great resources:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/suffering.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-0wR87okY

Jerusalemight,

thank you for the argument for us atheists:

Knowledge is limited. No scientist would ever doubt it. Therefore he tries to expand knowledge.

Knowledge is limited. No religionist would ever doubt this. Out of fear of this unknown, he places the god joker where the limits are.

Michael: As many before me have pointed out more eloquently, Pascal's Wager is a lame challenge to non-believers.

Would an omniscient god accept the faked belief by someone who really believes, deep down, that the recipient of his worship does not even exist?

Does faking the rituals of a religion, going to church, etc. replace an absence of true belief?

If an atheist does good works in this life, but never acknowledges the existence of a god, is he really still doomed by your religious standards? Why not do good for goodness sake, rather than under threat of post-death punishment? Which is more honorable ... being good because you know that this is the only life you get and you want to leave this planet a slightly better place, OR being good because you are scared to death of an afterlife punishment?

You followers of the Cult of Abraham never CEASE TO AMAZE!!!

You create a Jealous God, Omnipotent and Omniscient, The One God of All, then immediately limit it, and create an Ursurper, that challenges it for dominance. Actually, from what you claim, the Ursurper actually Kicks God's Arse and claims rule over this universe, making it and its inhabitants, You and me into NOTGOD, or EVIL.

Your God is a Wussy. I can see how it is created in Your image. You refuse responsibility for Your actions. You blame the Ursurper you conviently created for this instead of recognizing you are too stupid, lazy and trite to do the right thing THAT YOU WERE BORN KNOWING YOU SHOULD DO...and the You want the weak little god you created to FORGIVE YOUR LAZY ARSES.

If Your god gives you Victory in War, he obviously gives Your enemies an Evil time..but wait, all of the evil is the Ursurpers realm...so the Devil actually gave you the Victory by giving more death and destruction, evil, to you enemies.

This is completely illogical. Either Your god is all powerful and created everything, or he isn't and shares power with the evil you created to CYA.

You would think after 3500 yrs you guys could polish this mess up a little to make it at least halfway believable to a rational person.

ps I try to capitalize Your Name because You created Your god, so You deserve the credit.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Perspectives like this one cannot hope to understand the purpose of God beacuse they view them exclusively from a human standpoint, which is grievously flawed. One problem from which people suffer is that they think life is about being happy. They think this is the goal of living. It is not. The goal is to learn the lessons that life sets before us. If we do not, we could well suffer from our failaure to learn, just like any student would in school who has not studied for a test. Secondly, most people think it is a tragedy when death comes any other way than quietly in our sleep at a ripe old age. Faith, which comes from a belief in God and his truths, offers us the oppourtunity to understand that death is merely an event, like a thunderstorm or the changing of seasons. Many people cannot understand why God would let people die, especially in a way we see as tragic. Maybe for him, death is not something horrible, as we always see it. It is merely a transition, like learning to be able to tie ones own shoes. The question always is why would God let someone die of cancer, especially a child. Maybe a better question is why do we continue to be traumatized by death, when it happens so frequently and eventually comes to all. Or, why should cancer be seen as bad? Why cannot anything positive be taken from it? Faith is not about making bargains with God, and I would certainly not make such a superficial (and rather uninformed beacuse you don't know what hell is like) statement that you would rather be in hell. If you think this life is too tough, then I doubt hell will be any relief.

Tim, you say, "I see God everytime I see a sunset, the stars or a mother's tear. It makes me so sad that some overlook these everyday miracles in favor of their own tortured line of reasoning."

I say, don't worry about it, people don't overlook beautiful sunsets just because they don't believe that an omipotent, invisible supernatural being created them. Nor do they perceive their line of reasoning as "tortured" - quite the opposite - it's the faithful, trying to insert God in nature who seem to have tortured reasoning.

It strikes me that given Pascal's Wager is a correct assessment of the reality of God's existence; the benefits accrue to atheists in this world only. Benefits to beleivers, assuming they fulfill the requirements (whatever they are), are infinite after this life. Both will benefit from lives lived in a fashion that each acts in accordance with their own wills, as long as they harm no one else, where such harm does not provide both short- and long-term benefit. i.e. in confers a life-or-death imparative.

Nice to know you're still here Andrea. :)

PV:

Isn't it interesting how over the course of 2,000 years, the message has been lost? Or overlooked?

Sucks, don't it?

"I appreciate your comment on your anger toward God as an atheist. Most discussions of the existence of God by atheists include an element of anger, which is difficult to understand if they really believe that there is no God. How can they be angry with a person who does not exist. I believe that their anger reflects the idea that the atheists do not like the God we have. He does things that they do not like. In response, they say that God does not exist, but with an element of the anger that they feel toward him. Discussion of the existence of God among atheists and believers would be more productive if the atheists would just say that they are angry with God."

I'm no spokesperson for those who are atheistic, but as a naturalist myself I can assure you that I harbor no anger for the hypothetical god(s). I never had faith in such a being, so my worldview is not a product of disillusionment in some former belief. My anger, when it does flare up, is with many of the human followers of such beliefs since they often turn to simplistic, unworkable answers to complex problems that call for human solutions.

I think Jacoby's point was that IF she were to accept the existence of such a being, she would have to be angry at it for what she sees in the world around her. What we non-believers see is a world that looks like one in which there is no supreme being at the helm.

That does upset some people, believers and non-believers alike. For others, it shows that humans better get their act together and start looking for solutions to problems inside their own little heads rather than in ancient myths.

It's all part of the growing-up process, both for individuals and for the human species.

I believe in my personal, loving, gracious, forgiving, and eternal God. I have never really tried to "prove the exsistence of God," because my faith is in my personal God. I have come to the realization that it is more important for me to ask "How?" instead of "Why?" Not "Why did this disaster occur? but "How am I to respond to it?" I believe that my response to an evil act or disaster conveys my view and belief in my personal God. So I must react in a kind and loving manner to those who are injured, wounded, and oppressed. A personal God is seen not in hatred, violence, and destruction but in our reactions to the hardships of this world. By the way, my personal God is waiting with open arms to accept me into eterntal life when I die by an automobile accident, plane crash, bullet, tornado, earthquake, cancer, heart attack, or by drawing my last breath in the still sleep of the night.

Jim, you say, “The search for proof of things believed in faith is what scientists do.”

What scientists do is quite different from what religious people do: scientists develop hypotheses, then look for evidence, involving, for instance, numerous experiments, double-blind studies and extensive peer review. If they can’t find sufficient evidence, they drop that hypotheses, or perhaps, set out later, based on new evidence and new hypotheses. When religious people decide they have faith in something, they hold onto that faith, without looking for additional evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary. In this forum, I’ve seen many religious people, some lay, some clergy, simply making statements about the mind of God that they have faith in, even though other people of the same general religion do not believe (e.g., biblical inerrancy vs. a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible; what God means when he does or does not intervene in human life). Bishop Chane, in his current essay does this and is getting a lot of flack from both believers and non-believers. some of the believers strongly disagree with his interpretation of God's design and some non-believers think he has no basis on which to make a determination.

I was born and raised Catholic.

As an adult when faced with the unreasonable and inconsistent philosophy, I realized the beauty was in the simple message of Love thy Neighbor, not the rituals, nor the miracles (I do not believe in miracles). Most Christians have conveniently forgotten this in favor of political gains or just plain fantasy...

Now I'm embarassed for them.

Thank you Ms. Jacoby

Ms. Jacoby, as a Southern God-fearing gentleman, I graciously accept you challenge. I will attempt to explain my position, the position of just one faithful Christian, on the relevance of evil and provide my non-linear logic about bad things happening to good people and visa versa.

Everything belongs to God. The good, the evil, and the otherwise. I believe there is something greater than myself. The archetype of the recipient of the machinations of a capricious God is Job. Job endured tragedy sanctioned by God and only requested one thing in return--understanding. I think that Job, utilizing the limitations of his humanity, recognized that there is always a cause and effect. That is the nature of this planet. Challenging the actions or even the existence of God is hardwired in our DNA. We can question, plead, lament to God for resolution (where there can never resolution--losing 10 children all at once leaves wounds that never heal) or basic understanding it will not come. I understand and accept the fact that God stopped speaking to man long ago. (That's another point of contention.) The only choice we have is to choose to continue living or embrace death.

I choose to live and believe in a God whose omnipotence reflects both the good and evil of man and the planet. I believe that if I'm having a hard time with life then so is God.

Each of us has to seek our own path, our own way of living with blatant evil and never enough good. My way of coping and continuing is defining God's cause and effect. For me that means making God a woman who created man and the planet for a single selfish reason: The reclamation of a lost lover--Lucifer. I'm using my imagination to create a work of fiction that defines God's cause and effect and re-write the Bible to remove the dross intentionally left in.

So, there you have it. We believers in God are not all the passive, thick-headed lot you make us out to be. Some of us daily straddle the line between belief and disbelief. Bottom line: God, like any good parent, made us the way we are and is ultimately responsible for how we turn out. And regardless of how we turn out or what we do or don't do in the process there will always be a place reserved for the prodigal. And that includes atheists.

I believe in my personal, loving, gracious, forgiving, and eternal God. I have never really tried to "prove the exsistence of God," because my faith is in my personal God. I have come to the realization that it is more important for me to ask "How?" instead of "Why?" Not "Why did this disaster occur? but "How am I to respond to it?" I believe that my response to an evil act or disaster conveys my view and belief in my personal God. So I must react in a kind and loving manner to those who are injured, wounded, and oppressed. A personal God is seen not in hatred, violence, and destruction but in our reactions to the hardships of this world. By the way, my personal God is waiting with open arms to accept me into eterntal life when I die by an automobile accident, plane crash, bullet, tornado, earthquake, cancer, heart attack, or by drawing my last breath in the still sleep of the night.

Yes I know the 'free will' arguement is a problem for non believers. Unfortunately it is the only answer. When God created the earth it was perfect, no death, no destruction, no disasters. In order to have free will there must be a choice otherwise what decision is possible? So into this perfect earth there was only one rule, only one opportunity for evil, man chose that evil and due to that we now live in a fallen world.

It is this kind of thinking that I find really interesting -- "If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him." Well how else can you have free will -- have choice? If evil and the ramifications of choosing evil do not exist then you have no free will. My God is not interested in building a bunch of automatons. Let's suppose for a moment that life was perfect, but you had no free will, there was no choice for you to make, wouldn't you then be railing against God for His race of robots?

I see God everytime I see a sunset, the stars or a mother's tear. It makes me so sad that some overlook these everyday miracles in favor of their own tortured line of reasoning.

Russell,

I'm here. Just got on here this morning with about 200 new posts to read through. I especially enjoyed your good needs evil, man needs a smoke after whoopie comment. Pure gold, man.

Pablo:
Just what I thought not one atheist could give a credible reason for believing there are such things as good and evil.

Actually, there have been several, on this thread and others. There just haven't been any that YOU consider credible because you only have one criterion for credibility.

LUKE!!!!:

Where you been man? I missed your tattooed butt on these boards.

I have been having fun with Pablo.....as usual.

Where's Andrea? I miss her too. I need companions.

Can't take on everyone by myself. ;)

C.S. Lewis shows the built in-contradiction in the question (from the book Mere Christianity):

“My argument [when I was an atheist] against God was that the universe seemed to cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction to it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -- in other words—that the whole world was senseless -- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -- namely my idea of justice -- was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

And the best one of them all.

Thank god for C-SPAN

From Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com

The death of D. James Kennedy yesterday marks the second death of a major figure in the religious right this year (after the May death of Jerry Falwell)–I wonder if this is making his followers and other fundamentalist Christians take a long hard look at the state of their faith, seeing as they generally consider earthly tragedies and misfortunes to be punishments from God (recall Robertson’s remarks on Ariel Sharon’s stroke, and the countless comments made by others with regard to Katrina).

Why do people keep saying that Susan is "missing the point," and then saying that the real point is that THEY have faith (which is what they really mean when they say that god walks with us, or whatever.) Her point is that it apears absurd to atheists when people, for example, praise god for having survived an earthquake that killed their neighbors. The implication is that if god chose them to live, he also, logically, chose that others would die. She is asking how believers square this with their belief in a loving god. (The answers are the usual ones: god is testing us, he moves in mysterious ways, he is punishing us, he does not intervene etc. etc.) But the larger point is that an atheist perspective is a legitimate one in a forum "on faith." If believers want to talk to each other about how much they believe, they can go to church. For better or for worse, faith is a major public issue in America - no politician can be credible nationaly without professing faith in the supernatural. Atheists have long been fairly silent in national discourse because of a widespread culture that equates reasoned atheism with sin, and uses fear (of hell, of displeasing grownups) to suppress inquiry. It is time atheists spoke up like everyone else. Religious faith has long had a bully pulpit: We have to hear public figures making what appear to us ridiculous statements about the supernatural causes of apparently natural phenomena all the time. It is time to give some of our more articulate spokespeople - like Susan - a place to be heard, like everyone else. That is the point.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

The reason that the problem of theodicy exists is because Christian doctrine presumes a God that is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. These are incompatible with the existence of suffering.

An omnibenevolent God wouldn't create suffering in the first place for any reason. And if God needed to cause suffering for some valid and necessary higher purpose, then that would argue against omnipotence. Also, the latter situation might fit a definition of God as just, but a just God would explain the higher purpose instead of deliberately not explaining things. A God who was both omnibenevolent and omnipotent would have the power and desire to accomplish some higher purpose without suffering.

Assuming that suffering has a reason sounds like denial instead of consolation. Suffering has no inherent meaning. We give our own meaning to it when we face it with bravery and learn from it.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

I love the line from Elliot Perlman's novel, "The Seven Types of
Ambiguity":

But I fought the memory of Alex's characterization of a theist
as someone for whom there is no test God can fail.

But I also love Paul Tillich's line from "The Courage to Be":

The acceptance of the God above the God of theism makes
us a part of that which is not also a part but is the ground
of the whole.

So this stuff has apparently replaced Horoscopes in newspapers? At least they had some entertainment value.

What the Post describes as 'faith' is simply superstition.

Until we learn to live in and for the present, and to solve problems ourselves, without depending on the Magical Guy in the Sky, we're not going to get out of the mess we're in. One would think a major national news organ would understand this.

But, there's money to be made off the misguided. Just ask the GOP.

Rungus,

A very poignant story. Yet I have to wonder against which evils you would have God intervene to prevent. Should he only intervene against mass murder? Against rape also, perhaps?

What if he were to intervene against some evil (however minor it might be) that you intended to commit? Say, he made your arms useless when you were about to hit your child too harshly (for example; of course I am not accusing you of child abuse). Maybe he should intervene by making the bottle disappear shortly before you have too much to drink, or cause the car to refuse to start when you are about to drive drunk?

What would such a world be like then? Kind of like bowling with bumpers - you can't really crap out in a game like that, can you? In fact, without any way to judge, you might think you're pretty good at bowling in such a situation. But in fact you wouldn't be good at bowling. If you are not free to fail, your successes mean nothing - they aren't even successes.

Living outside of such a world, and in one with horrid suffering like that caused by the Birch County killer, it is easier to say that such a world would be better. The grass is always greener on the other side, right?

In fact, in such a world, you might just as easily scream at God, "Why do you keep interfering with my life, with my decisions?" That would be a valid question to ask God.

In this world, "Why did you let my little baby die?!" is a perfectly honest thing to scream at God. I don't think God minds that at all. It's real and honest and genuine. Even, "I'm *@&! mad at you, and I'm not going to speak to you again!" is a perfectly real and honest response to undeserved suffering. I think he's cool with that.

Two people being honest with each other can have a real relationship, even if painful and strained. Looking at people I know who have divorced, they are almost never honest with themselves or each other, but hide motivations and put up game-faces, contriving answers to accomplish something, rather than to share reality with each other. That's how my parents were (and still are) with each other, at least. That's when the relationship ends. Fakers can't have relationships, and two fakers certainly can't relate with each other.

God gave us free will, and he meant it, and isn't going to take it back. Bad things happen. It's OK to tell God that you think his plan sucks. Be honest.

It doesn't follow from God's plan being displeasing to us (or even being an objectively bad plan) that God doesn't exist. To say to oneself and to the world, "I don't like the way the world works, therefore, I am going to deny God even exists, because he is ultimately responsible," well, that's just disingenuous. It's putting up a face, fronting like you (or I) know more than limited creatures like ourselves can possibly know.

I suspect that especially those who are denying the existence of God on the basis that they feel screwed over by his plan are actually very angry at him: he didn't save them from the Birch County killer in their life. Say that. Better just to be honest. Then at least we (humans) can have a relationship with each other; and maybe with God (should he exist) too.

God once said, "Don't confuse me with my followers."

According to C.S. Lewis, If humans are truly free to choose good or evil, then evil must be a real possibility. An omnipotent God could surely prevent evil, but he could only do so at the cost of human freedom. Human freedom is better than a world without suffering because it makes real love and real goodness possible.

Suggest you read his book, "The Problem of Pain". As cold is the absence of heat, so is evil the absence of God. Therefore it does not make sense to attribute evil to a God that is nothing but goodness.

Part of the atheist's (and other's) difficulty, as implied by Susan Jacoby, is the belief that suffering has no meaning, or has only an evil meaning ("why the innocent should suffer, etc.").

Perhaps Christianity is unique in asserting a value to suffering, which some find revelatory and encouraging, and others find a stumbling block -- too weird to comprehend.

As a practicing Catholic who is not in fact the Pope, I can only speak for myself, but it seems to me if someone believes that God loves them because he spared their house in a storm (and perhaps by extension loves his neighbor a little less because his was destroyed), they don't really understand the Christian message. A big part of that message is that earthly success or failure is not an indication of divine favor.

Some of the saints thought themselves more blessed by God when adversity came their way, especially the kind that you rub elbows with every day at home, in the office or in the monastery.

It sucks that I am condemned to eternal suffering because God has made a weak case to prove his existence and some woman many, many years prior to me ate some fruit God didn't want her to. Wow, the root of all evil - Granny Smith apples. Funny, I pray and nothing happens. God must be apathetic to my life. Sounds more like a bad parent to me. Sit me in front of the TV with a bag of Oreo cookies - maybe there will be one he tells me not to eat, and then everyone in my family tree henceforth will rape, murder, and torture each other (plenty of them in his name). Man, that's quite a claim.

There's room in between the concept of an anthropomorphized deity and nothing. Like magic is all around us, but we see it as natural because we're familiar with it, so also could it be that god is all around us, while we keep looking for something other than what is. I agree that the concept of a god who is planning the world and causing good and bad things to happen is, as Calvin said to Hobbes (paraphrased) "either arbitrary or mean and either way i've got the willies". But that is a separate issue from what happens when we die. All around us are constant reminders of the cyclical nature of, well, nature. There's no reason to believe that we disappear from the world when we die and every reason to believe in rebirth of some sort or another.

Butterfly:
"Also, angry athesit (sic) lady ignores the fact that churches and other faith-based charities usaully out-perform secular institutions in the area of disaster response. We saw this after 9/11 and Katrina. God's intervention in this world occurs through His children. "

=======================

quick reminder:
a faith-based White House started a war of choice, over oil, and is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.

Is that God's intervention?

Nathan,
Without God, there are no morals? Are you kidding with this? You cannot distinguish good from bad without religion as a compass?
KJ

You can always change a person's suggestions, you can somethimes change their thoughts, but you can never change thier beliefs.

My email to a friend who send me this article:

This is a good article, though I see 2 glaring
fallacies in her presentation:
1. Bad things do not ever and have not ever
happened to good people. In response to Rabbi
Kushner's best-seller "When bad things happen to
good people", one of my heros, John Gerstner
wrote a little booklet called "The problem of
pleasure: Why good things happen to bad people"!

2. When she makes this statement, she's making an
unwarranted, irrational assumption about
morality:
"If there were a deity responsible for both human
evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would
hate him. I would prefer to go to hell rather
than to make bargains with such a cruel,
capricious Master of the Universe"
She's assuming that SHE knows what objective evil
is and is not. What is her point of reference
for adjudicating between the two? Unless there
does exist a personal, transcendant God who tells
us what is right and wrong, how can she claim to
have a moral claim against Him? Thus, atheism falls under its own weight.

Susan

I appreciate your comment on your anger toward God as an atheist. Most discussions of the existence of God by atheists include an element of anger, which is difficult to understand if they really believe that there is no God. How can they be angry with a person who does not exist. I believe that their anger reflects the idea that the atheists do not like the God we have. He does things that they do not like. In response, they say that God does not exist, but with an element of the anger that they feel toward him. Discussion of the existence of God among atheists and believers would be more productive if the atheists would just say that they are angry with God.

Al

Lepidopteryx and Wiccan,

Your comment and question are closely related.

Wiccan rightly asks why we ought to be held responsible for the sins of dimwits 6000 years ago. Lepidopteryx observes that we have no choice about the world into which we are born - this broken one.

The key to Wiccan's question is in Lepidopteryx's answer. "Original sin" is not the same as other kinds of sin. Sin in this sense is more generic: brokenness, damaged relationship. We are not responsible for original sin - it's not the sort of thing we can be responsible for. We are born into the situation.

When my parents were getting ready to buy a new car, I was going to get the ol' 1980-something Volvo stationwagon to take to college with me. Then my sister managed the unmanageable - she wrecked the thing. Why was I held responsible and deprived of the car I had been offered? Well, simply put, I wasn't held responsible, found guilty, distrusted, or punished. I just inherited a situation (a car) more broken than the one I had wanted and had been intended for me. Because the world is a real place, and when something bad happens, we cannot just press reset on the video controller and try again.

The world we have inherited is broken - if not by "Adam" and "Eve" then by somebody between them and us. But we don't need to worry about whether we should suffer for their sin... we do each of us do enough bad things to merit at least some of the crud we have to deal with. In fact, in my own life, I am at least 1/2 responsible for most of the damaged relationships I experience; I am almost entirely responsible for financial problems I have incurred; I am totally responsible for the harmful things I have done to my body... No need to blame Adam and Eve for those things, or get mad at someone else for breaking the world.

Why does the Post print Jacoby only on its web page, and allow "Axis of Evil" Gerson the luxury of the editorial page? This woman is GREAT.

Mark Eaton,

Those beleiving god exists only in your mind don't hate god, they just feel sorrow watching that much energy wasted on providing and accepting poor proofs about god existence and their tragical consecvences.

Many true non-believers see with same or even more sorrow the evil coming from too strong belief in non-existence of god.

It seems the kind of animal character each of us has can be even or soemtimes more important in determining our acts than the kind of belief or non-belief we have.

Mary C. said:
"Look, Brian, God is not interventionist."
===================
All Christians are taught that he is and that is why they pray.

I don't believe it either.

I am vexed as to why you would choose to publish a piece (very poorly done) from an atheist in 'on faith.' The author does nothing to neither enhance nor challenge my faith in this article. It seems to me that you are looking for provocative headlines, not 'thought provoking' authors writing articles that have some significance. So thoughtfully bankrupt, this article could have been written by my 8 year-old son. Stop the disgraceful commentaries and give us something to think about!

In the book of Job, it is clear that (bad) things happen to good people. We know that even from our own experiences. However, Job's story also makes clear that God is at work and has a plan for each of us, whether we can understand why these things happen or not and whether we understand God's dealings with us or not.

I choose to believe that there is a God as a matter of faith ... not as a matter of passivity. Natural disasters and other (good and bad) things happen (Matthew 5:45), and I am not best positioned to answer the question "why". However, I don't take any joy in knowing that others suffer. I am thankful that God cares for me and blesses me by sparing me from some of the "bad" things that happen in this world. And I take great comfort in knowing that He has promised a place in heaven for me and for all those who believe in Him (John 3:16; John 14:3).

God is not the author of evil but rather good as described in the creation story (Genesis 1).

There are consequences for our actions and the exercise of our free will. And as part of the exercise of my free will, I choose to love God and desire to go to heaven, making a commitment by faith to a loving, caring, and all-knowing God. My challenge to all who read this is the challenge Joshua laid out to the children of Israel, "... choose this day whom you will serve ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). In love ...

"If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him...."

Unbelievable. Be assured, Ms. Jacoby, that a deity is not responsible for human evil or anything else we bring on ourselves. What an uneducated statement.

Who allows this cynical secularist time on here anyway?

That was me just now.

Hey J:

Your argument is so typical of atheists. Completely mixed up.

First you said I was wrong to believe in the unproven. Then you said you were right not to believe in it.

Get straight.

If you insist on believing only what you can test, even though you are not all-knowing, then I should be able to believe in what I can't test. After all, it isn't "belief" unless its unprovable. We don't "believe" the sun exists. We know it.

Belief is a very well established and logical idea. It is based on the idea that human knowledge is limited. This is a fundamental principle in all science and philosophy.

People who deny that their limited knowledge might have left out something important have every right to be scared.

I would only change the last sentence by substituting her for him and mistress for master.

Hey Jerusalemight,

So what you're saying is because an athiest doesn't buy into your "what if machine" you think say she is afraid of something?

My friend, this is just the nuttiest reasoning I've heard of late.

Your god idea cannot be disproven, nor can it be proven. Someones disbelief in such an idea cannot be taken as proof of fear.

I believe what I can test. I hit the button the light goes on, I repeat this 10 times, and each time the light goes on. I conclude that the button controls the light. You tell me god controls the light, I have no proof, neither do you. I'll stick with the button theory until I have better proof of something else.

Your idea about "What ifs" is sheer fantasy, which I enjoy greatly mind you (nothing like a good story), but let's not run our lives, our countries, or our world on such nonsense.

We have far too much power in our very human hands to throw rational thought out the window.

Let's do what we can to prepare for or prevent those future natural disasters and leave the "What ifs" to the fiction writers.

'unless you believe that God gave wind, water, and rocks free will.'

You'd be surprised ! How was Jesus able to calm the storms ?

There is a voice an ancient voice (from the days of Abraham) that cries from the desert "Les innocent vont payer pour les coupable..." that's french for "the innocent are going to pay for the guilty's mistakes "

Maybe if they could reason, we could ask Mother Nature and all her creatures, how they feel about man.

'unless you believe that God gave wind, water, and rocks free will.'

You'd be surprised ! How was Jesus able to calm the storms ?

There is a voice an ancient voice (from the days of Abraham) that cries from the desert "Les innocent vont payer pour les coupable..." that's french for "the innocent are going to pay for the guilty's mistakes "

If they could reason we could ask Nature and all her creatures how they feel about man.

How simple.

If you assume--as Jacoby does--that this physical world is all there is to life, then of course people who believe in God confront immense contradictions every day.

But try to tell an atheist that there is more to life than meets the eye. They cover their ears and shout "La la la!"

Jacoby won't face the obvious question.

What if...just what if!...there was more. What if God had a way to justify any suffering, by counterbalancing it in some way that we don't see now. After all, we are used to such ideas. Accepting deferred gratification is basis of maturity.

If there is some deferred gratification in our lives. If there is some connection we make to God that lasts eternally somehow. Then all her unanswerable questions can be answered by any first-grader.

Jacoby knows this. That's why she writes in circles around the idea of deferred gratification in this world. That's why she won't face it head on.

I think she's afraid to...

Wow Ms. Jacoby, you have your work cut out for you here.

I have good news though, I am a big-time Theist and have recently had an excellent one-on-one discussion with God. Yep, he appeared to me as a burning Mac laptop.

He's given me some great news, God wants all of us believers to send Ms. Jacoby money. That's right, send her some cash. This he told me will help her to understand how cool he is, and that he's really very nice when not provoked. He feels she'll then start writing (once she's collected enough..uhm..evidence) about him.

So there you have it people, god has spoken through me.

What's that? You don't believe me? Why not?

You believe all those moron's who were wandering around out in the desert 2000 years ago smoking hasish. Why not me?!!

Well, if you don't believe me, a modern contemporary human like yourself, ask yourself why then you are so ready to believe those people from so far in our past?

Must be one of those mysteries of faith things.

Dear Susan,
The problem starts at the first statement.The whole concept of good and evil is flawed in that it comes from our own perspective.We want it to be rational when goodness is something that is essentially immeasurable. We put ourself out in front of the arbitration as rationalists yet our rationality fails us. And you are not alone in this because too many religious people do this also. We all want to put ourselves out in front. We demand to know why things happen and we think we can understand them in an entirely rational manner.
The amazing thing to me is that in some ways there is not much difference between atheists and believers when they feel they can rationally understand why things happen.We all want to become the arbiters.Thus your point on when good people from our perspective suffer in random events and we rejoice when God spares some yet others die. This too has bothered me.
Here is how I would explain what I can explain. Do you believe in goodness or rationality? They are not the same thing. Rationality as I understand it gives one precise measurement or precise definition. But both of these things fail in that all measurement and definition are tautologies. They become a secondary idea to what is being defined/measured.
And so reality as we define it becomes real via tautological thinking. We make a world that is one of constant motion and constant perception, one that requires measurable sensory input of different quanta, and we declare it all real. But again two errors are made. One is it comes from a human point of view and two it comes from a human point of view that man can ultimately figure everything out. But it is as Abraham Heschel once said that reason can only take one so far and that means it cannot be the sole basis of life. Reason and rationality have their place but too often it gives us confidence when in truth it should give us fear and trembling.
Unless we are willing to put this kind of discussion on the forefront we will be left with these two camps. One that is atheistic and hates that if there is a G-d that he has left us in a violent and terrible world where the innocent suffer more than the guilty. The other camp is one that feels it can believe in God and have heaven here on earth with their own kind of reasoning where good and evil are things that can be rationally explained.
I will stay with Heschel and Kierkegaard and Socrates. Learn the limits of human thought. Never have fear of the unknown. Death comes to us all and as Socrates once said ...why should you fear something you cannot understand? If you believe in things that are immeasurable then you can believe in eternity. And if you believe in goodness and justice then you can hope for an existence where it truly exists. Could it exist here? Only if we really were willing to face our limits.
Heschel's fear was that the human being only saw things from a human perspective. But we certainly had nothing to do with the creation of the universe.So who made it? You may think you can rationally figure it out via science and evolutionary study but you are fooling yourself. All things by their very nature can never be explained away. All information comes to us only via sensory input and thus we remain as Socrates saw things. We must know that we cannot know otherwise we are sophists.
Wittgenstein said that truly religious people never see life as tragedy. I agree with him. So many things we view as good turn out bad and visa versa. Have hope for better things but one must hope for something beyond mere sensory input. Who created it all? Rationality is by its own creation a kind of poem. I believe therefore that there is a poet and I kind of like the thought that if there is just one sliver of good in this crazy and mixed up world, then I should hold onto that with my whole being. I hear the same thing in you. It is all we have...

I'm so appreciative of the fact that atheists are now being heard. It's healthy.More murders, rapes, etc. have been committed in the name of religion or a god than any other cause. We need to rid ourselves of their terrible crimes.

right on! however, the is appears to me to be constant creation; makes me wonder if i am on some weird, wonderful carnival ride and death is merely the exit from the ride to my real existence. as for all the others, maybe the experience they get they chose. by now

It is the abandonment of all reason by defenders of their faiths which troubles me, leading me to doubt if reason can ever rule. God didn't put a dolt in the presidency--we did.

It is the abandonment of all reason by defenders of their faiths which troubles me, leading me to doubt if reason can ever rule. God didn't put a dolt in the presidency--we did.

amen

Probably because the topic is religion, the comments posted on this topic amply demonstrate the downside of blogging. In response to a reasoned if emotional commentary there are a series of poorly written, poorly argued, ugly, and demeaning posts. The rare nugget is buried in a mountain of inappropriate dross. That the postings must be loosely monitored is almost the only accurate observation in the entire sorry lot. Thanks, but I'd rather put myself at risk by reading the letters in The New York Times and The Nation. Even if I disagree at least they are polite, thoughtful and well written.

How dopey.
Whether you think we were created 6000 or 6 million years ago, we've still had ample time and opportunity to turn our world back into Eden. All those years of haggling and fighting and hating, when, as modern religion has always taught, we could have treated each other decently and reaped a harvest from peace. Just think how advanced our civilizations would be now had humanity learned how to cooperate with each other, instead of destroy each other.

No, the blame for bad things is probably on us. We simply can't be sure that a cure for cancer didn't die, along with the inventor's father, at Verdun, Nagasaki, or in the Nazi death camps.

i agree also,i would hate him.

i agree also,i would hate him.

i agree also,i would hate him.

In my religion “faith” is a word used to describe belief in a supreme being that is believed without proof. Some refer to it as a theological virtue.

Faith in something not proven is the not the private domain of my religion. Even though they can not prove it, some scientists believe that there is life somewhere else in the universe besides our planet earth. In fact, a great deal of time is being spent trying to find some evidence of what they believe. A mere drop of water on a distant planet would sustain their hope to find what they believe in faith. A great deal of time is also being spent trying to find the missing link that will prove conclusively that humans evolved from some other form of life.

The search for proof of things believed in faith is what scientists do. The only reason that people keep on searching is because they have faith in what they are searching for. Without faith they would stop looking. There is no need to search for evidence of that which is proven, and it is a waste of time for persons to search for that which they do not believe exists.

Atheists draw the line on faith when it comes to belief in a supreme being. I am not sure why they discriminate against this sort of faith. But they do. It is their right to be wrong I suppose. Of course I could be wrong and they could be right. The thing is if I am right they will miss much more than I will miss if I am wrong. It’s a gamble I suppose but I like the payoff odds.

So then, why does God (this Intelligent Designer) allow pain and tragedy and bad things to happen to his creation today? Why do humans suffer so often? Why are there earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters? What about disease and deformity. Death... why is there death, making life often miserable? Sometimes sudden and if not sudden or unexpected then oftentimes slow and painful? Agonizing to go through but perhaps just as agonizing to watch it.

And why do animals kill other animals in ways that appear to be so cruelly at times, grotesquely and harshly? These and other similar questions are legitimate questions that do deserve answers. I have stated I will offer my own opinions to these issues. I have thought about these things often. My own Father died at 38 years of age, when I was 15. It was a traumatic experience, one that I still remember and visit. It started as an aneurism, that when he went to the hospital went undetected until a week later. By then his kidney (was born with only one) as well as his intestines had suffered irreparable damage from lack of blood supply. He went in as a strong, muscular, healthy man, three weeks later he died, after incredible suffering. I was very close to my Dad. Yes these issues deserve answers.

Have I found these answers, which would give this Intelligent Creator some sort of acceptable "pass" so to speak, in my mind. Answers that would allow me to continue to love him, respect and give my worship to him despite these issues being very real and continually affecting people and life all over the world today? In my own case, as far as I am concerned, through my own searching, yes I have. I will share what works for me. This is not to persuade anybody on this board, but to simply state why I personally am satisfied with what I know.

There are several lines of reasoning that work in helping me to reconcile these two issues that A- "A Loving Intelligent Creator" that designed all life around us, with B- the reality of many undesirable things that we also have around us today.

For one thing, the bible does offer sound reasons to believe it is from a higher source than man, in my opinion as well as many others) makes the promise that ALL of these problems will be completely done away with permanently. Death, pain, mourning, crime, war, disease, old age, sickness, hatred, prejudice and many other things will be gone. The sea will no longer be agitated, the bible claims. If God is the Creator of the entire universe as well as all life on earth, then he also has the power and ability to put an end to these things causing so much pain and misery. The ability would certainly be there, if he is the Creator, and the scriptures tell the reader that this will become a reality. So for starters, regardless of WHY He allows these conditions to take place, there is a promise that these things will come to a PERMANENT END. This same principle applies with the animal kingdom as well. Regardless of just why the lion (for example) kills with such savagery, the bible says it will eat grass, just like the bull in an everlasting world. In fact all animals will become peaceful, it promises. That alone has a powerful impact for me and many others today. Does it really matter WHY God allows these animals, or these many other problems to exist today, if tomorrow there is assurance it will be completely removed? Especially if the "source" of these promises is one that offers sound reasons to believe them. The bible is that rare source in my honest opinion.

But let's discuss just WHY God may allow these situations to exist for a moment anyway. While it is true that nobody enjoys suffering, pain and the like, it is also true that these conditions can help develop desirable qualities in the individuals that experience them. In fact the bible says that Jesus learned obedience and other desirable qualities through his difficult times and sufferings while on the earth. *If* God is the Creator of all things, and if he allowed his only begotten son to take the beatings and persecution that he did, then obviously some good can be the result by allowing these less than desirable situations to exist today as well.

In support of this, James Chapter 1:2-4 tells the reader, "to consider it all joy when you meet with various trials, knowing that this tested quality of your faith works out endurance. But let endurance have its work complete, that YOU may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything." So once again we can see some value in God's eyes by allowing trialsome conditions and situations to exist. Just because we humans may not fully understand exactly WHY God has allowed certain things to take place, does not mean that he does not exist at all. This may be some kind of opportunity for humans to gain an inner strength, perhaps a greater appreciation for when life is better, free from all these problems plaguing mankind. When I had a very serious staph infection earlier last year, I was scared for a few days. When I knew I made it out of the woods I was really happy to be alive. My appreciation had grown through that experience. The existence of these problems however does not just automatically discount or deny God's own existence. At least not in my mind.

Furthermore, if the bible is true, it does say the first human couple desired independence from their Creator. They said they could decide for themselves what was right, wrong, good and bad, without God. Perhaps God did allow the earth to be inhabited without any intervention for a period of time. God may be simply allowing man to govern himself, and we can all see the results of this feeble attempt. We are told He will not allow these conditions to continue indefinitely however. But that explanation does have merit. It may be painful during this time, but in the end the issue will be settled once and for all.

The fact too is that despite these negative conditions around us at times, most people do want to LIVE anyway.

Life does have value even today. That's why we usually seek treatment if something goes wrong medically. It's why we snap on our seat-belt, and make our kids do the same. It's why we workout, watch our cholesterol, get enough sleep, take vitamins and many other things because there is still much more GOOD when it comes to life than there is the negative for most people today. It's not ALL bad and rotten and miserable. I enjoyed a wonderful swim in the ocean today. Beautiful turquoise waters on a white sandy beach, all alone. A really nice tropical salad as well for dinner. Playing with my dogs can be a blast. Having pleasant conversation with friends, my wife or son is valuable and often enjoyable. Today one of my best friends from years ago and his family arrived for a visit from Ca. How nice to be able to catch up on how he's doing, to show him some of my personal swimming holes, play some sports, eat a nice fat steak or whatever else we feel like doing. Life is not all bad, as some might have people believing. And again, if God does exist, he certainly can take away these other things that bring us down.

And there is a promise that he will do just that. If the bible holds no value for you whatsoever, then there is still the possibility that this life will only take us into a better life, something perhaps even blissful.

The bible also talks about a wicked, powerful unseen spirit force that God allows to influence the earth, In fact, it says that he was hurled down to the earth by God's own son. Again, why would God want this wicked influence on the earth? Possibly because it allows us to be tested, to develop endurance, and for some perhaps to even find God. Once again the very encouraging answer to that wicked influence of a devil, to all of the other ailments affecting mankind including death, the brutal animal kingdom and too many other things to list here is that God says he will bring all of these problems to an end once and for all. For me, such a promise coming from the one that created all things, is something I can see as becoming a reality. It is not some fairy-tale hope, in my mind. It is believable and logical. And it sure sounds better and more plausible than the alternative some believe; that all life just happened on its own, with no governing force whatsoever for all of the complexities of what we see around us. There is no hope of a better future. No chance of anything wonderful. A dog eat dog world where even the dogs that win have no future whatsoever. Survival of the fittest with the fittest have nothing to look forward to but permanent death. A bleak, dark no hope kind of existence. Not too much to get excited about with a life and hope like this.

So in conclusion, there are also many possible reasons why he allows the problems to exist today. Helps us develop greater appreciation for life and health and even for God. Develops endurance, faith and other positive qualities. He is allowing man to govern himself for all to see the results firsthand. Humans are moved to think spiritually, to look for an answer to these issues when faced with these issues. Prepares us for something better. Draws communities and people closer together. But regardless of exactly why he does allow these problems to exist, there is sound reason to believe his promises that soon ALL of these plagues will be removed once and for all by God himself. Those words are repeated over and over again in the bible. So even if I did not know why he allows the miserable parts of life to exist, I can be comforted that it will soon be gone. That is something I believe in and believe in with great confidence. It is a worthy hope in my mind. And it sure beats anything else I've heard up to this point, on this board, or in my life!

All the best -Vinny

Unbelievable!!! The Jihadist now returns minus her appendix. She also notes "Am putting out quite a sum for civil lawyers for the Malaysian blogs/sites I help fund. Malaysian readers are now quite prone to sue blog owners, managers, and writers for what is written in the blogs, even by readers/posters of the blogs/sites. "

And what "pray tell" Jihadist are the addresses of these blogs/sites you help fund? We would all like to tune into these to see if they are supporting peace in the world to include the condemnation of the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Or do these blogs/sites address the flaws in the foundations in Islam and its founder, the "holey not holy hallucinator"???

Again one is reminded of those famous lines:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

Well, you may get your wish. Har, just kidding. Who really knows. But I do feel somewhat similar, I'm not an atheist, but I think about boxers figures who thank God for their victory... that one always cracks me up. Like God was up there saying, well Oscar prayed more but Felix prayed harder. What to do, what to do.

But basically what you have described is a small amount of ignorance... more of a reaction to attitudes than any real discounting of the existence of God. My mother would have a hard time relating the principles of quantum physics to me, but it doesn't mean that quantum physics isn't real.

There is more here... but whatever... best wishes.

I truly admire the courage contained in the last words of your essay. These words are, "If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him. I would prefer to go to hell rather than to make bargains with such a cruel, capricious Master of the Universe." As an atheist myself, I am still a little afraid to go that far. What if I'm wrong? But I guess I need more courage of my convictions. Thanks for the article.

I was a bit taken aback with Jihadist's comments at first. What a reasoned approach! However it soon dawned on me that with his version of God all religions are invalid. So, same result. Good show!

>>The only answer offered by believers is that God gives man free will and that it is our fault--not God's--when bad things happen to good people. This is not an answer at all because it does not address the question of why the innocent should suffer for the exercise of "free will" by the guilty.<<

Ms. Jacoby:

The argument put forth in this little story is admittedly the same as the one you have already discounted above, but maybe it offers a different perspective than you have heard before. Maybe not. It does not specifically address the issue of natural disasters (except possibly, indirectly, in one small portion) -- that is for another essay. I submit it for your and your readers' consideration...

“You, God, cannot exist. And even if you did, I would not worship you! Those stupid Christians, they say you are all-Powerful? You are all-Knowing, all-Loving, and all-Good? How many of them have proclaimed that to their deaths? They don’t see the immediate contradiction. How can that be? How can you allow such incredible evil to take place in this world of yours??? Either you are not powerful enough to stop it, or if you are, you are not good enough to want to do so. Worship that?! NEVER!!! Where were you when 6 million Jews (supposedly your people) were murdered by Hitler and the Nazis? Where were you when countless millions were terrorized and executed under Stalin and the Communist Party? Do you see the misery of the citizens of North Korea right now? Do you see the civil wars in Africa that are killing still more millions and tearing those nations apart? Do you see it?? Why did you let psychos fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters? What are you doing when you watch murderers and rapists at their ghastly work? Could you do nothing for the little girl who was enduring yet another session with her tormentor before he finally discarded her and left her in the woods for the animals? Or is it that you simply wouldn’t? Did she do anything to deserve that? It seems to me if I had the power to stop something evil from happening – and chose not to – that would make me complicit in the evil. Would I not be guilty as well? So are you an evil God? Quasi-evil, then? Maybe you’re not all that bad, you just aren’t all that good either, and you simply lack the power to stop evil? Or the most basic, most simple answer of all is the one that turns out to be true. You simply don’t exist….If you are there, I would have you tell me! If you are there, how can you allow such things to happen?”

What would you have me do about it?**

“Ah! What was that?”

I said, What would you have me do about it?

“About what, evil?”

Yes.

“Well, stop it, of course!”

All of it or just some of it?

“Hmmm, all of it, I guess.”

Then every single human being would cease to exist.

“Ok, then only some of it, the WORST kinds. The Holocaust, and other stuff like it for example.”

How would you like me to do that?

“I don’t know, you’re the God here, not me.”

You are the one complaining about how I do my job, so how should I get rid of the “worst” kinds of evil?

“Well, get rid of the really bad people, the ones who are responsible and cause human atrocities.”

You mean you want me to kill them, end their lives?

“Sure, why not, they have forfeited their rights to live.”

Should I kill them before or after they have done their evil deeds?

“I don’t see the sense in letting them carry out their evil plans, so before.”

And when they come before my Judgment Seat, shall I hold them responsible for evil deeds that they did not commit?

“They would have.”

But they didn’t and won’t know what they didn’t do wrong.

“I guess that could pose a problem.”

Yes it does. What about numbers? How many people does somebody have to murder before I kill them?

“Well, clearly several million is enough. Probably 1,000 is enough too.”

What about one? What about the person who only ever murders one person in his or her life, but that one person is your wife, or your daughter, or your son? Is one murder enough for me to intervene?

“I guess I would want you to intervene in that case, too.”

So all murderers are out. What about rapists? Should I kill them too before they rape?

“Yeah, kill all the rapists too.”

How about liars, cheats, and thieves? The top officers of Enron, for example, who stole millions of dollars and destroyed the life-savings and therefore the lives of thousands of people.

“I don’t know, that’s kinda bad, maybe.”

Have you ever stolen anything, ever lied, ever cheated?

“You know I have.”

So you want me to kill you now?

“No, of course not! You have to draw the line somewhere!”

Ah, so the problem becomes one of where to draw the line. Do such and such sin, and I kill you. Do something that’s just a touch less offensive, and you live. Most people will be telling me to draw the line just above their heads.

“Maybe you don’t have to kill them, just prevent them from doing the evil.”

So you want me to interfere with free will?

“Yes, when it’s appropriate!”

Now that we’re not killing people any longer, when is it appropriate for Me to prevent someone from hurting someone else?

“When it’s really hurtful.”

What’s really hurtful?

“Ok, fine, when it’s hurtful.”

So basically, anytime someone is about to hurt someone else by sinning, I should prevent them from doing it?

“Yes.”

And now you have just destroyed free will. You have created a world of automatons, who act and do only good because they are unable to do evil. But good can only exist if evil exists also, for without evil there is no good. And by taking evil out of this world you have also taken away good. Now you have created a world without charity, without mercy, hope, kindness, or love. You have created a world devoid of emotion, like the inner workings of a computer, which behaves in one way only because no other way is possible.

I created human beings to Love me, not to act loving toward me because they have no other choice, but to Truly Love me. When someone loves me, he does great acts of good and righteousness for others and the world and in doing that brings Glory to Me. But the only way for a person to truly love me, is if that person has the choice to not love me. There is no other way. When someone chooses to love himself over Me, it produces within himself selfishness, pride, rage, ambition, and greed. Satisfying these desires becomes his driving force, at the expense of other peoples’ happiness and well-being. This is the source of 90% of the evil in this world, and is what drives a person to commit atrocious acts of evil against his fellow humans.

I chose to create this world so you would know the supreme joy that comes from Love, and Purity, Holiness, Charity, Righteousness and Faith. Unfortunately you would not truly understand these if you did not also know Evil, and I have chosen to allow you to know and experience both, rather than know and experience neither. But I am All-Loving, All-Powerful, All-Wise, All-Knowing, and All-Good, and in the long-term I take evil situations and turn them into good. You wish I would act sooner, but I see further than you see. You experience the pain of the dentist’s chair to fix a toothache. The mother cleans her baby’s wound with alcohol so that it doesn’t become infected. The dentist and the mother cause pain to their charges, but it is temporary and ultimately for their good. In the same way, if you trust Me, I will carry you through the difficult, painful times to the other side where goodness and righteousness abound. But you must Trust Me. If it means the end of your life, you will be in Paradise and never experience pain again. In this way my servants have sacrificed their lives for my Name, because they have Known me, and in doing this have brought glory to themselves and to Me.

If you are still having trouble believing in Me, the very fact that you use the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ implies the existence of a higher moral authority than yourself. Animals are not ‘good’ or ‘evil’, they just are. Sharks, tigers, black widows, scorpions do not commit evil acts, they just live on instinct. But I have sealed inside of you a moral code that transcends simple instinct. You attach the word “good” to some acts and “evil” to others. In this way you are made “in the image of God,” a moral being. Without this moral code that I gave you, you would simply act on instinct as all the other created beings in the universe act, and the ideas of good and evil would never even enter your mind. Do you see how what you call the “most basic, most simple answer – that I don’t exist” is actually the hardest one to justify? Get rid of Me and you will find it impossible to adequately answer other questions about the universe, life, and human nature. But you haven’t asked those questions so I won’t trouble you with those right now. You’ll come to them when it’s time.

“So what does all this mean for me?”

Seek Me out in faith, put your Trust in Me, do good, fight against evil, love your fellow man as you love yourself.

“How do I do that?”

I’ll teach you.

**DISCLAIMER: I did not want this dialogue to be between two men, the atheist/agnostic and the Christian who attempts a defense of his religion, but between the Accuser and his God. I was therefore forced to make a very feeble attempt to put words into the mouth of God. For certain it is a poor attempt, and if it were truly God speaking – if He chose to speak – He would cut straight to the heart of the matter with swift and perfect words. I apologize in advance for my shortcomings, and for the imperfect words I have put into God’s mouth.

If you found the ideas presented in this dialogue interesting and want to look into them more, I suggest The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel as a good starting point. As always, C.S. Lewis is much more eloquent than I am, and talks about pain and life’s trials in The Problem of Pain.

The worst thing about the delusional passivity of faith is not ignoring the indifference of nature but ignoring true forces of harm that we might otherwise mitigate if we used our reasoning abilities. We might ask, What genetic quirks cause murderers and other destructive humans to wreck their horrors upon us? What mass behaviors are tipping the scales of our planet into drought and other climate disasters? Why not use discarded embryos to save my child from diabetes? By accepting destruction and evil as normal and even necessary we fulfill the stories we've created about our own doom. Perhaps delusional self destruction is indeed found our genes. Apparently we are are racing to destroy ourselfs before we figure it out.

How utterly refreshing to read Susan Jacoby. I have a sneaky feeling alot of politicians are really atheists but know to how to court a religious base by playing the "god game." Susan's logic is real and renewing, much more so then most preacher's sermons.

I certainly love her last line. It shows the humanity and bravery that religious people seek.

More than 200 years ago Votaire showed the absurdity of the "it happened for a reason" argument in his novel Candide. How can anyone truly believe that the Holocaust happened for some reason? On the contrary, the fear, hatred, revenge and insanity that stirred up that horror is still causing death and destruction in Isreal and Palestine today.

The worst thing about the delusional passivity of faith is not ignoring the indifference of nature but ignoring true forces of harm that we might otherwise mitigate if we used our reasoning abilities. We might ask, What genetic quirks cause murderers and other destructive humans to wreck their horrors upon us? What mass behaviors are tipping the scales of our planet into drought and other climate disasters? Why not use discarded embryos to save my child from diabetes? By accepting destruction and evil as normal and even necessary we fulfill the stories we've created about our own doom. Perhaps delusional self destruction is indeed found our genes. Apparently we are are racing to destroy ourselfs before we figure it out.

YoYo,

FALSE

I am an agnostic, but unlike Ms Jacoby I would not hate a God who was 'responsible' for 'human evil and impersonal natural disasters', because thinking in such a way is so anthropocentric. I also have little time for believers who regard faith as a vehicle for their succour and self-advancement. Nature/Creation is awesome in the true and full sense of the word; fierce and terribly but sublimely beautiful. It encompasses things that evoke in the human mind/spirit both great joy and great grief. If there is a God, He/She/It presumably reflects the universe in all of its glory, not just the 'nice' bits, and He/She/It is the greater (not lesser) for it.

Only politicians need evil forces. Everyone else has politicians to blame.

Rungus

Thought provoking stuff in that excellent essay of yours.
A great read,sure hit home with this old dude.

Custom and law defined religion,not some inner knowledge of truth,
or some rational argument for truth.
Sense experience and reason tell us nothing of god,
and so we should simply believe.
Of course if we cannot know of god through reason,
we cannot know anything about religion either.
We have a religion because we happen to have
been born in a country where it was in practice.
We are taught something therefore we believe it.
Even when its gibberish.
If we lived somewhere else,we'd believe something else.
True or false?

Mr. Mark

Your post sharing how you deal with life and death situations was painful reading, went back several times to it, nevertheless.

I did not respond immediately as your personal experience reminds me of my mother-in-law's own battle with breast cancer which took her away, and my own sister's miscarraige. And I'm in hospital witnessing many concerned or distraught families over their loved sick ones.

My late mother-in-law and my sister read specific Suras of the Qur'an, and ask us to read them along with them. It calmed and focussed everyone when there's nothing more for the doctors to do, can do and say, and we too. It became a contemplative acceptance of one's fate and to move on as the family resign to the fact that there are just things beyond our control regardless of our best efforts.

Best regards
J

The existance of God has always fasinated me. I feel sadness and jealousy at people who believe in a God. Sadness because to me its a delusion I can't seem to accept and jealousy because they believe in something that gives them confort and joy.

5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Rich in PA - if there is a designer of the universe, how does Jesus of Nazareth have to fit in?

Mr Mark - thanks for telling about your family's trials. I haven't had anything like that - before or after becoming an atheist.

Recently I felt a bad cold coming on - during vacation. In the past I'd say "Please God, not now" knowing full well God should have better things to do that enhance my vacation experience. This time I just said "NO, damn it, not on my vacation!" and the cold never materialized. A miracle?

Hermit - Good. Stick around. I'm not going anywhere either.Notice that it always believer telling non-believera to go away. Never the other way around, that I recall.WHy is that?

Once upon a time there was a serial killer of children loose in Birch County, Arkansas. His M.O. was to drive his white SUV up behind a child walking home along a rural road, snatch the child, take her to a secluded spot in the woods, bind her with duct tape, then rape her and strangle her to death. He had killed five children in this manner and was still at large.

It was hunting season. Joe Blank had was in a blind concealed above ground in a tree, armed with his rifle and carrying his cell phone. He saw a man drive into a clearing in a white SUV, take a child out of the back seat, and begin to bind her with duct tape. Joe, having heard about the killer on the TV news, knew that he was watching the Birch County Butcher at work. He had clear shot at the killer, but he did not shoot. He could have called the police on his cell phone, but the phone stayed in his pocket. He could of yelled to scare off the killer, but he remained silent. Joe remained in his perch and watched the killer rape and strangle the little girl.

Joe didn't create the evil in the Birch County Butcher, who used his free will to become a serial killer. But given Joe's inaction when he knew about and and had the power to stop the killer, do you admire him? Do you find his conduct even remotely moral? Would you defend him when accused by the dead child's parents (and, if the system is working well, the law) of passive complicity in murder? If you answer yes to all these questions, then you may well wish to worship a (hypothetical) deity who stood by and watched the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Rwanda massacres, and on and on, without lifting a single metaphorical finger to stop the killers.

As to faith, I leave you with an untitled Emily Dickinson quatrain on the subject:

"Faith is a fine invention
When gentlemen can see,
But microscopes are prudent
In an emergency."

Religion is for those who are weak and/or afraid. Too weak and/or too afraid to stare into the the void and accept the truth that there is not one tiny thread of evidence that any religion is anything but wishful thinking. But hey, I can't blame them. I feel weak and/or afraid most of the time too.

Dear Jihadist,

Sorry to hear you appendix had to go. You may not feel like eating right now, but a big plate of Pasta Carbonara might provide the comfort food that cures all pain.

Personally, I'd say that the existence of the Christian God *as advertised* is a far more remote possibility than '50/50' ...and doesn't necessarily stop kids from being raped or locked in cars.

It's a bit of a downside to our egalitarian American ideals that we tend to treat all ideas as of equal merit, as if it really *were* how Christians consruct it: "Our God and all that comes with it, or no God"

False equivalency, never mind the odds.

Does disaster-we-could-have-prevented-or-ameliorated-if-we-were-paying-attention mean there are no Gods?

No.

Does it mean some were sold a bill of goods on what and who to obey? Unfortunately, yes.

Unfortunately, the idea that, as the commercials that keep coming on my TV sing, "God is In Control" ...both lets us ...if it doesn't *force us...* to get blindsided by disasters, and leaves it on the victims to try and deal with the sense of desolation and find solace in the face of contradictions.

Too much of Christianity in America 'loves a winner.' It's no wonder they can't admit people lose on their faith-based gambling games, or acknowledge the humanity of those who did.

Let's not forget, when Katrina happened, all these people could say was how gangers looting meant the city deserved it... In fact, how when white people were photographed salvaging from grocery stores, they were 'retrieving supplies' but when black people did the same thing, they were 'looting.'

Self serving to say it's a 'tribulation' if you get more Christian about it, but not if you say, "Hey, I thought this was America or something. You were warned this would happen and did nothing, now lookit us!"

It's not really about your God, or *any* God, like that.

If it is, you oughtta reexamine your 'God vote.'

Bush was talking how his God told him to invade Iraq, and how smooth that'd go, so don't question his decision or ability to deal...

Look where that got us.

Mr Mark - In fact, we were surprised to learn that a full 25% of pregnancies don't go to term (I guess they don't tell you that until after you've fallen into that 25%).

In the following, I'm not making light of your loss.

One of the big hot-button issues for the Christian Right is abortion and the killing of babies (i.e.souls). What they fail to understand is that God is the biggest abortionist of all. I guess if you make the rules, you can break them too.

The biology of miscarriage and developmental abnormalities is becoming more fully understood. The genetic interests of the mother, father, and offspring do not always align. This generates conflict among the party's involved that play out at the molecular level, sometimes resulting in genetically induced abnormalities and/or embryonic failure.

This is kinda like the man who goes to the Amazon and finds a previously unknown animal and calls his friend back in the States to share the news, but the friend says that he knows that this animal could not possibly exist.

Does the friend's response cause this animal and the man's experience to instantly vaporize into thin air? Not really.

I myself have experienced the 'Christian' God during my lifetime and have been part of large groups of people who have experienced God in supernatural ways/miracles. God's existence is not a debate for me and for many many people on this planet and I have nothing to prove to anyone. A few years ago, an atheist fellow said this, "The existence of God is a 50:50 proposition. I would rather live my life with an open mind and find out in the end that there is no God, than close myself to the possibility and in the end find out that there is a God."

Do I understand everything that happens in the world? No, I don't. Do I have a problem with innocent children being raped or left forgotten to die in hot cars etc? Yes, I do.

Does our not understanding, or our disagreement with, the bad things in life cause God to instantly vaporize into thin air? Not really.

Let's assume jerry and pat actually believe the crap that comes out their mouth, that most of their followers believe it too, why not? That's what they say, let's give them the benefit of the - dare I say it - doubt.

It sounds that they believe their god is going to destroy all of us, not just them, because of the apostasies and heresies and blasphemies and sins and all that. The homosexuals and the feminists and the atheists are, by their mere existence, going to be the death of us all.

Maybe they want to make homosexuals, feminists, and atheists illegal? Eating shellfish while menstruating, adultry, disrespect for parents, divorce ... if these things were made illegal, then their god would be able to tell the difference between the true believers and the sinners because we would all be in jail! or executed, maybe even stoned and then beheaded.

Hell, the taliban executed men for not having a long enough beard.

This is why religion is evil. If the religious types could keep it to themselves and condemn us from afar, we'd all be alot happier wouldn't we?
But they can't keep it to themselves. The have to force it on the unbeliever, they always have and they always will. This is what makes religion a social disease.

Dear Soozy Sunshine,

I worked in the call center as a volunteer helping mobilize other volunteers during the Katrina disaster. People from my church have since gone down to help rebuild and clean up with their own hands.

Tell us, did you do anything helpful? Or did you just blame God while the rest of us worked?

I didn't read all the posts but I did read the essay. And I have been using the word "capricious" in conversation with others on this topic for a while too. Even with free will, one has to look at the state of the world and reach that interpretation about God's plan.

The posts I did read seem to miss some of the teachings in the Bible at least that command believers to follow the will of God, maintain the Sabbath and so forth. In other words to worship God completely. The penalty for not doing so is death by stoning, by the way. Well, I too believe that God is capricious and frankly not worthy of affection, or for that matter belief. I make this decision freely knowing that I should be stoned to death for this belief. Still, there it is. It is a very freeing belief and I appreciate those who say that not having to think about God's "will" settles many things, or at least doesn't burden them when grief strikes. As for death and an afterlife; I am confident I'll achieve the former but have my serious doubts about the latter.

If a believer were to respond to this post saying that the proscription in the bible for stoning is metaphorical, or out dated, or in some other fashion not meant for me, I would only ask that they then review their entire belief system and question what if any of it has any validity. One either believes it all, as written and taught, or does not, in my estimation. 100% Faith, or 0%.

One other niggling thought as I go out on this limb. The Bible describes adultery as including the case of a man marrying a divorced woman. The punishment for this is death by strangulation. How many people who post on this list conveniently interpret this in a way that is more agreeable? My point is this. If the teachings of God seem arbitrary, then perhaps God is not worthy of our affections as the author pointed out so well.

Maurie Beck:

Ah, theological meteorology (or is it meteorological theology?). A long lost art.

Although theological, or Biblical, meteorology has largely been abandoned by mainstream Christian denominations, it was a thriving area of religious study and practice (just below the burning of witches) in which natural disasters were often thought to provide the means for God (or gods) to punish sinners and other apostates.

Perhaps the demise of theological meteorology was Ben Franklin's fault. After he invented the lightning rod in 1752, the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755 (November 18) knocked down buildings in Boston. The Reverend Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, suggested that by stealing god's thunder, Franklin's invention forced god to resort to cruder, less precise means, such as the earthquake, to send sinners below below below, gone to where the goblins go.

As an aside, the great Lisbon Quake of 1755 (November 1) struck on a Catholic holiday (All Saints Day) and destroyed almost every important church. For eighteenth-century theology and philosophy, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain. In Voltaire’s Candide, the hero barely survives the quake and the priests’ subsequent auto de fe’s to purify poor Lisbon, making a mockery of the idea that everything happens for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Nowadays, religiously inspired terrorism also provides the means for true believers to punish unbelievers, apostates, and blasphemers in the name of god, whereas the true believers who have been terrorized often blame it not only on the infidel fanatics, but on a wrathful god punishing their society for its sinful ways.

Days after Sept. 11, 2001, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson initially blamed feminists, gays, lesbians and liberal groups for bringing on the terrorist attacks. On May 8, 2006, Pat Robertson said, "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms." On May 17, 2006 he elaborated, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." Presumably the target would be liberal coffee drinkers in Seattle. I'm sure the bridge collapse in Minneapolis was God’s way of expressing his disappointment and reminding Minnesotans not to vote Democratic in the 2008 presidential elections.

One would think that God, being the omnipotent sort, would be a lot more competent in offing abominations, blasphemers, and heretics. However, whenever He acts, there seems to be a lot of collateral damage. Although I'm a lousy shot, even I could dispatch a blasphemer with relative ease. Especially since I'd only have to shoot myself.

September 5, 2007 10:06 PM

"If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him."

Susan, you hate everybody else, so why would God be the only exception?

Reading through these varous posts reminds me of the many times I have questioned my own faith and the existence of a merciful and loving God. Sometimes when I look upon the natural world, where life and death comes so arbitrarily and in a cycle of almost planned obsolescence, my faith in a Supreme Being becomes a bit shakey. Why should we believe that there is a God who has singled us out for any different treatment than all other forms of life on earth that come and go like the leaves of a tree?

I believe in the things that my Catholic faith tells me that Jesus of Nazareth stood for - Love, compassion and forgiveness. I truly want to believe that he is there for us and that we will be with him in Paradise as he promised the criminal who was crucified along side him. But then those doubts creep in which only depresses me because it removes a deep hope that we all have for something more than the pain and disappointment of this world.

Ultimately, though, it is again nature that brings me back to my faith and belief in God. I look at the universe and I ask myself one question - why is it there? Why are there stars and planets? Where did the star dust from which we are all made come from? It had to have a beginning somewhere, sometime. It just could not exist forever and then periodically coalesce into a big bang.

Even if there was a big bang, the material that went into the big bang had to have a source of existence. Where did all the stuff that makes up the universe come from?? Something had to bring this stuff into existence and I believe that something is an all powerful force of the universe we call God. God created the universe and he (she) allows it to move and operate in a natural way, whether that natural way be the creation of a destructive hurricane, or of cancer cells in the human body.

The principles of love, compassion and forgiveness are also concepts that, like the universe, have enduring power. The lessons handed down by Jesus in the New Testament, and the wisdom set forth in so many other parts of Scripture, lead to the conclusion that much of it had to be inspired by a supernatural being of great power and wisdom who watches over us and cares about us. The lessons are so profound and wise that it makes one believe that they had to orginate with a higer power. The Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the parables of Jesus - they are so inspirational and seem to come from what could only be a divine source.

Reading through these varous posts reminds me of the many times I have questioned my own faith and the existence of a merciful and loving God. Sometimes when I look upon the natural world, where life and death comes so arbitrarily and in a cycle of almost planned obsolescence, my faith in a Supreme Being becomes a bit shakey. Why should we believe that there is a God who has singled us out for any different treatment than all other forms of life on earth that come and go like the leaves of a tree?

I believe in the things that my Catholic faith tells me that Jesus of Nazareth stood for - Love, compassion and forgiveness. I truly want to believe that he is there for us and that we will be with him in Paradise as he promised the criminal who was crucified along side him. But then those doubts creep in which only depresses me because it removes a deep hope that we all have for something more than the pain and disappointment of this world.

Ultimately, though, it is again nature that brings me back to my faith and belief in God. I look at the universe and I ask myself one question - why is it there? Why are there stars and planets? Where did the star dust from which we are all made come from? It had to have a beginning somewhere, sometime. It just could not exist forever and then periodically coalesce into a big bang.

Even if there was a big bang, the material that went into the big bang had to have a source of existence. Where did all the stuff that makes up the universe come from?? Something had to bring this stuff into existence and I believe that something is an all powerful force of the universe we call God. God created the universe and he (she) allows it to move and operate in a natural way, whether that natural way be the creation of a destructive hurricane, or of cancer cells in the human body.

The principles of love, compassion and forgiveness are also concepts that, like the universe, have enduring power. The lessons handed down by Jesus in the New Testament, and the wisdom set forth in so many other parts of Scripture, lead to the conclusion that much of it had to be inspired by a supernatural being of great power and wisdom who watches over us and cares about us. The lessons are so profound and wise that it makes one believe that they had to orginate with a higer power. The Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the parables of Jesus - they are so inspirational and seem to come from what could only be a divine source.

Reading through these varous posts reminds me of the many times I have questioned my own faith and the existence of a merciful and loving God. Sometimes when I look upon the natural world, where life and death comes so arbitrarily and in a cycle of almost planned obsolescence, my faith in a Supreme Being becomes a bit shakey. Why should we believe that there is a God who has singled us out for any different treatment than all other forms of life on earth that come and go like the leaves of a tree?

I believe in the things that my Catholic faith tells me that Jesus of Nazareth stood for - Love, compassion and forgiveness. I truly want to believe that he is there for us and that we will be with him in Paradise as he promised the criminal who was crucified along side him. But then those doubts creep in which only depresses me because it removes a deep hope that we all have for something more than the pain and disappointment of this world.

Ultimately, though, it is again nature that brings me back to my faith and belief in God. I look at the universe and I ask myself one question - why is it there? Why are there stars and planets? Where did the star dust from which we are all made come from? It had to have a beginning somewhere, sometime. It just could not exist forever and then periodically coalesce into a big bang.

Even if there was a big bang, the material that went into the big bang had to have a source of existence. Where did all the stuff that makes up the universe come from?? Something had to bring this stuff into existence and I believe that something is an all powerful force of the universe we call God. God created the universe and he (she) allows it to move and operate in a natural way, whether that natural way be the creation of a destructive hurricane, or of cancer cells in the human body.

The principles of love, compassion and forgiveness are also concepts that, like the universe, have enduring power. The lessons handed down by Jesus in the New Testament, and the wisdom set forth in so many other parts of Scripture, lead to the conclusion that much of it had to be inspired by a supernatural being of great power and wisdom who watches over us and cares about us. The lessons are so profound and wise that it makes one believe that they had to orginate with a higer power. The Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the parables of Jesus - they are so inspirational and seem to come from what could only be a divine source.

Oops.... the Prayer for the Natural Order was submitted by me.

Would you please run some other "freethinker" or atheist authors besides Susan Jacoby and Sam Harris? They have made their points over and over and they are stuck on debating high school concepts of the divine, fate, etc. The militancy of their opinions baffles me a bit. Perhaps an organization to spread humanistic atheism as a soteriological (sic) dynamic is what they should be about. I just wish they would quit the sophomoric rants and offer something positive with their thought and lives.

Would you please run some other "freethinker" or atheist authors besides Susan Jacoby and Sam Harris? They have made their points over and over and they are stuck on debating high school concepts of the divine, fate, etc. The militancy of their opinions baffles me a bit. Perhaps an organization to spread humanistic atheism as a soteriological (sic) dynamic is what they should be about. I just wish they would quit the sophomoric rants and offer something positive with their thought and lives.

Amen.

Jay S.-
Nicely worded question to Pablo. I was getting rather worked up trying to write yet another response to him when I decided that my time was much better spent throwing glow balls in the backyard to my two yellow labs. Great point you made, but I bet he still says something about Hitler or Christian world view.

Regards,
Scott

Prayers for the Natural Order
cody mccall:

Not all of us religious types are closed to the quest to understand the universe. This is from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer:

For Knowledge of God’s Creation

Almighty and everlasting God, you made the universe with
all its marvelous order, its atoms, worlds, and galaxies, and
the infinite complexity of living creatures: Grant that, as we
probe the mysteries of your creation, we may come to know
you more truly, and more surely fulfill our role in your
eternal purpose; in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Jon M - if you take exception to the thesis of the blog author then you need to post your own well considered ad hominem thoughts for all to see - only seems fair.

For the Man in Black - I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself but the Robin Williams
'What Dreams May Come' movie finally addresses the Afterlife in (Hollywood) movie form - obviously the out-of-body and near-death experiences are so well documented these days that they've created a literary genre of their own - easy to find in Barnes and Noble.....buy a book and help a millionaire - or better yet, buy your own copy of the Tibetan Book of the Dead and begin a serious study of 'life after death' without all the expense. If, as the Buddhists maintain, existence per chance has no beginning and no end, you don't really need a creator after all. That's a concept that escapes the Western perspective altogether - because everything must have a beginning and an end, right?? Well, maybe not......should this be the case, religion is our feeble attempt to get to eternal truth that presents itself in every instant, but at no other time.

Ms. Jacoby has 'the answer' wrong. Free will is a factor, but not 'the' answer, from a Christian perspective. But atheists probably don't acknowledge the existence of sin, so there isn't much use trying to explain it in the context of what she claims is an "unaswerable" question. And people say Christians are dogmatic. Jeesh.

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by Ms Jacoby. I avoid labels like I avoid Republicans but would probably be classified as an atheist with deistic tendencies. I despise religion because, among its other negative aspects, it closes minds to the quest for the actual truths of our universe. I don't know if the ultimate secrets of our universe are even 'knowable' to us. I do strongly suspect that the 'truth' is far, far more amazing and mind blowing than the myths and superstitions and folklore and fairy tales that compose religions. I realize many people prefer fairy tales to facts. I do not. I have an unquenchable thirst to know. Know what? Everything! And I think the 'answers' are right there in front of us. We just aren't able to recognize what's there. Einstein didn't 'invent' E=mc2, he 'saw' it, literally. But the conditions the formula describes have been around literally forever. Slowly but surely we will 'see' more and more answers to fundamental questions. But, first, we have to look and to do that we have to have open eyes and open minds. I firmly believe anything--anything--is possible. I just need lots of proof, not myths, folk lore, fables and fairy tales. The 'truth' is far stranger and more wonderful than the fictions of religions.
One question that does bubble up in my mind a lot--why is figuring out these fundamental mysteries so difficult? And that concern inevitably leads to the Big One--What's The Point? It'll be a long haul before we crack that nut.

Pablo:

WHy are you so fixated on good and evil? Aren't they just insignificant in the long run?

But here's the thing:
Good and evil......they need each other. It's all about balance. Nothing to do with God.

Light needs dark. Day needs night. Man needs cigarette after making whoopie.

It all comes around in the end.

God is a crutch that believers are unable to understand atheists don't need.
Atheists can walk all by themselves
without a crutch,
and religious folk can't figure how it can be done.
They depend on god to help them along.
when they could do it all by themselves
if they only had the courage to try.

I think the nonbelievers do a great service here on the On Faith boards. We've all seen the kinds of cat fights that result when the religites are forced to converse among themselves on topics like popes, Lutherans, Mormons and Islamics. We make a good diversion.

Pablo -- Are you really Peter Huff?

He gets hung up on good and evil also.

Do you think there is an entity outside of the human sphere called Good and another called Evil?

Or do you think people do things that can be classified, by other people, as good or evil?

Are some things considered good for awhile, then are later found to be evil? And vice versa? Or are good and evil immutable for all time?

Are there gray areas where it is hard to tell if something is 100% good or 100% evil? Can you define some things as part good and part evil?

Can what is good or evil be codified in man-made laws? Or do the concepts properly lie outside of human constructs?

I'm not trying to avoid your question ... I just need to know where you are going with this to be able to answer.

I'm wondering what Susan Jacoby thought of the movie 'What Dreams May Come'?

I'd love to see you write up a piece on that.

No matter whether you believe God created the world or whether you believe it was created, without assistance, through the big bang and related physics, the world was created. We're here. And the natural world has properties - wind blows. Storms howl. Tectonic plates move. Cancerous cells multiply. Bacteria grow where they are not wanted. Viruses seek hosts. Just because it was created by God does not mean he controls everything it does from that point on. Nature having free will? No. But physics will win. When conditions are right, catastrophes occur. It doesn't matter who - or what - created the nature. My husband died of a heart attack. There were solid health reasons for it. God didn't make it happen, and I don't know if God had a reason, but I believe that, in his death, he is with God.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

For the most part, I agree with your weather related comments. As for Thee God controlling people... nah, I don't buy that.

I do find Joseph Cambell's comments relavent to there being some degree of believing that there is a God within found in almost all religions.

The good UU that I am, I am not 100% sure if it's the God that lays dormant in leaders such as George Bush or other selfish people emmersed in fear.

I do know that through meditation as to how a higher authority might handle a situation, solutions are found where the vision on a more human level blinds that insight.

That sounds more deep and complicated than it really is, though.

So, Anonymous:

I'm not sure if you were addressing my question about the term "fundamentalist atheist".

Let me rephrase: What's the difference between an atheist and a fundamentalist atheist?? Is a regular atheist really an agnostic?

Perhaps "fundamentalist" is meant to convey arrogant, unwavering, intolerant of other views ... but you have to borrow those secondary characteristics from some fundamentalist theists, and they really are not the chief attributes of fundamentalism per se, such as rigid adherence to fundamental principles and rejection of secularism.

Do fundamentalist atheists reject secularism?

There exists only one "innocent" human being. He who died on the cross by choice and on the third day rose again. Be careful not to define reality with your feelings.

YoYo,

Mecha lecka high, mecha hynie ho!

:)

So, Anonymous:

I'm not sure if you were addressing my question about the term "fundamentalist atheist".

Let me rephrase: What's the difference between an atheist and a fundamentalist atheist??

Perhaps "fundamentalist" is meant to convey arrogant, unwavering, intolerant of other views ... but you have to borrow those secondary characteristics from some fundamentalist theists, and they really are not part of fundamentalism per se.

Just what I thought not one atheist could give a credible reason for believing there are such things as good and evil. Those things are part of a Christian worldview. They are free to believe that there is good and evil if they want but when they do they practice hypocrisy because by doing so they live inconsistently with their worldview. At best the atheist can say hypocritically that morality is determined by opinion but then what do they do with the Adolph Hitlers of the world?

Michael in Virginia:

And people of faith regularly are told by atheists that we're stupid, naive, idiotic, illogical, etc. I presume your point is demonstrating that some people have appalling manners. In that, you and I agree. Many people really need to learn their basic manners. What you believe is none of my business and frankly, what I believe has no impact on your life either.

Your choice to not believe in God / gods obviously works for you and I'm truly glad you live in a culture that supports your choice. And if you're tempted to read that last with a tinge of sarcasm, it's not meant as such.

Like IronicalDonical, I too am amazed by the amount of energy atheists put into denouncing and ridiculing God. I would have thought there'd be better uses for time but again, it's their time to make use of as they wish.

And it would be nice to have a dialogue on the subject, it's pretty much impossible -- not because I think atheists are going to Hell. The concept is actually foreign to my theological universe. It's because regardless of how reasonable and respectful and considerate and thoughtful I might endeavour to be towards your religious beliefs (God does not exist), I can never overcome the atheists' basic principle that my faith in something larger than myself is proof positive that I am, in your words, not capable of reason or rationality.

But back to the topic of the original article: Answer to why does God let bad stuff happen? Crap happens... get over it. Hurricanes, evil deeds by others.. I'm really not getting what this has to do with God. Politicians hijacking religious principles in exchange for political power? Not exactly a new concept, not exactly limited to America and not exactly culturally contained. This is God's fault? Fine, if you want it to be but please, don't build this mental construct in your head and then use it to "prove" that I'm not quite right in the head.

An atheist is a fundamentalist by definition.
An atheist says there are no gods.
How fundamental can you get?
The neutral position on the god question is nobody knows whether there's a god.
Believers are persuaded that there is.
Atheists aint.

Pablo: You are proposing a false dichotomy because you don't want to contemplate the third possibility. To wit, there is no all-powerful being running (or watching) the show, and there is STILL such a thing as behavior that is objectively evil. Or lazy. Or short-sighted. Or uninformed. Ms. Jacoby isn't talking about whether it was God or ineffective Louisiana politicians that didn't prepare useful levees... she's talking about the people who use events like a storm to irrationally and hypocritically reinforce their notion of God's hand, or will in the matter. Which is nonsense at least, and itself a insidious, poisonous thing to spout in front of children at the worst.

We haven't "fallen into a belief that man is innocent" because he's a cleverer-than-usual animal. Rather, we (atheists) recognize that people simply act, or don't, in ways that are useful, or not, for a huge range of reasons - some cultural, some as a result of broken physiology. Period. There's simply no need to drag imaginary beings into the recipe one way or the other. That doesn't preclude arriving at a reason-based value system that still allows one to call a bad person a bad person, and recognize laziness or negligence for what it is.

I disagree with Susan Jacoby but not because I believe in God or in an evil Nature being.

I disagree because Ms Jacoby has taken Man and Mankind out of the equation. It may well be that because we have cancelled our minds to the possiblity that Man may be the ultimate culprit that we can't now consider him as responsible.

Ms Jacoby has used a hurricane as an example. But how responsible was the hurricane for New Orleans' levees braking down? How responsible was the hurricane for the old, poor and infirm to be left behind in a disorganised human stampede?

But these type of questions go deeper. Why did some of the most sophisticated societies on earth considered slavery or racism reasonable social behaviour? And the suffering of millions of dispossed during centuries of feudalism? And why do the poor today have greater chance of dying young victims of malnutrition? (not only by the effects of a hurricane, I might add).

The answer is clear. We have fallen into a belief that man is innocent because he is the way he is. Like an animal. This is not true. It's a form of alienation to believe this.

I am not sure if there is a God or a Nature being out there. But I am are sure that Man can think. And many of the evils we blame on the former tWo, may be just a way of the latter to get away with it.

Amazing how little sense people make when they talk about religion.

Bad things happen to good people and this precludes the existence of God? Interesting logic there.

I hate to point it out, but this line of reasoning has been debunked by thinkers dating back (and likely before) to ancient Greece. For people actually curious about the philosophical complexities of injustice and misfortune in a universe where God exists (or may not), take a look at C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain."

I admit that I am fairly new to Ms. Jacoby's blog, but this is the weakest posting I have seen on this website. I am simply astonished that a learned and published thinker could employ such facile logic.

I know people of faith who offer similarly weak arguments for the existence of a divine being, but they are not authors or reporters.

And let us not forget that Ms Jacoby would "hate" any god so "capricious" as to not impede natural cycles of weather. I could not imagine a more immature reflection on religion and the spirit.

?Hay dos Pablos?

The Pablo above is not the same Pablo that has been writing on this thread.

Pablo:

People do terrible things by telling themselves there is no god ... OR by telling themselves they are doing god's will ... OR because they need no justification for why they do it.

People do extraordinarily wonderful things because they believe they are doing god's will ... OR because they believe that it is important to do because there is no god to do it for us ... OR because they make decisions that are totally independent of the god question.

Actually, if we adopted many of the behaviors exhibited by our fellow animals, it would probably be a more peaceful earth.

Anonymous

I know you are but what am I? As Peewee used to say.

Frankly I couldn't stand the idea of going to heaven.
I would absolutely hate it!!.
I'd be among nothing but religious people and I'd go mad.It would be hell.
I mean really,look at the likely company you'd have.
Saints everywhere.Nuns all over the place. Jerry Falwell and Mother Theresa on the welcoming committee,nothing but organ music day and night.No beer,no pot.No jazz.Fish every Friday.Everything closed on Sunday.No sex.(?) (Do angels procreate I wonder?)
Hell might be a whole lot hotter,but I'll take my chances.

I disagree with Susan Jacoby but not because I believe in God or in an evil Nature being.

I disagree because Ms Jacoby has taken Man and Mankind out of the equation. It may well be that because we have cancelled our minds to the possiblity that Man may be the ultimate culprit that we can't now consider him as responsible.

Ms Jacoby has used a hurricane as an example. But how responsible was the hurricane for New Orleans' levees braking down? How responsible was the hurricane for the old, poor and infirm to be left behind in a disorganised human stampede?

But these type of questions go deeper. Why did some of the most sophisticated societies on earth considered slavery or racism reasonable social behaviour? And the suffering of millions of dispossed during centuries of feudalism? And why do the poor today have greater chance of dying young victims of malnutrition? (not only by the effects of a hurricane, I might add).

The answer is clear. We have fallen into a belief that man is innocent because he is the way he is. Like an animal. This is not true. It's a form of alienation to believe this.

I am not sure if there is a God or a Nature being out there. But I am are sure that Man can think. And many of the evils we blame on the former too, may be just a way of the latter to get away with it.

Royce Fitts -- Explain to us what a "fundamentalist atheist" is. I know you are not the first to use the term, but if you give it some careful thought (What does fundamentalist mean? What are the fundamentals of atheism?) you'll see that it doesn't make much sense.

I disagree with Susan Jacoby but not because I believe in God or in an evil Nature being.

I disagree because Ms Jacoby has taken Man and Mankind out of the equation. It may well be that because we have cancelled our minds to the possiblity that Man may be the ultimate culprit that we can't now consider him as responsible.

Ms Jacoby has used a hurricane as an example. But how responsible was the hurricane for New Orleans' levees braking down? How responsible was the hurricane for the old, poor and infirm to be left behind in a disorganised human stampede?

But these type of questions go deeper. Why did some of the most sophisticated societies on earth considered slavery or racism reasonable social behaviour? And the suffering of millions of dispossed during centuries of feudalism? And why do the poor today have greater chance of dying young victims of malnutrition? (not only by the effects of a hurricane, I might add).

The answer is clear. We have fallen into a belief that man is innocent because he is the way he is. Like an animal. This is not true. It's a form of alienation to believe this.

I am not sure if there is a God or a Nature being out there. But I am are sure that Man can think. And many of the evils we blame on the former too, may be just a way of the latter to get away with it.

Susan,for the past half century my thinking about religion has matched the thoughts you express in your post.

"...People always ask atheists how they can get through the pain and hardships of life without believing in a God who will one day wipe away all tears...."

What people who say such things don't seem to realize is that, if God doesn't exist, their belief is basically irrelevant anyway. The classic exercise in futility?

As humans, we naturally equate benevolence with "being nice to us". However, if we posit that God has an infinite perspective, his benevolence may lie in the preservation of universal order as opposed to artificially manipulating this order to please our little brains. It is precisely because God is not capricious that we have so many bad things happen to us.

YoYo is a limp and pitiful person.

Here we have a beautiful example of the simple
equation and apparently a religious (spiritual??) conundrum - Nature vs. God (that's nature with a big N). All we can know for sure is Nature, and sure as hell, it will kill you - some way, and some day....and in the meantime will bring great joy, great sorrow, deep mystery, and unanswered questions.

As Richard Dawkins says, humans have brains that were designed to survive the rigors of the African Plain - beyond that, the deep mysteries of Nature are really more unfathomable than anything conjured up by religion (Dawkins suggests we resist the evolutionary process through informed will and sheer brainpower - thus using our current evolutionary tools in order to transcend nature with the small "n" and eventually approach nature with the big N on more equal terms - I like that image!!).

Humans create their own beliefs, their own answers, their own explanations and their own religious experiences - and then swear it was all done by a higher power. Now that really is utter nonsense - but clever nonsense that is easily bought and sold by religious shysters of all descriptions. Good and Evil are human creations, and were there ever two more culturally relative terms??

Religion is another human creation with it's own rules and regulations.....thus far, not a single deity has come forth to take credit for the creation of religion as something separate and 'superior' to ordinary life as we know it.

In truth, religion makes lots of people feel good both collectively (count the churches) and privately, but for many others it is simply an unnecessary adjunct to health and happiness - or misery and sorrow as the case may be. After studying religion of all kinds for a lifetime I'm deeply suspicious that it's entirely unnecessary....on the other hand, that's 40 years of work and today I'm probably a different person. To each their own.........

Let's remember,the God question is, after all, a question.
That's why we have to have faith.
If God was fact, faith would be irrelevant.
It's because God is so improbable that we need faith.
It's also why faith is such a limp and pitiful mindset.

A well writen example of logic and rationality being applied to religion.

It correctly points out that religious belief systems are not benign. By ignoring the logical and rational explanations of natural phenomena a society exposes itself to the dangers of confusion, frustration, anger and exceptionalism: for the individual and the collective.

Ultimately it leads to a society that is mindless in its ability to control its future leaving it susceptible to being manipulated.

The Bush administration exploited this condition to perfection, while it lasted, as some sense of logical and rational thinking has begun to surface as it sooner or later must (even many of the "religious-right" have refused to continue being Bush-whacked by his born-again rhetoric).

"I would prefer to go to hell rather than to make bargains with such a cruel, capricious Master of the Universe."

Bon Voyage.

what feels annoying to me is how harsh the fundamentalist atheists and the fundamentalist theists seem to be...each crowing about the superiority of his/her beliefs over the other...the "absolute-ism " of each belief is the same...and their is such a strong need to prove the other wrong...

Hi Jihadist - I liked the appendix analogy. In fact, I had my appendix removed loonnng ago. Perhaps my religion was discarded about the same time....?

Norge -

You don't happen to have a daugher in Seattle, do you? You sound just like my dad.

Another great quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Norrie Hoyt!

Always a pleasure to see you!

I was struck by the wrath of the "cruel" God. Punished for sins I may have committed but can't remember which ones. An appendicitis actually, on Monday. They removed it. I'm off work and in bed. Should be up and running by the end of this week.

As you can see from my lengthy posts this week, an idle mind, body and fingers makes for long rambling posts - defending Mother Teresa when I have absolutely no idea what the fuss over her doubts is; becoming a space cadet and going into the universe to ask who created the singularity that started the Big Bang and all; and now coming in on God and natural disasters.

We have too many natural disasters in Asia. Lost relatives and friends. I hope, I prayed, that in their final moments, when alone, when all hope of rescue and living on is lost, that they do not think in sorrow of the life, family and friends they are leaving behind, the life they could have led and could have lived, but to just think of God with them, they are not really alone, and to let go of life and the living without sorrow, anger, regrets and in peace. We the living, have to let go too of those we lost. But sometimes harder for us.

----------------------------------------------

Thanks for you explanation on libel in the US. I studied only international law. Am putting out quite a sum for civil lawyers for the Malaysian blogs/sites I help fund. Malaysian readers are now quite prone to sue blog owners, managers, and writers for what is written in the blogs, even by readers/posters of the blogs/sites.

The civil lawyers are giving me lectures about freedom of speech etc. I do fret about the reputation of those still alive who are libeled and slandered, and, especially the credibility of the blogs/sites and their writers. It does take one "untrue" piece to destroy or to be held suspect their writer's credibility. Their enemies, even when they lost the libel cases, never forget and slandered them back in other sites/blogs.

I'm asking the lawyers to remind my supported ones not to cross the lines between facts and deliberate lies. Malaysians are quite passionate and partisan on race, religion and politics and have pick up with relish, the idea of suing people for libel and slander in the media/Internet sites/blogs.

The lawyers brought me fruits and flowers when they visited me. My husband said he hope they won't actually bill me directly for them, just to pad it as part of the consultations fee. Obviously, my husband is not a lawyer.

-----------------------------------------------

As for Mother Teresa and libel. That is what makes me unconfortable too about some countries' laws where anyone can say anything nasty and untrue about the dead. It just seem somewhat unethical and unfair.

After all, in Mother Teresa case, all her reported "good" and now discovered "evil" and "hypocrisy" due to her doubts is from the western media and writers themselves. It smacks of people talking bad about people behind their back instead of being upfront with the said person.

-------------------------------------------------

I am getting to know and understand better the atheists who posted in On Faith. They have clarity and sense of humour that I appreaciate. Always bringing some levity and sanity in these sometimes insane threads.

Just for atheists in light of my appendicitis:

Religion is like an appendix in the human body. You never think about it until it inflamed and poisoned the human body. When removed, you don't miss it. The appendix has no useful purpose.

Best regards as always

J

To address both why agnostics find On Faith worthwhile and why I'm here (totally agnostic, Susan Jacoby loving lefty)...

Brian wrote earlier today, "it's not a zero-sum game with God." From what I hear from many posters and religious friends this just isn't true. What if I'm wrong about the non-existence of a paternal God? What if the Pearly Gates exist and I end up there having to explain away a lifetime (alright, only 29 yrs so far) of non-religious, scientific, bordering on atheistic behaviour?

Besides the thought/threat of eternity there's this: Most "thinkers" lie somewhere inbetween and in the middle on the religious thinking scale. If someone came up and said "God does not exist", but wasn't prepared to tell me why they think so I would loose respect for their opinion.

Same goes for someone who comes up and says "God exists". Tell me why and you may have a good point. I've thought long and hard and still believe that most of Faith is made-up by people who need something to find comfort in.

It's nice and fuzzy and interesting and dangerous at times......but, nothing to bet on.

To address both why agnostics find On Faith worthwhile and why I'm here (totally agnostic, Susan Jacoby loving lefty)...

Brian wrote earlier today, "it's not a zero-sum game with God." From what I hear from many posters and religious friends this just isn't true. What if I'm wrong about the non-existence of a paternal God? What if the Pearly Gates exist and I end up there having to explain away a lifetime (alright, only 29 yrs so far) of non-religious, scientific, bordering on atheistic behaviour?

Besides the thought/threat of eternity there's this: Most "thinkers" lie somewhere inbetween and in the middle on the religious thinking scale. If someone came up and said "God does not exist", but wasn't prepared to tell me why they think so I would loose respect for their opinion.

Same goes for someone who comes up and says "God exists". Tell me why and you may have a good point. I've thought long and hard and still believe that most of Faith is made-up by people who need something to find comfort in.

It's nice and fuzzy and interesting and dangerous at times......but, nothing to bet on.

Hermit, you said, re the 30 Years War:

"Ah, but who was paying the mercenaries, and why? Certainly there were political reasons as well, but the importance of the religious nature of so much of that conflict shouldn't be understated."

The emerging nation states were paying the mercs. Oh, yes, the religious bunch certainly contributed. But it was a war of kings. And remember that the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) was a temporal power then, with his own army. Religion caused the war by the Reformation splitting Europe between two camps. The kings responded, but they were after power. The merc armies were after loot. Even the Swedes, the only truly religious army. were also after loot and power.

A Great man once said:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world..."

Who was this man?

Thomas Jefferson.

IronicalDonical:

We are not obsessed - we have been put down, ignored, shunned, pushed aside, etc for decades and decades on end. I have been personally told that I will burn in hell, that I am not a good person, that I live a sad life, etc etc, ONLY because I chose to share with those persons that I do not believe in a god - these are my reasons for trying to convince (your words) the faithful. All I have ever tried to do is to shed some light on the brainwashing (I was brainwashed into believing in god when I was a child, like many others (not all, but many)), have gone through, to show that moral behavior has nothing to do with religion and/or god, to express my view of the world, and to attempt to connect to others with like minds (we dont meet at church, clearly).

Also, it is difficult to address and chat with people of faith, if they use quotes from ministers, the bible, etc, that are peppered with their beliefs, using their beliefs as facts. It simply is not true that I will go to hell because I am an atheist - it is based on a false pretense.

Susan J - it was I who "requested" that you drop the captial "G"; while I understand your response and points, (and yes, I'm sure you get blasted for most of what you write by the god fearing), I personally believe that using the capital G gives undeserved credence to its existence. Thanks again for participating in this forum - you are the sole voice on the panel for rational thinkers. (IMO)

Anonymous: "I still wonder why the pre-suppostition of most atheists like Michael in Virginia, is that we were raised with certain indoctrinations. ..."

I said that because in most cases, religion is taught at an early age. True, from your examples, there are others that go the opposite route (atheist to believer), or change faiths (christian to muslim, etc), but in my experience with everyone I have ever met in my 40 years, they are taught religion/god from childhood. Also, since I personally dropped any faith I had after studying history of the world, including Jesus as a man, etc, in college, I have a hard time understanding adults who need that imaginary friend to guide them through life - and, those folks having never taken the time to investigate/study on their own what their faith really means. How many people of faith have studied other faiths? I would hazard a guess that it is directly disproportionate to how religious they are. (more religious, less investigation)

"Can't someone in their 30's or 40's with a solid education and rational thinking accept Jesus?"

In my opinion - NO, they cannot. By definition, "rational" (having its source in or being guided by the intellect (as distinguished from experience or emotion)), has nothing to do with faith ( belief that is not based on proof). No, they cannot be both rational, and believe in a superstitious being.

No, I don't expect any respect from religious people - I have yet to experience that. Except for one instance: I had a friend in college (catholic), who was shocked and dismayed that I do not believe in god. She could not fathom nor try to understand how I could believe this way. She had an internship in Ireland. When she returned 3 months later, she had a new appreciation of having a lack of religion. The reason? She met people of both prodestant and catholic backgrounds - and saw the trouble that those two religions had caused the irish people. She gained a new understanding of how someone like me could go through life.

I don't personally believe that only agnostics/atheists have sound reason - I do strongly believe that the very or highly religious are not capable of reason when it comes to examining their own faith. Also, not trying to make the christians, et al go away, I just want them to stay out of my house, my bedroom, my mind, and my constitution. The past 6 years have shown anyone that will open their eyes, that religion should be kept personal. Our government should have ZERO to say about it.

Minamilist - Nicely put!!!

OK, one more comment...

Arminius:

"Well, let's take the 30 Years War, 1618-1648, in Europe as a case. Often held up as the great example of a religious war, Catholics vs Protestants, just after the Reformation.

This war was not fought by armies of believers, with the exception of Sweden. (Sweden did cut a trail of destruction through Germany that would have put Sherman's march to the sea to shame). That war was fought mostly by mercenaries."

Ah, but who was paying the mercenaries, and why? Certainly there were political reasons as well, but the importance of the religious nature of so much of that conflict shouldn't be understated.

---------------

IronicalDonical:

Yes, understanding is a two way street. I con;t expect others to understand my point of view is I stay out of the conversation, can I? I am confident in my point of view; confident enough to want to share it, and to test it against the ideas of others.

And I'm glad if you aren't bothered by believers much; I can't say I am in a day-to-day sense, but look at the people in the White House right now; can you say you haven't been affected by thier choices?

These are important issues, whether you believe or don't.

--------------

butterfly:

If the one who suffers usually isn't the one who committed the sin why wouldn't God intervene? Is the free will of the rapist more important to God that the free will of his victim? Why should someone be made to suffer for someone else's choice?

Now I must go; we Hermits have our social obligations, after all...

Regards

A Hermit

To Ironicaldonocical:

Why do atheists seem so concerned about others' beliefs? Why the pre-occupation with pointing out the irrationality of it all? Because irrationality, especially of the toxic religious variety, is behind most of what ails our cultures. All of them. Other people being irrational tend to put ALL of us at risk, or eat away at the greater things that could be accomplished in the absence of the sort of strife that religions tend to foster or excuse away. And even the less convert-or-die sort of religions still, by their very nature, raise children specifically to be irrational.

We all have a vested interest in being surrounded by people who were taught the value of critical thinking. Atheists rail against religions, and actively take swings at these giant, instituional retailers of irrationality because doing so is an investment in a more peaceful, prosperous future.

Personally, I'm delighted not to have to waste time fretting over whether I've properly pleased an all-powerful invisible friend. That's that much more mental energy I can put into helping people I care about see their superstitions in a different context. Most of them had no trouble - once in their lives - letting go of their notion of a magical, all-knowing, source of reward/punishment that demands certain rituals be observed (um, that would be Santa Claus), and now they just need to do it again. Most of them, oddly, seem to have the most trouble with the peer pressure and social friction that comes from actually saying, out loud, that they've found the underpinnings of their primary social club to be a big ugly tangle of mixed premises, hypocrisy, and willful ignorance. The superstitions themselves are a lot easier to shrug off than it is to give up your membership in a facility where all of your relatives like to have weddings and funerals.

The best response that I have read to the Katrina disaster is from PanGaea magazine. "The people cried out to the Lwa (low-ah), 'Where were you? Why didn't you do something to save your city?' The Lwa looked at the multiple predictions about failing levees and said, 'where were you?'" There were numerous studies done to show that those levees and pumps would fail, yet there was no public outcry to fix them. Same with 9/11 - there were numerous signs that something was going to happen, but the Government sent out no warning to airports or anywhere else that could have stopped it from happening. The fault is not in any Deity, but in our own negligence.

Lover:

***The Father offered humanity a perfect paradise, devoid of the pain and suffering described in the article, but we rejected it in favor of the world we have today.***

I don't recall ever having been offered the option of a perfect world. This is the one I was born into.

To Ironicaldonocical:

Why do atheists seem so concerned about others' beliefs? Why the pre-occupation with pointing out the irrationality of it all? Because irrationality, especially of the toxic religious variety, is behind most of what ails our cultures. All of them. Other people being irrational tend to put ALL of us at risk, or eat away at the greater things that could be accomplished in the absence of the sort of strife that religions tend to foster or excuse away. And even the less convert-or-die sort of religions still, by their very nature, raise children specifically to be irrational.

We all have a vested interest in being surrounded by people who were taught the value of critical thinking. Atheists rail against religions, and actively take swings at these giant, instituional retailers of irrationality because doing so is an investment in a more peaceful, prosperous future.

Personally, I'm delighted not to have to waste time fretting over whether I've properly pleased an all-powerful invisible friend. That's that much more mental energy I can put into helping people I care about see their superstitions in a different context. Most of them had no trouble - once in their lives - letting go of their notion of a magical, all-knowing, source of reward/punishment that demands certain rituals be observed (um, that would be Santa Claus), and now they just need to do it again. Most of them, oddly, seem to have the most trouble with the peer pressure and social friction that comes from actually saying, out loud, that they've found the underpinnings of their primary social club to be a big ugly tangle of mixed premises, hypocrisy, and willful ignorance. The superstitions themselves are a lot easier to shrug off than it is to give up your membership in a facility where all of your relatives like to have weddings and funerals.

mizbinkley, you said:

"Some atheists don't just view religion merely as "interesting stuff," but also as a catalyst for great evil in this world. How many wars, how much persecution was occurred in the name of God? If you view religion as causing more harm than good, you have a duty to speak out against it."

Well, let's take the 30 Years War, 1618-1648, in Europe as a case. Often held up as the great example of a religious war, Catholics vs Protestants, just after the Reformation.

This war was not fought by armies of believers, with the exception of Sweden. (Sweden did cut a trail of destruction through Germany that would have put Sherman's march to the sea to shame). That war was fought mostly by mercenaries. And also, France, totally Catholic, supported the Protestants because it wanted to defeat the Habsburgs.

Wars are fought for power and greed. Religion is only the excuse. And a damned bad excuse at that.

Hermit, as an agnostic I can relate to your point of view on a certain level. However, aside from the occasional annoying knock on the front door by the Latter Day Saints, I am not confronted by true believers of anything on a regular basis, except the fundamentalists who worship at the alter of political partisanship (who in my opinion are for more odious, but I digress). Quite simply, if you are secure in your belief in the lack of a God, why would any of the things you listed offend you so? Is the presentation of an alternate point of view or set of beliefs that offensive? Understanding is a two-way street.

Well, Jim, I think the reasons I gave defending my own participation here are just as valid for Jacoby, Sam Harris and any other unbeliever asked to contribute to the panel. And you and have every right to agree or disagree with them (I've done both, by the way...) I would have thought an article espousing atheism would be a great trigger for a discussion on faith. In fact, given the vast quantities of comments following posts by unbelievers I'd say it's quite apparent that this is so.

You seem to want to discuss faith without considering all the possibilities. That there is no God is one of those possibilities, and a legitimate perspective to bring to this forum. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you, but we won't be made to shut up or go away.

Now, it's the first day of school here on the mountaintop and the little Hermits will be home soon, so I must go; and of course there's the weekly All-Hermit poker game tonight (my turn to bring the munchies, I think...) so I might not get back to this until tomorrow (or later if those damn customers don't stop bothering me...)

Regards

A Hermit With A Full Social Calender

PS, Scott, thank you for your kind comments; I hope I make some sense here, and that I maintain an honest and respectful voice.

LDAHS wrote "You cannot claim that the lack of evidence proves that there is no evidence about God's existance; that is logical fallacy. Just because you can't see a bacteria doesn't mean it doesn't exist." We can see bacteria with a microscope. Science explains many, many things.

Since there is NO evidence of God (please don't quote scripture, the Bible is a human creation) I am not SURE there is no God, but I'm playing the odds. Why not end it now? I love life: my work, my spouse, our kids, my neighbors. I volunteer Saturdays assisting women who recently have been released from incarceration to teach them job skills. I help humankind and accept the help of others when I need it. Life itself is great!

Most suffering CAN be traced to someone's abuse of free will, what we Christians and Jews call "sin". The person suffering the results might not be the person who made the sinful choice, but we can't blame nature or God.

Examples: air and water pollution, deforestation, monopolization of water supply, unjustified war, child abuse, neglect of disaster victims, etc.

The one who suffers in these cases usually isn't the one who committed the sin. Still, for God to block the result of the choice would violate the free will of the person who made the choice. This would reduce humans to an infantile level where
selfish behavior has no consequences for the group. Thus groups of humans would not develop social morality and education!

If the human race destributed resources fairly and invested money into researching cures for illnesses instead of wasting vast resources on warfare and hedonism, then most human suffering would be alleviated.

Truly, the fact that human life has been so screwed up on a global levelfor so long is PROOF that we aren't merely animals that resulted from evolution. After all, we don't see such simultaneously self-destructive, anti-social behavior in any other species! If we were merely driven by natural instincts, we'd better off (from the material point of view).

Also, angry athesit lady ignores the fact that churches and other faith-based charities usaully out-perform secular institutions in the area of disaster response. We saw this after 9/11 and Katrina. God's intervention in this world occurs through His children.

Why some atheists care about religion...

Dude, because religion is interesting! For centuries, religion has been tied up in our learning, art, culture and history. The Bible has some beautifully written passages, fascinating stories and examples of how to be good. Most of the planet believes in some sort of god, so you'd have to be pretty narrow-minded to refuse to discuss it altogether.

And the god stories pretty much rock. If they were true, how awesome would that be? A god who comes to earth in human form and dies for our sins? An omnipotent, omniscient creator with whom one can have a relationship?

I'm sorry, but that's just fantastic and wildy interesting stuff.

Some atheists don't just view religion merely as "interesting stuff," but also as a catalyst for great evil in this world. How many wars, how much persecution was occurred in the name of God? If you view religion as causing more harm than good, you have a duty to speak out against it.

Hi, Wiccan,

'Lover of the Lord' really blew it big time. The idea of Christianity is that, yes, mankind fell into sin and away from God, but God sent Jesus to offer eternity back to us.

Just explaining, not insisting.

Almost every atheist was once a believer.The atheist is a believer who heard the BS grew up and moved on.
Most atheists think too deeply to accept the superstitious notion of some kind of spooky godfella up there in the sky. You have to step back and see the big picture. A persons religion is mostly about where they were born than any kind of truth about anything.Different myths for different folks.
Being enlightened,surely,means reflecting on this kind of truism,and asking oneself whether one's belief is anymore realistic than the other guys belief,or as silly as atheists might see it.

Believers have always struck me as similar to co-dependents (enabling and covering up.)

Believers seem to be always having to explain why the way the world works, doesn't logically fit with what they believe.

If you have doubts, then you have proven your true faith...

If bad things happen, god is testing your fortitude...

And so on and so forth...

But reading through some of the above posts, it is clear that there is just some very different way of thinking -- there's a block (I guess that's what the faith thing is?) and many don't seem capable of thinking beyond that... How is quoting the bible, or saying what god's will is, in any way proving that there is a god?

what utter nonsense.

To "Lover of the Lord":

"Unfortunately, Ms. Jacoby totally misses the point. The Father offered humanity a perfect paradise, devoid of the pain and suffering described in the article, but we rejected it in favor of the world we have today. We rejected it because we wanted to be like God. By giving us free will, God gave us the capacity to chose whether we wanted to be with him for all eternity or not. Humanity chose not."

Sir or Madam,

Why am I being held responsible for the actions of two dimwits 6000 years before my birth? I was never given a chance to reject paradise, that all happened before I hit the scene. Is that fair?

To Arminius; thank you for your kind words. I have strong opinions sometimes, but I do try to be respectful of the views of others; I appreciate those who do likewise.

-----------

To IronicalDonical: I wonder how often during the average week you are confronted by a true believer in the Easter Bunny who insists that you must share their belief, or who for example, denies marriage rights to gays or starts a war, or demands that Easter Bunnyism be taught or your children in a public school, or goes on TV to announce to millions of his followers that those who don't believe in the Tooth Fairy are immoral Communists and not to be trusted...

Don't kid yourself, those of us who do not believe in gods are still very much affected by issues of faith every day; and many of us have gone through a long process of struggling with these same issues to come to where we are today, so naturally we take the opportunity to talk about it.

I am not here to persuade anyone to stop believing, but I would like a little more understanding of my own point of view on the part of believers.

I am glad you find that so amusing, I like to brighten someone's day whenever I can...;-)

Regards

A (hilarious) Hermit

Miles2go
I’m not Susan, but I am in lockstep with the article…

“that you refuse to believe in”
Atheist are not ‘refusing’ to believe in your god. We just do not believe, simply because we have opened our minds to accept the possibility that there isn’t one. Can you do that?
I’m very sure that there is no god. Does that mean I (we) claim to be all-knowing? Oh heck no.. just the opposite. The fact that we can exist without knowing everything is part of the peace and satisfaction of atheism. We can walk through life without stressing over the details of the origin of the universe, or why some people get diseases….. or what happens when we die….
You appear to be of closed mind yourself, after all you are using ‘close minded’ when you actually mean ‘didn’t come to the same conclusion’
And frankly you are a bit offensive, assuming that atheists are ignorant or stubborn, ‘refusing to open (change) their minds about this one thing……’ rather than just people who have found a different answer and are quite content with that?

A Hermit-
Thanks, again, for your wonderfully eloquent posts- I really do enjoy reading them, for even if there are what I might have wanted to say, they are always rendered with a respectful perspective that always makes me think.

Ken-
Thank you for your thoughtful post. You wrote:
**The point is that the very concept of morality is utterly irrelevant in a world view that reduces everything to materialism. All ideas in such a philosophy are ultimately nothing but the chance collison of atoms. How can concepts like good and evil even apply?**

I believe that we apply concepts of good and evil to ourselves, our experiences, and to those around us. For many people the concept of good and evil is relative to different situations- let me try to explain. First of all, I think Hitler was a very evil man (Pablo, give it a rest). But I also know that what I think is evil, others might think is just fine. Groups like PETA believe that eating animals is evil (especially the way the animals are treated before they are killed)- others think it's just fine and quite amusing to make fun of PETA. Some think that homosexuality is wrong, but killing a homosexual is fine (just an example). How many of us believe that what we are doing to the world is evil, and evil enough to drastically alter their lifestyle, while their neighbor buys a hummer h2.
More to the point, I haven't heard any atheists say that their world view reduces everything to materialism. I live my life in context of a human society, that's my world view. I do my best to expand that view because I want my understanding and awareness of the world around me to grow. I want to live respectfully to that world, which includes so much more than human concerns- and that which we deem good and evil. I think there is a lot of chance in this universe (the vast scale of which we can only hint at comprehension) but that doesn't mean that I can't apply a context for good and evil. I just don't believe in a deity.

For Pablo the issue IS whether or not atheists are capable of rendering moral judgments, which is why I addressed him- we where discussing this in the Sam Harris response page- we tried, to no avail, explaining this to him. I would like to carry on writing more, but I'm getting a little burned out.

Regards,
Scott

A Hermit,

You call yourself a hermit but you hardly come off sounding like a person who has "withdrawn to a solitary place for a life of religious seclusion" - a common definition of a hermit. I would none the less not want to supress you in explaining how you got faith and subsequently lost it.

My original comment questioned the Post for featuring hard and fast atheists as triggers for discussions on faith. I think these advocates of atheism deserve their own little section to espouse their opinions about their godless world.

Just wanted to correct myself when I said "heaven and earth". I obviously meant to say "hell".

But there are legitimate faiths who believe in a Heaven and also believe that this is hell.

I say that it is possible that we are in hell today, no thanks to people such as Ayatollah Khomeini, George Bush, Bin Laden, and many others who feel that they are doing God's work.

Russell,

You wrote:
Evil is a construct, a word used to describe a very despicable act or acts. Yet how did it come about? It has been around since the beginning of man, before God was thought of, before monotheism.
God didn't create evil. Man did. Man created God.

I see that you do believe that evil is real. How do you know that evil was around since the beginning of man? I thought you were an empiricist and a naturalistic evolutionist?

Oh wow......look at that 2+2=4.
God bless you Russell

Amen!

Miles2go:

"prefer to be open to the possibility that there is a loving Master of the Universe,"

I liked the He-Man cartoon too. When I was seven.

Oops, there's that dismissiveness again. I'll try to be more serious:

Which godS should we be open to believing in? Mankind has created hundreds, if not thousands, throughout our history. Atheists like myself have looked, and seen that there is no good reason to believe in any one of them over the rest. God or Zeus or Vishnu or Odin, it's all the same to us.

Excellent post Logical.

My own 2 cents:

Many angry posters may not seem to realize the futility of their anger against suffering in the world. Our time in this world is limited, we will go whether by a Katrina or a small storm, whether by a terrible cancer or old age, whether via a violent means or in our sleep.

The Bible when read in a loving, understanding manner (rather than in an antagonistic form) reflects a snapshot of our journey with God. God's role in our lives is in the context of (a) loving Him by our free will and (b) whether our love for Him (also manifested by our love for fellow man) is true enough to enable us to see God. When the latter occurs we shall inherit the kingdom of God for ETERNITY. These are the stakes. Im not advocating loving God just to avoid Hell, God can tell the difference. Think about it. Whatever we face in our lives on earth is a minute fraction of INFINITY waiting for us in the great beyond.

The Bible clearly lays out examples of suffering that were punishment from God and examples of suffering that were there not as punishment but rather as a means to bring people closer to God. The incarnation of God as a human is Jesus Christ, who showed that God can take suffering and transform it (or better yet, ressurect it) into goodness and triumph.

Suffering happens to all, in forms that humans deem as great or minor. But our human minds are incapable of seeing the complex reactions of people to suffering vis-a-vis their spiritual lives (despite the claims of all-knowing, all understanding Wash. Post columnists or best-selling authors)

Personal example: Im Coptic Christian whose people have suffered religious persecution in Egypt for 1500 years. HAs God abandoned us? Our Pope Shenouda III once remarked that our persecution is a gift from God. Is the Pope a sadist? No is the answer to both questions. Our suffering has constantly driven many of the Coptic people to grow closer to God where they receive SPIRITUAL comfort if not physical comfort. And closeness to God is what makes us KNOW God, the obvious prerequisite if we are to live in His heavenly home for eternity (or are we arrogant enough to say " I don't need to acknowledge you God on earth but you better grant me a place in your house because Im generally a "good" person, a "good" person who happens to think you cramp my style...)

I also wish to address Arminus's point:
"I am a practicing Christian, but anyone who thinks that atheists are incapable of morality is living in a box and has not observed his fellow man."

True, atheists are not exempt from morality. But I believe that morality IS from God. Whether we acknowledge that or not is an entirely different argument. No other species on the planet (and until scientific evidence proves otherwise, not even in the universe) has spent so much time of its history debating, promoting, or thinking about the MEANING of its existence or the concepts of Good and Evil. Both atheists and theists can use their free will to ignore God to the point where we dont even recognize Him anymore. Thank God he tries to remind us every now and then with various ways. Some of these ways may seem harsh, but if we choose to see God through suffering in our temporary time on Earth, then we are one step closer to eternal bliss with Him. If we choose out of arrogance towards the works of our maker to curse or ignore him, then our exercise of our free will alienates Him. Which is precisely why Susan Jacoby's comment:"If there were a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, I would hate him. I would prefer to go to hell rather than to make bargains with such a cruel, capricious Master of the Universe." is very interesting. People who are not going to Heaven may in fact be getting their wish, not to be in the company of God. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

God Bless.

I always find the obsession of athiests with God and religion fascinating and hilarious. I personally do not believe in the tooth fairy and the bunny rabbit, but I do not devote large portions of may time and effort trying to convince others that they do not exist. Quite simply, if you are a true athiest and do not believe in a god, why go to such lengths to try and dissuade others who do believe? Why does it bother some athiests so much that there are many who find great peace and enlightenment through their religion? There seems to be a certain level of intolerance and arrogance involved. Let people live their lives as they see fit.

Theists accuse us atheists of being dismissive, of being "arrogant", but it's hard not to be when it's apparent they're not listening to what we're saying. When they wave the same tired, discredited arguments we've heard a thousand times over under our noses. When they proclaim us "childish" and unknowledgable for not addressing every single one of those ancient arguments in a single essay (even if we have elsewhere).

It's tiresome. And yes, often you just want to say, "Go AWAY, little boy, you bore me."

But I like to think we're getting through. Cut and paste if you have to; keep a nice pithy quote-file from Jacoby and Dawkins and Russell; show them we do have answers to the idea of "where we get our morals from." Some theists may be arrogant prats for (prematurely) declaring that we have no such answers, but many are simply unaware that we do have those answers -- they have just been sincerely misled by the preachers and fleecers that want to keep them in the fold.

Keep educating, don't lose hope, and don't lose patience.

Except with slanderers like Arroyo. That still chaps my hide and I refuse to let it go. What a bigot.

To Hermit, again. You said:

"A note to those who want the atheists to shut up and go away; the name of the forum is "On Faith" and as an ex-Christian faith is something I have spent a long time and a lot of energy thinking about.

As an ex-atheist, I agree completely. The title here is not 'For the Faithful'. It is about faith, concerning faith. A discussion about faith. If atheists were not here, I would not be here either. I don't want a discussion group that simply pats one another on the back.

There is also the question if Hell is an
ethically justifiable facility. To many people,
it sounds as if it is a concentration camp.
Is such a camp acceptable in Christian morals?

mizbinkley:

I took your statement that "Theists are bothered that atheists are denying the existence of what the theist him/herself has experienced. Atheists, by definition, do not have this experience themselves..." to mean that atheists were, by virtue of their lack of experience of faith, incapable of understanding or appreciating the theist view. My apologies if I misunderstood...

Regards

A Hermit

Susan,
if I didn't know better, I would think that you are as perfect and all knowing and all powerfull as the Master of the Universe that you refuse to believe in. I on the other hand, knowing that I am not perfect and all knowing, prefer to be open to the possibility that there is a loving Master of the Universe, whether or not I have proof, and regardless of what religious people say or do. To me, this isn't about being right or wrong, but instead being open to the truth, whatever that truth is.

So Susan, if you are right that a loving Master of the Universe could not possibly exist, then I assume that somewhere along the way you have also figured out the answers to less complex issues like how to cure cancer, are people born gay, why do the good die young, cure for AIDS, how to stop terrorism, healthcare for all, who to make president, how to be richer than Bill Gates.

Come on Susan, we can't even decide whether or not global warming exists but yet we are willing to accept it if it does. But on the other hand, we are closed minded about the possibility of a Master of the Universe? Why? Why would an intelligent person be open minded to learning the truth about everything else in life,... but not about this?!

One last thing to mention: religious people are not always right, well-intentioned, honest, or objective for that matter. Do not base your beliefs on what other people say or do; they are just as imperfect as everyone else. That is why for example, christianity has umpteen denominations. Christians etc are not God, they are people.

NOTE: Nothing in this post is meant to offend. It is merely meant to stimulate contemplation.

" D.:

"A Hermit:

How do you think God should prevent rapes or murders?"

Well, can't speak for monotheists who think everything good is from a particular God and everything bad is our problem, but...

Well, I might start by equipping everyone with eyes and hearts and minds, and for when necessary, opposable thumbs.

I think distancing these things from our humanity serves no great justice or goodness.

I think that ideas of a distant-God who adds up a tally at the end of a life and measures merit according to a book that tends to blame victims for rape...

Take people away from the very real human immediacy of these 'moral problems.'

If you teach that things like rape and murder are pleasurable 'sins' that everyone would want to do without divine authority, ...that's what you tend to get.

Good article Susan.

As perhaps you may agree, searching for meaning, a person can wear out their very "soul."
(if, in fact, we have a soul which I doubt very much)

What I find so fascinating is the way in which religious people start sentences always with the quickly assumed (unassailable) premises, the existence of "god" --for example-- and argue points based on that premise.

"God gives man Free Will" is such a phrase.

1. God (and there is no logical reason to capitalize it unless it is a word that begins a complete sentence) either exists or does not exist, or it doesn't matter at all for there is no proof either way. 2. Human will is neither "Free' or "Not Free" Nobody's deciding. Human will (there is no other we're discussing unless, of course, you are talking about Jellyfish will, or Koala Bear will) is not -ipso facto- kept in a metaphorical prison. I am not aware, hence not even grateful, that I am allowed to be "free" to choose yoghurt or cereal for breakfast. The acknowledgment doesn't even come up for me. As Martin Buber, a very perceptive individual, once said, "The true atheist is the person for which the existence of God is a existential question that simply never comes up."

Susan, keep thinking...it's good practice

Like I always say, "True belief is for those who have stopped thinking."

Richard Begin
Santa Cruz

D. asks: "How do you think God should prevent rapes or murders?"

I don't care HOW, I'm concerned with the question of WHY a supposedly loving, all-powerful, all knowing God would choose to allow them to happen.

If you saw a child being raped and knew you could stop it from happening wouldn't you do so? Or would you stand by and watch? Which course of action would the moral choice here?

Regards

A Hermit

Some of you who question Ms. Jacoby's knowledge come across as very ignorant and quite frankly stupid. You can choose to disagree with her, but I often find that an average atheist has exponentially more information about history and faiths than an average muslim, christian or jew.

They have formed their beliefs based on study and conscience, instead of being brainwashed and following the masses like sheep.

The idiotic statements such as the one Pablo made that evil originated as a "Christian worldview" just demonstrates what morons you are. I am reminded of a famous retired Redskin player who is one of these Holy Rollers preaching to me about finding the truth and giving my life to Christ before it is too late. He asked me if I believed in the concept of Heaven and Earth. I explained to him that I was not an atheist, and in fact believed (or hoped) that there is a Heaven. I asked him if he believed that Heaven was first introduced by Jesus. He said that it did and that he was a desciple and pretty much a scholar when it comes to these things.

When I attempted to educate him that the concept of monotheism and heaven and hell was introduced by Zoroaster and others before Christ, he went into shutdown mode. He dropped the subject and moved on.

Pablo, open your eyes and educate yourself. Not for the sake of yourself, but for the sake of the general public. It is people like you who given the right order or passion play will shun, persecute, or even physically harm the same neighbor who you once considered friendly and harmless.

Hermit, you wrote:

"Actually, a lot of us atheists have had the experience of faith, sincerely believed for a long time, but have come to understand the experience in a new way."

I understand that, and accept it. But it does work the other way, too. It did for me.

A note to those who want the atheists to shut up and go away; the name of the forum is "On Faith" and as an ex-Christian faith is something I have spent a long time and a lot of energy thinking about.

Those of us who have no faith in gods still have ideas and views "on faith", and we are affected every day by the faith of those around us. So yes, we do have every right to express our opinions here. I'm sorry if those opinions make some of you uncomfortable, or force you to think about things you'd rather ignore or to consider possibilities other than the ones you have been taught to believe in. But that's how we learn. If you are averse to the experience you are free to not read the other comments, or to go somewhere else; or you could open up a little and try to understand another point of view. It's not always easy, and we certainly won't always agree, but we can all learn from each other.

The choice is yours; as for me, I'm not going away.

Regards

A Hermit

I still wonder why the pre-suppostition of most atheists like Michael in Virginia, is that we were raised with certain indoctrinations. Why do you all think this? Can't someone in their 30's or 40's with a solid education and rational thinking accept Jesus? I've met several people who have late in their adult lives without the early childhood indoctrination. If you expect any believer to give any non-believer respect then why stereotype. For some reason it's only the "atheist/agnostics" that are with sound reason. This kind of attitude is what seperates loving atheists, from the militant ones like Susan Jacoby. If you were to ever expect any kind of peace, you might want to start learning how to respect the believer and humble yourself a little because no matter what you say or what you do, Christians aren't going any where. So give up the militantcy!

A Hermit:

How do you think God should prevent rapes or murders?

A HERMIT writes: "Actually, a lot of us atheists have had the experience of faith, sincerely believed for a long time, but have come to understand the experience in a new way."

I don't view our two statements as being mutually exclusive (although I'm sure many could).

The atheist likely at one time attended church, prayed and believed he or she had a relationship with the Divine. Same as the theist.

But to be an atheist under such circumstances means that at one point you believed in a god and at some other point you didn't (by definition of the word "atheist.") You understand your god experience in a new way, and this new way is an absence of the Divine. That you see your experience differently now doesn't erase how fervently you may have believed otherwise then.

But you're right that many people will just dismiss this as "you didn't really believe to begin with." Which I find pretty insulting. People who go from theist to atheist or vice versa don't tend to do so lightly. They struggle.

Unfortunately, Ms. Jacoby totally misses the point. The Father offered humanity a perfect paradise, devoid of the pain and suffering described in the article, but we rejected it in favor of the world we have today. We rejected it because we wanted to be like God. By giving us free will, God gave us the capacity to chose whether we wanted to be with him for all eternity or not. Humanity chose not.

God is all loving and all merciful because he did not abandon us to this evil world when we deserved such abandonment. He gave his own life through his son to save us, and for those of us who believe that and live that every day, we will spend eternity with God after we depart this earth. That is why we can endure the suffering we do here on earth.

Unfortunately, for those who utterly reject God, an eternity in hell awaits them, and anyone who wishes to be in hell will regret that choice. Be careful what you wish for! God Bless!

I wish with this post to address Ms. Jacoby’s concern head-on, because it is a very serious one, and deserves an answer. Theodicy is not a problem for the atheist, she says, in her title; but it is a problem indeed – she says it is the main reason that she and the atheists that she knows cannot accept the existence of any deity. What I am going to posit is an explanation (not proof – all of life isn’t susceptible to scientific evidence) that might make sense of some of the question.

Sufferings might be broken down into two categories: man-made and natural. The natural disasters we will set aside for a moment. Let’s go to the man-made ones first.

God creates persons for a loving relationship with himself. A relationship of love must be based on freely given consent, the choice of both parties, freely made without constraint. God created a material world so that there could be a context for material persons (us). God’s investment of man with free will is the condition that makes a loving relationship with him (and each other) possible. There is no such thing as forced love, nor is there such a thing as love among machines, mechanistic agents of their creator’s will. Only free persons can love. God made us free so we could have that ability.

Freedom is a double-edged sword. Having the ability to decide to bring my wife flowers entails having the ability to neglect to do so. That’s a trivial example to make a big point, and I hope the reader will tolerate it. Likewise, I have the ability to decide to cooperate with coworkers to get a job done, which necessarily entails the ability to refuse to cooperate for whatever reason – perhaps for fear that they might get some of my praise, or what have you. Making a choice in a material world entails material consequences. If a block falls off a table, it lands on the ground – it doesn’t matter whether an earthquake shakes it off the table or a person pushes it. Having both a free will and a material body gives us the ability to intervene directly into the realm of the otherwise-purely-mechanical, of the “natural world”. I can do things that have effects. If I couldn’t, then I couldn’t do things at all. If I couldn’t do things at all, then I couldn’t, among other things, love. But to love is exactly the purpose for which each of us was crafted.

Human freedom is the condition that makes human-inflicted suffering possible. Why should the innocent suffer at the hands of the guilty, Ms. Jacoby asks. Why, indeed. The question isn’t a charge against God though – humans maiming each other wasn’t his idea; it is merely a possible consequence of the ability to decide to love or not to love in the concrete details of life. Why SHOULDN’T the innocent suffer at the hands of the guilty? The guilty are guilty precisely of inflicting suffering on those who don’t deserve it, on the innocent. Should we expect such people to only inflict suffering on the guilty, on those who presumably deserve it? Yet, if people don’t have the ability to maim, then there is nothing innocent about the innocent not maiming people – they are not innocent, only impotent; not undeserving, only unable. If God were to intervene to prevent actual harm from arising whenever freedom were abused, wouldn’t he be curtailing that ability to decide in the first place? What would it mean then, if we loved each other and God in such a world – where all other options were walled off from us in the first place?

To address Ms. Jacoby’s question, human freedom IS a sufficient principle to explain human-inflicted suffering. In fact, it is the only explanation sufficient to explain the mechanics of why such things happen.

I suspect that something deeper is going on here. It is not just the mechanics of why, the what-actually-happened, that bothers us. Often that is clear enough. What bothers us is the what-does-this-mean. In the case of natural disasters, which will be treated separately, a different approach is needed.

Again, what I propose is the Christian solution to the problem – not proof, because we are speaking here of a question of love, and love is not a mechanism and will not yield itself to proof. Two tough questions I have had to ask God include:

1) Why was my sister born so profoundly handicapped?
2) Why did my parents divorce?

The first question is more of the natural disaster variety (though not always entirely), while the second much more the human-inflicted suffering variety. Taking #2, regarding the divorce, since there is no element of natural disaster in it, I can understand the mechanics in our particular home: escalating fights, lack of forgiveness, drifting apart, lack of will to correct the problem for whatever reasons. Those are the things my parents chose. God permitted it because to prevent it would mean that he prevented them from being free, from being free to love each other as would have been better.

So what was the greater purpose, the meaning, the “how come” of the divorce?

One solution is to rage against God. Because I could not see a big-picture reason for my parents’ divorce, I might have assumed or insisted that there was none. I might have reasoned from their that God didn’t love us, or that there was no God. This approach is effectively to say that anything real must be knowable, and anything knowable but be known by me. But my experience is that the world is a much bigger place than can fit into my brain. I cannot see the whole sky at once, I cannot understand atomic fission no matter how hard I try, I do not know why some pregnant women get testier than others, I do not know why horseflies are so called. There is a lot of simple stuff I do not understand. I will not insist that I must be able to know the “big picture” reason why the universe goes the way that it does – or else that there is no reason at all. I just won’t make that assertion because it flies in the face of my experience of not knowing lots of things.

The other solution is to wait on God. As time passes, things unfold. A tree seems fruitless at first, but with the passage of years its fruit become manifest. Already now I can see more into my parents’ relationship than I could five years ago, and I can see more what is coming of their divorce than I could have guessed. This solution is not a cop-out. I still study atomic fission in school (well, I did, but I’ve been out of school for a while now… you probably get my point). I still study social issues and keep mental notes of what I read in the papers about them, and so on. This solution is MUCH harder because it requires me to do something almost impossible: to move myself out of the center. My parents’ divorce wasn’t about me – not fundamentally. I am certainly affected by it, but I am not the center of it. I am not the center of anything. Why should I expect the universe to explain itself to me? Why should I expect that God would create a time-space continuum in which material reality gradually unfolds, only to give me a sneak peek? These things are really hard to accept: that an all-knowing being might possibly know more than me. But what I see, as I wait on God to unfold reality, is that there was much more than I had suspected at first.

Even the bloodiest carnage imaginable – think of Rwanda’s massacres, compared to which my family’s sufferings are miniscule – becomes the scene for an unfolding of immense heroism and bravery and nobility, of breathtaking forgiveness like Immaculee Ilibagiza’s, of mercy and revenge foregone. Do all those good things that come out of the bad justify the bad? No, of course the perpetrators must be apprehended and punished. My parents will need eventually, if only for their own peace of mind, to learn to forgive each other. Situations of human-inflicted suffering do need remedies. Would it be better if Rwanda’s massacres had never happened, if my parents had never divorced, if Columbine hadn’t happened, or the ninth grade bully hadn’t picked on the little guy? Someone stricken with loss is quite normal to want what was lost. I wouldn’t argue with them. That misses their point: that they are wounded and have lost and are suffering. But would it be better if these things had never happened. Quite to the point, we can’t know what would have happened if these sufferings had never been inflicted by human hands. We cannot know which reality would have been better because we have nothing with which to compare the actual reality. I do not know, and none of us can. But if there is an all-knowing God, then it stands to reason that God knows.

The choice for us then is whether to adopt solution #1 or solution #2. None of this is meant to trivialize suffering caused by humans. In fact, part of the Christian Revelation is that God himself entered his Creation, suffered at human hands, and in the process chose solution #2. Not only is God sympathetic to us, not only has he compassion (suffering-with) on us, but he BECAME one of us. He doesn’t “feel our pain” as George H.W. Bush very cheaply said once. He actually has endured it even to the point of feeling entirely abandoned by God, as many people feel, as I have felt. In fact, suffering could (by choosing #1) become a flight from reality and peace, a sort of clinging to anger and pain because reality seems to refuse to exist on our terms. On the contrary, by choosing #2, embracing reality even in its ugliness, waiting on God, waiting with God, we can become more and more intimate with God-With-Us, God who suffers at the hands of men. Our suffering can become a source of union with him, a source of peace, even.

That is my personal experience, so I know that it is true and possible. I cannot prove to anyone that God loves them any more than I can prove that their wife loves them. Love is a choice and thus essentially transcends scientific evidence, something that can only reveal the nature of the mechanistic, material universe. But in my life I have felt the loving hand of God, not just in spite of some pretty difficult suffering, but even IN THE SUFFERING. I am not trying to prove that God loves us – only to show that there might be some greater purpose in humanly inflicted suffering than you or I, the sufferer or the inflictor, can understand at first.

Natural disasters I will have to save for another post after all. If anyone wants to discuss further, more privately, feel free to email me at withouthavingseen at gmail. God bless.

To the person who said I should stop using capital "G" for God:

Capitalizing God is a convention, and disregarding this convention causes a great deal of confusion. When I capitalize God, I am referring to the putative One True God of theists. This enables me to use a small "g" when referring to gods.

Ignoring conventions of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization may make a philosophical point, but it baffles most readers. I take enough flack from offended believers without incurring the wrath of grammarians.

John Ager:

1) Atheists do have a a veaiety of philosophical bases for discerning good and evil; we just understand that these are the products of human behaviour. We are all moral agents. Personally I'm a humanist who sees good and evil in terms of the harm or benefit of an action to myself, my neighbour and my environment (and not necessarily in that order, by the way.) This idea that atheist is synonymous with "amoral" is just a tired old slur tossed around by people who don't understand anything outside their own religious tradition.

2) I addressed the weakness of the free will argument in a previous comment. In short, the idea of free will tells us nothing about natural disasters, or why the preservation of a criminal's free will should be more important to God than the violated free will of the crime victim.

Genesis may have some value as an allegory about human failing, but to take it as more than myth is unwarranted.

3) I also addressed this idea of human sin above; none of us are pure as the driven snow, to be sure, but I have no problem, even as an atheist who allegedly has no philosophicl basis for discerning good and evil, can see a difference between an innocent child and a criminal, for example. I also know that relatively innocent children often suffer more than the worst criminals. I don't like it, and will do what I can to change the equation wherever possible. Why would God do less?

4) Since trhe evidence of unneccessary suffering in this world is so strong I find it impossible to believe that there could be a "perfectly loving God" anywhere in the picture. I will be delighted if someday I am proven wrong, of course, but I'd also be very surprised, to say the least...;-)

Regards

A Hermit

If one starts from the position that there really is a God,
from the position that God is absolute fact,
an undeniable reality:if one really,really believes this
without even a shadow of a doubt,
then it's quite simple to attribute everything to god,one way or another.
If good things happen,one can say god caused it.
If bad things happen,one can say god doesn't get involved in earthly matters,
or it deserved to happen.Or god works in mysterious ways.
Such belief can be rationalized in a million ways,
and it won't seem like rationalizing at all.
It will seem reasonable and rational,
because its predicated on god's "reality".
As everything atheists say is predicated on the absence of a god,
it's like we are never going to connect.

Susan, you're entirely missing the point and frankly your childlike view of theology makes me wonder whether you've done even the most basic research into the subject on which you're expounding. Sorry to be so harsh but you can't put yourself out there as one with a learned opinion on something without a basic understanding of the other side.

Look. God doesn't play favorites. He doesn't "cause" cancer, he didn't "cause" Katrina, he doesn't kill one man's child while sparing anothers. He didn't "allow" that poor girl to be raped and murdered by her younger brother. He didn't "cause" the Minnesota bridge to collapse.

But He was there with those who suffered in all of those horrible events. He had His hand on them and was there for them to turn to, if they could.

God loves all of us. He allows us to do what we will to each other, ourselves, and to Him. We can love Him, deny Him, or hate Him. He doesn't promise good health or a disaster-free life. He promises His love and an eternity with Him if we choose.

The point you're missing is, it's not a zero-sum game with God. Bad things happening to good people does not mean that God is bad or that there is no God. Shift your perspective; we are here to love God and each other. Bad things that happen are just bad things that happen. It's beside the point.

Susan, you're entirely missing the point and frankly your childlike view of theology makes me wonder whether you've done even the most basic research into the subject on which you're expounding. Sorry to be so harsh but you can't put yourself out there as one with a learned opinion on something without a basic understanding of the other side.

Look. God doesn't play favorites. He doesn't "cause" cancer, he didn't "cause" Katrina, he doesn't kill one man's child while sparing anothers. He didn't "allow" that poor girl to be raped and murdered by her younger brother. He didn't "cause" the Minnesota bridge to collapse.

But He was there with those who suffered in all of those horrible events. He had His hand on them and was there for them to turn to, if they could.

God loves all of us. He allows us to do what we will to each other, ourselves, and to Him. We can love Him, deny Him, or hate Him. He doesn't promise good health or a disaster-free life. He promises His love and an eternity with Him if we choose.

Not sure where to start - too much to address. 1) Evil is a word, it is not a christian view of the world - it is a word look it up. 2) this is not a blog for atheists - we don't have our own blog, we comment like others do here. 3) quoting the bible (et al) repeatedly to *prove* your point, does nothing of the sort - pick a text that we all *believe* in and we'll have a good foundation. what book is the question. 4) Jacoby is a fine person, with much to say for all of us atheists who have been drowned out by all the christians (yes, christians) taking over this country for the past 6 years. 5) please, please respect our lack of religion, like we try to respect your religion (christianity, judiasm, buddism, islam, pagan, ALL OF THEM - NOT just yours 6) each end every atheist and agnostic that I have ever met has gone through a time in their lives where they have investigated their taught religion (via parents, et al), and determined, on their own, using rational thinking, etc to arrive at the conclusion that religion/god is not for them. It is not a quick decision, it is a reversing of brainwashing from their parents (ostensibly), through rational thinking and various "investigating". Do not cheapen our views because you chose not to think rationally about your imposed beliefs, chose not to investigate, but rather chose to deftly go along with what you were taught. 7) rational adults, with reasonable intelligence, do not, under any circumstances, need an imaginary friend. 8) in answer to the "what do atheists do in a [time of crisis]?" - simple answer is that we use our brains to cope, get through the issue, and come up with possible solutions (if there are any). What we do not ever do, is waste our time blaming a mythical being.

Thank you Susan for voicing the rational thinkers viewpoint on god. One request, can you drop the capital "G" on god - I think that is reserved for the god fearing.

LOGICALDOUBTABOUTHUMANSANITY writes: "In most cases, religion does not ask blind obedience, but meaningful soul searching."

Your views on religion are honest, thoughtful and intelligent.

However, they don't square with 2,000 years of Christianity. The 1st Commandment is "I am the Lord your God." This is further expanded by some groups to include "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol."

The point is, obedience is at the top of the list.

In order for Christianity (and many other religions), to survive it must adapt. But in so doing, it is often reduced from being a pure, distinct moral voice to some sort of New Age spiritual buffet. You can still be a good, giving and thoughtful person, but it starts to look less and less like religion and more like secular humanism with a dash of spirituality.

it seems that many atheists have a similar energy as many fundamentalist theists...the energy seems to be an "either/or" perception: god does not exist and evidence of this is all the random events of the universe...or, god does exist and evidence of this is all the power of god which causes or allows these events to occur...what if there were a third perception? how about: god may exist, but, just as a parent yearns for, even assists in creating a child, that child is a distinct creation seperate from the parent/creator...the parent cannot control this child in an ultimate sense, the child has its own brain, choices, directions that it will take...and, the parent has limited power/influence, ultimately, over the directions/choices of this child as this child/creation grows and matures...i suggest the universe is like this...maybe god does exist and (lovingly, i hope!) yearns/assists the universe into being...and god continues to yearn for "the best possible" for the creation (like a loving parent, i hope!), yet, cannot force/control/make choices for the creation...the creation, like an adventuresome child has its own "will", its own movement and it may or may not follow the yearnings of the parent/god...and god cannot, does not have the ultimate power to "make" this creation do what god "wants"...

Definition of morality, from Merriam-Webster:

1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Oddly enough, no mention of religion. I am a practicing Christian, but anyone who thinks that atheists are incapable of morality is living in a box and has not observed his fellow man.

mizbinkley says: "the existence of what the theist him/herself has experienced. Atheists, by definition, do not have this experience themselves."

Actually, a lot of us atheists have had the experience of faith, sincerely believed for a long time, but have come to understand the experience in a new way. That's an inconvenient fact for believers, and they'll usually deal with it by calling us liars, or telling us our faith wasn't real or sincere or some other such nonsense. Just watch, I can almost guarantee I'll get several such responses here...

Regards

A Hermit

Susan Jacoby's treatment of this large question in 5 easy paragraphs lacks any depth of grappling with the issue of evil in our world.
1. Atheists lack a philosophical basis for discerning good and evil, as they accept no moral agent in the universe. Everything just is, without purpose and meaning.
2.The fall of humanity and the natural world, as described in Genesis, is a deeply profound understanding of the spiritual power invested by God in man. The free will of man co-existing with a sovereign deity in real time and space describes in general terms the flow of human history, always exposing the meglomania tendencies of our species.
3.The Biblical understanding of mankind in a fallen world does not allow for innocent human individuals. We have all inherited Adam's sin, and all deserve the judgement of death, the same death that atheists assume is the end of their meaningless existence.
4. The hope of redemption and eternal life in heaven is really a grand and exorbitant expression of a perfectly loving God for humans and for our world, and it is either true or not true.

Andrea,

I never referred to any particular faith. There is nothing to be learned about faith from those that lack any faith. Hard and fast atheists are not about to change their minds when given a grandstand that highlights their unbelief. Seekers are not about to discover faith from what atheists have to say.

Jim

Andrea,
Jim is simply saying that "ON FAITH" means you have Faith in something. He didn't say the Christian God. He is simply saying that an Atheist is a person that does not have faith in any religion or god. The faith that WPost is referring to is the Faith of a higher being or a god of some sort. Not faith in your kids, wife, husband, your job. This is a religious section so if you have no religion why are you even on here bringing such hatred and nonsense to the forum. This was created so ADULTS could communicate about each others faiths yet it has turned into an attack on every religion out there.It has also let the demons loose to personally attack every believer in whatever God.
I as a Christian do not attack any one who is not of my faith. It is my job to love them as I do everyone. Now, it is also my job to get them to profess Jesus as Lord. They can either reject it or accept it. I did my part. Now those that reject it, guess what, there will be hell to pay. Pun intended.

This post sounds more like a 6th grader whining about going to Sunday School than about an intellectually rigorous individual discussing about religion. In fact, this is the type of discussion I launch with people who are in High School, and not the type of discussion I would expect within the WashingtonPost online forum.

Fact of the matter is, some of us who chose to have a religious belief do so not to believe in a supreme being who will prevent all disasters, but more as a road to self-discovery. Those of us with some intellectual heft know that the God we believe in will not come out with a miraculous hand and prevent all disasters. Such a belief is juvenile anyways, its like asking an omnipotent being to be everyone's Guardian Mommy (although everyone tends to think this way somehow). God is not an action figure hero out to save the world, he is only portrayed as so.

Jesus told his disciples: Those of you who work for the smallest of men, rejoice, for you shall see God. This statement isn't about how good works will be rewarded in a place called Heaven (although if such a place do exist it would be nice). This statement is about service and self-sacrifice, and through this, understand a greater concept which may be called "God". This concept is something most religions strive to aim for, the perfect state. In Christian and Islamic terms, this state is called Heaven. In Bhouddist terms, Nirvana. In most cases, religion does not ask blind obedience, but meaningful soul searching. With the aid of teachers such as Jesus, Mohammed, and Bhoudda, to reach into the state of perfect harmony.

Does God exist? I believe so, but I have no proof. I believe he exists because I believe he exists, I don't need any other explanation. Is this statement logical? Obviously not. My belief enables me to move forward into my career and my purpose of existance. I wanted to become a physician, and my belief helps me forward despite the obstables. This was my "calling", in a religous sense. I believe that without a calling, some people tend to wander into aimlessness. People do not need to have believe in a religion to have this calling, but people who believe in a religion tend to see this calling more as a contract, and less likely to wander. My belief enables me to be a better person, and so I continue to believe.

Atheists seem incredulous about the religious belief of others, and call on Logic and Reason to disprove the existance of God, believing that rational discourse can somehow disprove the existance of God. Logic and Reason cannot disprove the existance of God, on the pure fact that there is no evidence about God that outrightly states whether or not he exists. You cannot claim that the lack of evidence proves that there is no evidence about God's existance; that is logical fallacy. Just because you can't see a bacteria doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In a way, atheism is a religion as well, as atheists reject any idea or concept of God's existance even though his existance or absence within this world cannot be proven either way. Atheists don't believe in God because they don't believe in God; you can argue that atheists' disbelief about God is religious as their arguments rely on the blind faith that such a being cannot exist.

Ms. Jacoby, you may need to learn more about religion before you can make rational discussions about faith and religion. Read up a bit more on both sides of the aisle, as reading books solely on the topic of anti-religion is counterproductive for discussion. Simple bashing of religion is intellectually dishonest. Religion provides resources to which sometimes secular services does not. Examples of such resources include spiritual guidance, services for the poor and needy, social support within a community, forum for morality, forum for social norms, establishment of social fabric within an unstable/nascent government, asylum for refugees, etc. You can label religious people as intellectual buffoons all day long, but truly understanding religion and the importance of religion to a person and in a social fabric will require much more research and time than a simple 10 minute write-up about How I Hate God.

This post sounds more like a 6th grader whining about going to Sunday School than about an intellectually rigorous individual discussing about religion. In fact, this is the type of discussion I launch with people who are in High School, and not the type of discussion I would expect within the WashingtonPost online forum.

Fact of the matter is, some of us who chose to have a religious belief do so not to believe in a supreme being who will prevent all disasters, but more as a road to self-discovery. Those of us with some intellectual heft know that the God we believe in will not come out with a miraculous hand and prevent all disasters. Such a belief is juvenile anyways, its like asking an omnipotent being to be everyone's Guardian Mommy (although everyone tends to think this way somehow). God is not an action figure hero out to save the world, he is only portrayed as so.

Jesus told his disciples: Those of you who work for the smallest of men, rejoice, for you shall see God. This statement isn't about how good works will be rewarded in a place called Heaven (although if such a place do exist it would be nice). This statement is about service and self-sacrifice, and through this, understand a greater concept which may be called "God". This concept is something most religions strive to aim for, the perfect state. In Christian and Islamic terms, this state is called Heaven. In Bhouddist terms, Nirvana. In most cases, religion does not ask blind obedience, but meaningful soul searching. With the aid of teachers such as Jesus, Mohammed, and Bhoudda, to reach into the state of perfect harmony.

Does God exist? I believe so, but I have no proof. I believe he exists because I believe he exists, I don't need any other explanation. Is this statement logical? Obviously not. My belief enables me to move forward into my career and my purpose of existance. I wanted to become a physician, and my belief helps me forward despite the obstables. This was my "calling", in a religous sense. I believe that without a calling, some people tend to wander into aimlessness. People do not need to have believe in a religion to have this calling, but people who believe in a religion tend to see this calling more as a contract, and less likely to wander. My belief enables me to be a better person, and so I continue to believe.

Atheists seem incredulous about the religious belief of others, and call on Logic and Reason to disprove the existance of God, believing that rational discourse can somehow disprove the existance of God. Logic and Reason cannot disprove the existance of God, on the pure fact that there is no evidence about God that outrightly states whether or not he exists. You cannot claim that the lack of evidence proves that there is no evidence about God's existance; that is logical fallacy. Just because you can't see a bacteria doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In a way, atheism is a religion as well, as atheists reject any idea or concept of God's existance even though his existance or absence within this world cannot be proven either way. Atheists don't believe in God because they don't believe in God; you can argue that atheists' disbelief about God is religious as their arguments rely on the blind faith that such a being cannot exist.

Ms. Jacoby, you may need to learn more about religion before you can make rational discussions about faith and religion. Read up a bit more on both sides of the aisle, as reading books solely on the topic of anti-religion is counterproductive for discussion. Simple bashing of religion is intellectually dishonest. Religion provides resources to which sometimes secular services does not. Examples of such resources include spiritual guidance, services for the poor and needy, social support within a community, forum for morality, forum for social norms, establishment of social fabric within an unstable/nascent government, asylum for refugees, etc. You can label religious people as intellectual buffoons all day long, but truly understanding religion and the importance of religion to a person and in a social fabric will require much more research and time than a simple 10 minute write-up about How I Hate God.

Pablo:

Evil is a construct, a word used to describe a very despicable act or acts. Yet how did it come about? It has been around since the beginning of man, before God was thought of, before monotheism.
God didn't create evil. Man did. Man created God.

Oh wow......look at that 2+2=4.

Some believers tell us that none of us are innocent, but does that mean any of us deserve to suffer without relief? And even if it were so, we're left wondering why some are required to suffer more than others. Does a child of 4 or 5 deserve to suffer as much as a war criminal? Do we wash our hands of all responsibility for one another because we are all guilty? Makes no sense to me.

Others appeal to the idea of "free will" but this does nothing to address the issue of natural disasters or disease, nor does is satisfy when we consider criminal acts for there it is the relatively innocent victim who suffers because of the excersize of free will by the criminal. In fact, the victim's free will is violated, so we must ask ourselves: if there is a God, is the rapist's free will more important to that God than the violated free will of the victim?

Finally it will be argued that life is for learning and that there are lessons for us in suffering; but when pressed for an explanation of what these lessons might be the answers, in the end, come down to appeals to mystery and to God's ultimate, ineffable, unknowable plan. What lesson could be learned by a child who is raped and murdered? Or a father who dies because of a mosquito bite? If the lessons are for the survivors can a case really be made that the value of the lesson is so great that it justifies the unwilling sacrifice and unnecessary suffering of the victim? How can this be if the lesson is one which cannot be understood?

At this point it becomes apparent that, while the existence of unnecessary suffering does not disprove the existence of God, it certainly offers a daunting, if not insurmountable, problem for those who argue for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. If God is aware of unnecessary suffering but is incapable of preventing it He is not Omnipotent. If he is unaware of it He is not Omniscient and if he is aware of it , capable of preventing it and chooses to do nothing then He is immoral.

Or maybe, and this is what seems most likely to me, He just isn't. Period. The mosquito bites and the virus does what it does because they are artifacts of a natural world, the rapist's crime is just that; a crime which the criminal alone is responsible for and which we mere humans, being more moral than God apparently, would all do everything in our power to prevent if we could, regardless of whether we violated the criminal's free will.

The existence of unnecessary suffering is understandable in the context of a natural Universe; or even in a Deist Universe in which God has caesed to operate, or in a Universe ruled by a sadistic demon, but not in a Universe allegedly ruled by a just, merciful and all all powerful deity.

Regards

A Hermit

MARK HAYES writes: "no theological argument for or against God is as compelling as the experience of God."
-Right on the money. This is also why atheists and theists are so often talking past each other. Theists are bothered that atheists are denying the existence of what the theist him/herself has experienced. Atheists, by definition, do not have this experience themselves.

MARK HAYES also writes:"Actually, there are a many more 'explanations' for why God permits suffering than the so-called free will defense discussed by Jacoby, including the argument (or perhaps hope) that one day we will see that suffering was a sort of soul-making experience."
-One thing that's always bothered me about the second argument is that our free will doesn't extend to these "soul-making experiences." For example, losing a loved one might move us along our spiritual journey, but many of us, if given the choice, would sooner keep the loved one and lose the journey.

Jim,

It has been explained that the forum is not named "On Christianity." There are non-believers in the Christian God on this site who have faith in another creator or hold to another belief system. And, there are those who don't or don't know and come here for a learning experience.

Russell,

I am all ears explain away.

I marvel at the smug disbelief of atheists and wonder why the Washington Post features articles on their lack of faith in a section labeled “Faith.” The absence of a faith has nothing to do with faith and how it is explained and experienced. It is like having a section labeled “Love” in which only the bitterest of haters are featured to explain their reasons for not believing in love. How about adding a section labeled “Atheism” with feature articles from noted theologians explaining why it is foolish to be an atheist.

Scot G,

You said:
"There is no basis for calling anything evil in the absence of god. It's simply a rhetorical device with no absolute definition. Evil is a concept, not a thing."

In light of your statement would you contend that Hitler's Germany was not evil. He thought he was doing the world a favor by getting rid of all the less evolved weak linked Jews so he could usher in the most highly evolved purified race.

On what basis do you say Hitler was wrong? opinion?

I would like to see you lay out Dershowitz's case for the basis for atheistic morality. Please refute that God is the precondition for morality. Please show us how morality was created by non-moral nature. Morality is personal not impersonal.

Scott G:

The issue isn't whether atheists and agnostics are capable of rendering moral judgments. Quite clearly they do. The issue isn't what yardstick they use to make those judgments.

The point is that the very concept of morality is utterly irrelevant in a world view that reduces everything to materialism. All ideas in such a philosophy are ultimately nothing but the chance collison of atoms. How can concepts like good and evil even apply?

The very existence of moral valuation and its inescapable hold on human imagination challenges the assumptions that underlie the repudiation of a transcendent order. Ms. Jacoby is right in that the insoluble problem of suffering is problematic for Christians to explain. She is oblivious to the difficulty that atheists have explaining anything else.

Actually, there are a many more "explanations" for why God permits suffering than the so-called free will defense discussed by Jacoby, including the argument (or perhaps hope) that one day we will see that suffering was a sort of soul-making experience. This idea builds on the Christian beliefs that (2) God can turn all things, even evil, to good, and (2) that, through the Incarnation, God himself became human and came to share in our suffering so he could do just that. The problem with these "arguments" is that they don't do much to take pain away. For that, there is no substitute for the experience of God -- prayer, worship, sacrament, communion with other believers. These are the experiences that provide believers with faith, hope and love. The theology helps us understand these experiences, but, as in the Book of Job, no theological argument for or against God is as compelling as the experience of God.

Susan: it's just good to see you here "represent'n" :-) I have to listen to the god/believer/diety craziness on a daily basis. You can't swing a dead cat without coliding into some bible-thumping, sex-hating, closet freak evangelical trying to tell you how to live your life. I wouldn't mind their beliefs so much IF THEY KEPT IT TO THEMSELVES! (kinda like the way they feel about homosexuals) In the meantime...we atheists are large in numbers and this is only the beginning.
EVERYBODY...OUT OF THE CLOSET!

Susan: it's just good to see you here "represent'n" :-) I have to listen to the god/believer/diety craziness on a daily basis. You can't swing a dead cat without coliding into some bible-thumping, sex-hating, closet freak evangelical trying to tell you how to live your life. I wouldn't mind their beliefs so much IF THEY KEPT IT TO THEMSELVES! (kinda like the way they feel about homosexuals) In the meantime...we atheists are large in numbers and this is only the beginning.
EVERYBODY...OUT OF THE CLOSET!

God doesn't play favorites. But remember the prayers of the righteous availeth much.
You can't possibly think that when you live for Satan your entire life and never even pray to God and when a disaster is on it's way you think that God will spare your house. Come on.
Depart from me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you.

When people thank God for their house and belongings and loved ones not being hurt, damaged, injured, etc., they aren't saying that God sparred them. They are simply saying thank you God for keeping your angels charged over me and my family. So if you don't believe in God how can his angels be in charge of you. God protects those that love him. And he protects the innocent (children, people who never heard of Jesus). Now for those that have constantly rejected Jesus basically a slap in the face, how do you suppose you should be protected by God's angels in these instances. Be for real.

i.e. I personally have been robbed at gun point 3 times while working at a fast food restaurant in high school. Ok. These guys had guns pointed at my back and in my face. You hear of horror stories all of the time of people being killed in these cases. But for some "UNKNOWN" reason nothing ever happened to me. Meaning because I am a child of God (we are all NOT God's children. You have the power to become His child only by receiving His son Jesus.) so because I am a child of God, I am covered by the Blood of Jesus, meaning not hurt or harm shall come nigh my dwelling. Remember in the OT when Moses told Pharoh to let the people go. The Israelites spread the "BLOOD OF THE LAMB" on the door posts so that the death plague would skip over their households. Same as it is today, "THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB" WHICH IS JESUS CHRISTS BLOOD THAT WAS SHED FOR YOU AND ME, is spread over my body. So when the death angel tries to come to me, it will say "not this one, they are covered in the blood."

Now things will happen to people who believe and things will happen to the young and innocent. But that's a part of being IN THE WORLD. TEST, TRIALS, and TRIBULATIONS will come. But they come to steal, kill, and to destroy those that believe in Jesus. And that's why you have to be saved so even if something did happen to you, you will know that you only have a better place waiting ahead.

And if a believer's house was blown away in a tornado or hurricane, you better know that God has a bigger and better one waiting ahead.
Don't put your faith in the things of this world. Houses, cars, and money will come and go, but God is everlasting. And he is our everlasting help in a time of trouble. Where your heart is there will your treasure be also. So if you prize your house above God who blessed you with the house ,then you would feel so much loss and hurt about it being missing. But those that are in Christ, know that All things work together for the good of them that love the Lord.

We are always to praise God in the good times and the bad. We aren't praising Him for them but we are praising Him through it because only God can get use through the trials and drama that satan's devices bring to the world. Praise Him for HE IS GOOD AND HIS MERCY ENDURES FOREVER AND EVER.

Thanks for your provocative essay. If the question is, "Why do bad things happen to good people?", then the response that it allows people to have free will is a valid answer (although not a proof of the existence of a Deity). In your belief that it is not a valid answer lies an assumption that there is absolutely no possibility that 1) there is any further existence, in any form, after we leave this earth, and that 2) we have the over-arching perspective to know that what happens during our lifetimes, whether apparently "good" or "bad", is really good or bad for the individual, and for the planet as a whole. To say that humans do have this knowledge smacks somewhat of arrogance. Again, this cannot be proven, but neither can it be disproven. As a point of argument, it msut be taken into account at least as a distinct possibility to be considered.

You propose that to attribute horrible tragedies to randomness allows a person to move forward without anger toward a Deity that allowed such a thing to happen. This, of course, is no more than a rationalization, comforting to the one making it, but it proves nothing about the existence/non-existence of a Deity. It can even be argued that such a belief can (and, I feel quiete certain, has) lead to greater grief, in feeling that no purpose whatsoever was served in this person dying, and in the grief of those who mourn the loss. It suggests a lesser value can be attached to human life, should there exist no meaning or purpose to such experiences, beyond what the human mind is able to comprehend. You label a person who attributes the cause of events to a Deity "arrogance". It would seem to be at least a little arrogant to claim that a human being can plumb the depths of earthly existence, can view the infinity of the cosmos, the infinity and intricacy of the microscopic world, of the propogation of life itself, and claim that he/she knows that all that happens is an accident. This only scratches the surface of the argument, but for a blog entry it is a start to the discourse. (By the way, although I agree with your use of the pronoun, to say that you would be angry at "him" were you to believe in such a thing, would probably be considered "male bashing" in today's "enlightened" world.) Thanks again for bringing this subject to the fore.

TONI writes: "God does not create storms, hurricanes, earthquakes and the like. God established this world and had everything in order. Once sin entered into the world everything became chaotic. Satan currently runs this world and even more because of Atheist and people who don't believe in the God that created them and this world."

If God didn't create them, where did they come from? Didn't God create the heavens and the earth? Isn't He all-powerful? If he's all-powerful, how can he be weakened by Satan and atheists?

Weather phenomena that's bad for one group or species is good for another. Our continents would not exist as they do today were it not for earthquakes, for example.

Thanks for your provocative essay. If the question is, "Why do bad things happen to good people?", then the response that it allows people to have free will is a valid answer (although not a proof of the existence of a Deity). In your belief that it is not a valid answer lies an assumption that there is absolutely no possibility that 1) there is any further existence, in any form, after we leave this earth, and that 2) we have the over-arching perspective to know that what happens during our lifetimes, whether apparently "good" or "bad", is really good or bad for the individual, and for the planet as a whole. To say that humans do have this knowledge smacks somewhat of arrogance. Again, this cannot be proven, but neither can it be disproven. As a point of argument, it msut be taken into account at least as a distinct possibility to be considered.

You propose that to attribute horrible tragedies to randomness allows a person to move forward without anger toward a Deity that allowed such a thing to happen. This, of course, is no more than a rationalization, comforting to the one making it, but it proves nothing about the existence/non-existence of a Deity. It can even be argued that such a belief can (and, I feel quiete certain, has) lead to greater grief, in feeling that no purpose whatsoever was served in this person dying, and in the grief of those who mourn the loss. It suggests a lesser value can be attached to human life, should there exist no meaning or purpose to such experiences, beyond what the human mind is able to comprehend. You label a person who attributes the cause of events to a Deity "arrogance". It would seem to be at least a little arrogant to claim that a human being can plumb the depths of earthly existence, can view the infinity of the cosmos, the infinity and intricacy of the microscopic world, of the propogation of life itself, and claim that he/she knows that all that happens is an accident. This only scratches the surface of the argument, but for a blog entry it is a start to the discourse. (By the way, although I agree with your use of the pronoun, to say that you would be angry at "him" were you to believe in such a thing, would probably be considered "male bashing" in today's "enlightened" world.) Thanks again for bringing this subject to the fore.

Stan,

You, together with people praying for a hurricane to hit somebody else, do not understand what faith is, however much they do or do not pray.

Faith, for a Christian, is not believing that God will do what I want him to, if I just "believe" hard enough.

Faith, for a Christian, is more about committing to do what God will have me do, even if it is very painful and confusing.

Believe me Ms Jacoby, your belief or non-belief is not a pre-requisite for God's existence.

And people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others. Hint: arrogance about one's belief being the only right one?

I remember Pat Robertson praising god a few years ago for steering a hurricance away from Virginia -- it hit North Carolina instead. And those football players from both teams praying as the field goal kicker lines up the potential game-winning kick? They appear to believe in a god who cares about who wins a football game but not about the suffering of millions. Faith appears to choke the supply of oxygen to the brain.

God is a silly idea, which doesn't mean that this essay is any less silly.

God does not create storms, hurricanes, earthquakes and the like. God established this world and had everything in order. Once sin entered into the world everything became chaotic. Satan currently runs this world and even more because of Atheist and people who don't believe in the God that created them and this world.

Once we stop blaming God for this mess then we can understand what we can do as a people to stop it. And also sometimes things just happen because of the way the ozone is. Currently the heat in this world is hotter than it has ever been. Global Warming may or may not be the cause but God didn't create this if so then years ago it would have been a problem. The heat just isn't the same.

God gave us humans dominion over the earth and told us to subdue it. Why is now God's fault that things happen as they do. These things don't happen because God is punishing anyone. If that's the case the whole earth would be punished. Because no country, city, state, or whatever has it all together. But there will come a time when Jesus will return to judge the world. And in that time, he will capture the dead in Christ and rapture those living for cause of Christ. And you had all of the opportunities in the world. Remember he won't come back at least until the entire world has heard the gospel. And for the ones that don't you will only have one more opportunity to become saved. So even if you never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you will have another opportunity.

If there is really a deity responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters, i would pray to the deity to protect me from these disasters. What can the deity do but unleash its fury on us when we commit heinous crimes of all sorts. How long can the deity carry all those sins??

"This is not an answer at all because it does not address the question of why the innocent should suffer for the exercise of 'free will' by the guilty."
-There are no innocent human beings. All humans bear the stain of original sin. Humans chose this stain. God gave Adam and Eve the gift of free will, which they used to turn away from God.

So, first came free will, then sin. Free will and sin belong collectively to humanity (both "innocent" and guilty).

Or so sayeth the Bible.

I have to second Erik's point.

The first question is whether God exists.

The second question is corollary to that: to what extent God's nature is knowable.

The third follows upon any degree of affirmative response to the second: what is the nature of God.

These three questions are questions of fact, whatever their answers might turn out to be upon investigation. There are emotional responses to these questions, as there are to almost all significant questions; and like those other questions, the emotional response is important to those asking the questions, and the emotional responses might actually be adequate responses to OTHER questions.

But an emotional response to one of the three questions above is not adequate, since they seek facts: the existence or non-existence of God; God's knowability and the conditions thereof; what can be known of God if God exists and is knowable.

If God acts in a certain way, and I happen not to like it, that's quite alright - but it doesn't address whether he acts that way or not. Only the very important and very different question, "How does Ryan Haber respond to God's action?" is answered by such a response.

The question, "Why does [or would] a merciful God allow natural or man-made disasters to happen?" is not answered by such a response.

I don't understand in order to believe; I believe in order to understand.

If any man choses to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching of Christ is from Christ himself, or is from God. The man who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but the Man who works for the glory of Him who sent Him is the man of truth, there is no falsehood in Him.

Christians recognize evil as a great mystery--perhaps the greatest mystery--of human existence. A 'mystery' is simply that which remains unexplainable or incomprehensible to us. We cannot ever find an explanation--not because we aren't clever enough, or because we haven't looked hard enough, but because explanations are unavailable.

But then, evil is a mystery for everyone--atheists included. They certainly offer nothing in the way of an explanation; why do they expect Christians or other believers to explain things?

Christians, properly speaking, don't blame God for evil. To do so would be to deny the mystery; it would be to say that God could provide an explanation that would satisfy us as a reason, but refuses to do so. No Christian believes in such cruelty; if that were what God amounted to in Christian belief, I daresay we'd all hate him.

Rather, God offers, in Christ, a way through evil--a way to come to terms with what is otherwise complete pointlessness in life. True faith is not broken on the anvil of theodicy; it rests entirely on our hope in the resurrection. IF an atheist wants to attack Christian faith, that's where the vulnerability lies, not in the lack of explanation for evil.

My question for atheists always turns on the question of meaning in life. If 'this is all there is', why not 1) either make the best of it for me, regardless of others (since none of it matters in any ultimate or lasting way), 2) or get it over with now, or at any given moment?

It's the obverse of the theodicy question, really. They are both mysteries.

D,

While I agree with you that it's our job to clean up the mess we've made in terms of pollution and global warming, weather was happening long before humankind evolved.

While we do aggravate some of the conditions that lead to events such as hurricanes, we don't cause them. They are simply a part of nature.

Wonderful Susan,really wonderful.And quite moving.
I liked the phrase "the indifference of nature".
Nature's indifference has long persuaded me that God is fiction.
To the religious I call it God's indifference,
and wonder why they believe in a God who never does anything.
But the power of religious indoctrination is such that reason means nothing anymore.
Your last paragraph is powerful and agree with every word.

So, to all the God believers out there, a question. Why DID God create the universe and fill it with innocent life that is continuously destroyed, tortured and preyed upon by natural and man-made calamities? Since God is omniscent, he already knows how all of this plays out, in EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCE, so even the cynical view that God did this for his own amusement because he was bored has to be non-sense on the face of it. So please, enlighten us. Why did God go to the trouble?

Mark Eaton wrote: "Talk about arrogance. Are you not arrogant when you thumb your nose at the creater of the universe simply because you decide He does not exist? In your mighty powers, can you create a single living thing? Did you create yourself? Did you create the earth and its creatures? Have you done anything at all except spew forth poison from your lips? I do not need religion to see hatred. Your hatred for God is evident within everything you write. You are simply fooling yourself.:"

Mark, On what planet does disbelief equal hatred? How can someone hate something that in all probability does not even exist?

So tell us, what evidence do you have that any gods exist beyond the irrational minds of superstitious men?

This world is messed up because people screwed it up, not because God refuses to fix our mistakes, or stop evil from occuring. God created the perfect place for us, and people ruined it, not God. This planet is now a far cry from what it originally was, and people on this planet act in ways that God never intended. It is not God's JOB to clean up every time we pollute the water or air, or regrow trees when we chop down entire forests. It's not His JOB to magically alter the mind of every deranged individual so that no killing takes place. It's not His JOB to halt the winds that were set into motion by the global warming caused by the damage we have done to the planet. If He does these things, we are responsible for nothing, and people will go right on doing what they are doing, because they know someone will clean up the mess after them.

People are responsible for themselves; and unfortunately, we now live on a planet that has been through years of abuse. That means that bad things are going to happen in the world; evil exists, and bad conditions exist. But my faith in God's laws and promises help me get through the bad times and past the evil attacks, which is contrary to previous posts that quoted "previously religious people" as asking "why me?" My belief in God does not mean I expect some sort of preferential treatment from Him, as I certainly haven't received it! But I do give Him praise for His wonderful creations daily.

Buddhism and Catholicism by Professor JD Crossan:

"When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity, "Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his
mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story)---that's a myth. We have
the truth; you have a lie."

I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is a fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity" (and all religions).

Reasonable Not Hateful - (my word...are you misnamed)

You said -
"I am always amazed at the atheists on this board and their reaction to Christians like they are the smug ones.

Atheism and smugness in my decade of Internet chat ..... they seem to go hand in hand.

Wake up your spiritual IQ and lessen your egos and then you will be able to really see God in all his glory . "

That's insulting. I have a very well thought out position on my agnosticism that is respectful to your beliefs (all believers for that matter), so DON'T knock MY IQ.

Thank you Susan for continuing to write your thoughtful posts. The whole point of this blog (I believe) is for us all to come and discuss thoughtfully all points of view.

Timo:

What the #&$%?

As far from a reasonable response as I have ever heard.

There is an answer, which I as a Seventh-day Adventisti Christian can give you. The Bible depicts it as a war between God and one of his created beings, who turned to rebellion against God, that is, Satan. Why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people is not unanswerable. We are not pawns in this war. We are active participants, knowingly or unknowingly. Both God and Satan want our loyalty. Why natural disasters happen? Because the first human beings chose a life without God with its consequencies of distorted natural forces as a punishment for rebellion against God. This world of ours is a world that Satan claims as his domain, not as God's, who in his wisdom has granted exactly that. We can choose whom to obey. That decides our future. The rest has already been decided by God, who will work out his plan in due time according to his own timetable.

Can we report God to DHS?

I think we are all owed some back child support.

Russel writes.."Also, (and this is for you Patrick) My wife and I received our gohonzon this past weekend."

Congratulations, your lives can continue to move forward based on your inndr resolve and not the desire of others or any other external influence in life.

I received my Gohonzon in 1964 and I am still an SGI member for life!

I prefer to put faith in people, much more satisfying than something I can not sense with my six senses.

Pablo:

I am not even gonna try to explain the concept of good and evil to you. You seem to more concerned with NOT listening.

But I give all of you this.

Most of my life I have been around the Nichiren Diashonin branch of Buddhism. I liked its approach to the world and I was basically raised with it. I still believe in its core principles. The strength and ability comes from within, not from an outside source.
Recently, my wife started practicing this form of Buddhism, and guess what, where Medicine and God have failed, Faith in her own ability has caused her less pain these days. She can walk up and down stairs with no problems, and is healthier now than she has ever been.

Also, A woman in the SGI that I have known all my life and who is also an avid folower has been diagnosed with and beaten cancer on numerous occasions. Now do you really think that she would have lived this long if she had put her faith in God? I think not. Given God's track record, He probably would have let her die years ago.

Also, (and this is for you Patrick) My wife and I received our gohonzon this past weekend.

So I ask---would my life be different, would my wife's life be different if we believed in God? I will say yes, but it would be different not for the better but for the worse. Faith in a God is good and all, and it allows people to have hope, but when it comes down to it, it's the inner strength and personal conviction that will help and save you. NOT the belief that God will get off his rump and help you out.

MARY CUNNINGHAM sez:
"Look, Brian, God is not interventionist."

????

Ever read the Old Testament?

Reasonable Not Hateful writes.."Atheism and smugness in my decade of Internet chat ..... they seem to go hand in hand.

Anyway, when God does intervene, you will know it full force, and the "free will" that you and others don't acknowledge will be taken away from you also.

Wake up your spiritual IQ and lessen your egos and then you will be able to really see God in all his glory ."

Interesting "Free Will" is something to be taken away if you do not act correct according to Christian view point.

This person makes opinionated comments they can not back up except in church with common believers. This person takes the ability of dialogue as they threaten others to follow them or else...Tha is not dialogue, that is a simple threat.

Sad state of Christian understanding.

As a Buddhist I can 'see' life in reality. it is people, animals, trees, etc...

I can appreciate what I can 'see' and not imagine in my mind alone that does not reveal itself in reality.

There is no separation between the reality of life and the understanding of life.

Quoting the bible against non-christians is as useless as quoting the Quarran to non-Muslims, I think. Fundamentalism at work either way.

Hello, Mary Cunningham,

To answer your last question first, I'm still an agnostic Buddhist sympathizer. I certainly still admit the possibility that a being exists who could reasonably be called "God".

When I post something that says that no god exists, I'm either

[1] Adopting a rhetorical stance in opposition to an obnoxiously positive statement that "God exists" and sets out with particularity His/Her attributes, or

[2] Simply having fun with (twisting the tail of) a poster who, again, is positive "God" exists and is oh-so-serious about it and the consequences for those, like me, who are not positive believers in the same diety as the poster.

Perhaps I'm insufficiently reverent toward such posters and their beliefs, but I do see these posts as moves in a certain sort of game which I enjoy, and I do deeply believe that:

WORDS ARE THE COUNTERS OF WISE MEN AND THE MONEY OF FOOLS

But let me assure you that my beliefs truly are as described in the first paragraph.

As for your first question,

"Whose suffering is most important?

"Mine (a human)?

"The lamb I eat (an animal and I get pleasure eating a good lamp chop)? The bird the cat tortured and then killed (both animals, but the cat prevailed)? If the cat could not kill the bird and instead died of starvation, is the bird's life and (non) suffering worth more than the cat's?"

I'd say that while there are subjective degrees of suffering, in the cosmic sense all suffering is equal.

Substitute "suffering" for "death" in Dylan Thomas's line, "After the first death, there is no other", and you'll have an idea of what I mean.

And yes, the Buddha did say "Life is suffering" [or, in a possibly more accurate translation, "Life is always unsatisfactory"]. He was stating what he saw as a fact. He took suffering as a given for incarnate beings in the eternal, uncreated universe.

But, and you should approve of this, he didn't blame God because he thought none existed.

Best to you.

Pablo- As usual, you plug your ears and sing "la la la la la" while people try to explain to you a concept of morality that does not depend on a deity. Let me reiterate that for most people the explanation of evil can be applied to suffering, or the willful cause of suffering. I think that evil is a uniquely human concept- we don't usually label a bear attack as an evil act, but a drive-by shooting is something else. Rather than me taking up more than my share of bandwidth trying to fully and completely explain this to you, here's a book that you may find interesting that tries to explain our sense of morality:

"Rights from Wrongs- A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights" by Alan Dershowitz. At least, maybe, you'll stop accusing atheists of having no morals or concept of evil.

Reasonable not Hateful, you say, "God intervenes in people's lives, at HIS choosing, not ours, and if He does not, then it is to teach us patience, which is a virtue that many need to have in their lives."

No kidding? How do you know that? God is teaching us patience when he doesn't stop something like Katrina? I feel certain many people could learn patience with a less devastating lesson. And why just the people in New Orleans? COuldn't we all use a lesson in patience?

Maybe God could have just blessed us with in-born patience, instead of that nasty original sin he gave us. But I suppose he had a reason for that too, and I wouldn't be surprised if you thought you knew what it was. Actually I can think of the reason (though I don't buy it) - Adam and Eve ate the apple! And for that God cursed the rest of humanity with original sin. Compassionate indeed.

"Reasonable not hateful", as usual, you describe a god that grants sporadic small favors, yet kills hundreds of thousands of people at a stroke. And this is, apparently, a good thing in your opinion.

Amen! Ms Jacoby answers the theodicy dilemma with clear logic and rational thought. Theists will propose arguments ad infinitum justifying their god's existence but when the cold reality of their god's indifference is confronted they are without answer. Mother Teresa's recent dairy notes confirm the reality of the Catholic god's ineptness. Yes, there will always be answered prayer testimonies, but they are at best answers from the god of coincidence. Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus will have equally effective answers to prayer praying to any of the savior-gods whether Zeus, Osirus, Mithra, even Peter Pan.

SOK7, starving babies are a character builder, is that what you're saying? How does he decide who gets the axe as a sacrifice to the character of others?

Mark Eaton,

I don't hate the invisible pink unicorn: I cannot hate something or somebody I know doesn't exist. So Susan cannot hate god, even if she wanted to!

Entertaining to hear Pablo's broken record question "on what basis..." etc. It makes for good continuance.

Mary Cunningham, I think your statement of god not being an interventionist is very reasonable (I mean this as a compliment, lol!). Is it possible that your faith has become a little more .. emm... broad lately?

I would like to invite you to a simple thought experiment: Let us both, just for the experiment, suppose there is no god. Can you, on this temporary intellectual basis, imagine any event whatsoever (man made or nature-based) that could NOT be explained by and attributed to an "omnipotent" god? I can't, although I think I have a certain amount of imagination, even being an atheist.

That brings me to the insight that god is just a semantic joker for EVERYTHING that happens or that doesn't happen: Universe, football victory, species extinction, birth, death, joy, Katrina, Bush, sickness - you name it, "god" has it!.

People who have never been in pain, who have never felt loss, who have never been hurt, almost never develop a sense of Empathy. Their ability to respond when anything is less than perfect is impaired. Lead a life without some hardship or struggle and you are much more likely to be self-centered, egocentric, and utterly useless in a crisis – whether that crisis happens to you or your neighbor.

You don’t develop character when you are content; when the world flatters you and everything is going your way. God knows this. Hardship, whether it comes in the form of a natural disaster, a terrorist, or as a consequence of our own bad choices, makes us stronger. It has the ability to complete us (if we let it) by building in us a stronger sense of empathy and binding us together as a community.

Why wouldn’t God want there to be challenges and hardships in our lives if that is what it takes to make us a human being? What if it takes a disaster or two to complete us in some way that biology or a textbook can't? Why wouldn’t He want there to be opportunities for us to concentrate on others instead of living a life focused only on ourselves?

I believe there are angels, but I also believe that God would prefer us to be an ‘angel’ to someone in need, rather than using the heavenly variety. Instead of complaining that God hasn’t made your life easy enough, why don’t you take advantage of an opportunity to be God’s angel to someone experiencing their own disaster.

Brian Westly-

That is the point of Christianity that you can't see. God walks with us and does live inside each of us that accepts Him. He is a personal friend but not one that just gives us everything we think we want or need.

Most Christians don't ask God to have them get a parking spot or win football games and expect Him to do it everytime. God intervenes in people's lives, at HIS choosing, not ours, and if He does not, then it is to teach us patience, which is a virtue that many need to have in their lives.

I am always amazed at the atheists on this board and their reaction to Christians like they are the smug ones.

Atheism and smugness in my decade of Internet chat ..... they seem to go hand in hand.

Anyway, when God does intervene, you will know it full force, and the "free will" that you and others don't acknowledge will be taken away from you also.

Wake up your spiritual IQ and lessen your egos and then you will be able to really see God in all his glory .

Chip:

God created carbon, iron, magnesium, and fire but we should not blame Him when the steel fails in a building and it collapes killing hundreds. Steel is a man-made object. Why do you want to blame Him when something bad happens but not praise Him when something good happens. If you get a promotion at work, He should get the praise. But do you give it to Him?

I give Him praise for all good things and give Lucifer the credit for all bad things.

Susan -
Try to concern yourself with whether or not an idea is true. Avoid how you "feel" about it. Einstein made that mistake. Even the smartest fall victim to it, how much more so will someone who is only of average intelligence.

Mary, why did your god set up the conditions that make suffering inevitable? Isn't that like setting a pile of babies on fire and then not throwing water on them and justifying it by claiming "sorry, I don't intervene." Mysterious ways indeed.

Perhaps defining "BAD THINGS" and "GOOD PEOPLE" may be necessary before we can talk about cause anf effect.

Both good and evil spring forth from the 'same' mind.

Life happens to people. Cause and Effect.

Looking for someone other than self to be responsible for the current state of the environment; floods, drought, etc.; is being irresponsible.

Take responsibility for the environment. You do not have to be a "tree Hugger" to act responsibly with regards to the environment. So what if you are not here when Global Warming is intense, your relatives are still here; grandchildren, etc.

Act responsibly and take responsibility for the environment both good and bad.

Whose suffering is most important?

Mine (a human)?

The lamb I eat (an animal and I get pleasure eating a good lamp chop)? The bird the cat tortured and then killed (both animals, but the cat prevailed)? If the cat could not kill the bird and instead died of starvation, is the bird's life and (non) suffering worth more than the cat's?

You could say because humans have self-awareness and *deliberately* harm others and the earth, their suffering is inferior to the animal and plant life that are innocent of this knowledge. (I could quote the Buddha and say that suffering is a fact of this earth.)

There are good reasons for a God who doesn't intervene.

BTW, now that you deny such a deity, does that mean--multiple posts to the contrary--that you have moved into the atheist camp?

Mary Cunningham wrote:

"The destruction Hurricane Katrina caused was due to the warming temperatures of the ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Further deaths resulted in the citizens of New Orleans building houses below sea level. Finally, the Federal Gov't did not provide enough funds for flood defence.

"Where would Ms Jacoby have wished God (assuming she allows the possibility of one) to intervene?"

Answer: At the beginning, when S/He created a universe that contained the possibility, indeed the certainty, of suffering.

If a universe was to be created, it should have been made suffering-proof.

Mary Cunningham, if your god isn't interventionist, I hope your theology considers petitionary prayers to be utterly worthless.

But somehow I doubt that. Your god probably is the sort that can be asked for a parking spot or to win a football game for one side, but asking that same god to, say, not kill so many people by holding back on 9.0+ earthquakes is either beyond his supposedly imnipotent power, or just not something worth bothering about.

And I always find it amusing when people describe what their god will and won't do, as if the creator of the universe was a personal friend of theirs.

Evil is that which seeks its own benefit at the expense of others. Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, and floods are not evil, they simply ARE, just like their elements. Is water bad? Try living without it. Is water good? Those folks in Ohio may not think so.

Look, Brian, God is not interventionist. To demand that He is something that He is not, and then to say well, if He can't be what I want Him to be,then He can't exist is not great reasoning. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm just saying that one of the features of God is that he is not interventionist.

In fact, if He were, looking at the terrible destruction man has made upon the earth, the wholesale destruction of entire species of animals and plants, his very threatening of the ecosystem of God's creation, I would say the intervention He would take is destroy--oh!--three or four billion or so of man himself!

"A question as we commemorate the anniversaries of Katrina and 9/11: Why would a merciful God allow disasters -- natural or manmade -- to happen?"

S/He wouldn't, which is why belief in a diety beggars rationality and sanity.

And please, anyone, don't tell me I just don't understand God's purposes in relation to the suffering of sentient beings. Of course I don't, since both the diety and its purposes aren't.

Jihadist,

Were you stuck in an airplane on the tarmac for endless hours? Why/how else did you find the time to compose such lengthy posts? [This is not a complaint or a criticism, merely an observation.] I can't help but think of the moneymaking opportunities you forewent in the interest of pursuing this religious discussion.

In re libel: Thanks for the promo for my understanding of the laws of libel and slander.
Libel suits are among the most fascinating of cases, though unless you are suing a London tabloid, you're not likely to get a lot of money by winning one.

And libel cases can come back to bite the plaintiff. Remember the unfortunate Oscar Wilde, who was destroyed and went to prison because he lost his libel case against the eighth Marquess of Queensbury.

In Re: Mother Teresa and libel. Under American law a dead person cannot be libelled and the heirs cannot maintain a suit for libel or slander. So, in the U.S. at least, you can say anything nasty you wish about Mother Teresa with complete legal impunity and immunity.

And during her lifetime, truth would have been a complete defense if you were sued for libel over your nasty statements about her.

Statements that are purely opinion cannot form the basis of a suit either, e.g., "Mother T is an evil and unpleasant woman who does no good in the world."

Wherever you may be in the world at this moment, I hope you're enjoying things, and not stuck at an airport or in a plane.

Mark Eaton, ten points for irony. That was quite the little hate-filled tirade against someone for the crime of not sharing your opinion. If there's a god who created the universe and everything in it, then he created hurricanes, disease, famine, and every other malignant cause of human suffering and death. Kudos to god for such loving benevolence.

Pablo, your answer is that we human beings deserve to suffer because we're evil sinners? How sad that people are taught to justify suffering through such self-hatred. If we were created in god's image, then wouldn't it stand to reason that so is he. Does that make him worthy of admiration? There is no basis for calling anything evil in the absence of god. It's simply a rhetorical device with no absolute definition. Evil is a concept, not a thing.

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" 10And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." 11He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Mary Cunningham, I suppose if I had a machine that could release the buildup of pressure in the earth's crust, and I could control whether it's released suddenly and cause large earthquakes, or gradually and cause small earthquakes, you'd find nothing wrong with me triggering large earthquakes (and killing thousands of people (and animals)) instead of small earthquakes?

Your counter-questions do nothing to address what I've pointed out -- an omnipotent being that actually exists could have released the energy from the 2004 quake gradually, and avoided killing hundreds of thousands of people. People who believe such omnipotent beings exist have to explain why their gods kill people; atheists just says such beings are imaginary. You can't avoid the question by asking me other, irrelevant questions.

And this isn't an atheist discussion board, it's for comments on specific articles.

Well said Mark!

It is amazing to hear Jacoby assume that people are somehow innocent before God when her own conscience has convicted her of sin. My question is not why does God allow disasters but why He has not destroyed the earth and everyone in it already. Just a look at one newscast displays the evil of humankind.

On top of this Jacoby has the audacity to imply that there is evil in the world when she claims to be an atheist. I am still waiting for an atheist to give us the basis for calling anything evil if there is no God.

Hello Russel my old friend,

Again, on what basis to you call something evil?

Dear Ms. Jacoby:

Talk about arrogance. Are you not arrogant when you thumb your nose at the creater of the universe simply because you decide He does not exist? In your mighty powers, can you create a single living thing? Did you create yourself? Did you create the earth and its creatures? Have you done anything at all except spew forth poison from your lips? I do not need religion to see hatred. Your hatred for God is evident within everything you write. You are simply fooling yourself.

Pablo:

NEWS FLASH!

Evil is not a Christian construct.

Jihadist asks:

"How do atheists cope with life and death and natural disasters and diseases individually and collectively now that Ms. Jacoby tabulated how believers should not in her essay?"

Let's see, my wife had breast cancer surgery 3 years ago. We dealt with it head on, never once praying to or cursing god. She came through the surgery fine and there has been no sign of the cancer returning. We thank our doctors and their medical expertise as we continue to hold up our end of the deal by getting regular check-ups, etc.

I will admit, though, that the cancer scare was made easier - or at least, put in perspective - by the ordeal we went through in 1995. That's the year we lost a baby at 26 weeks. It was the most-emotional and devastating experience of our lives. Yet we neither prayed to god nor cursed god for our loss. In fact, we were surprised to learn that a full 25% of pregnancies don't go to term (I guess they don't tell you that until after you've fallen into that 25%). Turns out that we fell into a statistical category that no one wishes to be in. Sometimes, things just happen. There was no malice in that death. No god teaching us a lesson or providing a situation to test our faith. It wasn't about "us" at all, and as difficult as it was to deal with the reality, it would have been much harder to deal with if we were under the delusion that some supernatural being was involved in our loss, either as antagonist or comforter.

So, to answer your question, Jihadist, I would say we non-believers deal with life and death situations in the only way we know how - as human beings who are in touch with their emotions and with the support of friends and loved ones.

What need of a god when we humans can do the right thing on our own?

Brian Westley,

Why just "human suffering"? Why not animal suffering too? Why not all sentient beings? Why not all living things?

*You* could stop animal suffering by not eating flesh. Plant suffering by not eating vegetables. Earth suffering by not having children and dying early. Do you?

God is non-interventionist. He judged his Creation is "good" and left it at that. Left us to ourselves too, although he did show himself in his son...And humans killed Christ, as well.

We're not doing well, I'd say. But I would say that, wouldn't I? And this is a blog for atheists..so I'll go.

Susan Jacoby,

On what basis do you call anything evil? If you are going to be an atheist do not borrow from the Christian worldview.

thank you Susan -- great work as usual, saying what I would, but better.

and Hello, all - While we're sending people to other threads, I suggest you take a look at Bishop Chane's essay on this subject. I'd be interested to read your responses.

Well, she finishes off by saying she would hate a deity (although she knows there is none, but if there were) that "allowed" evil and natural disasters. So I asked her where should such a deity intervene.

Now, I write as a Christian. In Jesus Christ I see the face, will and character of God. To me, the material world is where God placed us. We might rail against it, but it is all that is on offer. And God said the world was "good", and post Christ, maybe humankind has a chance.

Maybe, maybe not.

It's easy to come up with ways an omnipotent being could reduce human suffering. For example, have only small earthquakes instead of large ones. The tsunami in 2004 that killed around a quarter of a million people would not have died if the energy of the earthquake had been released gradually instead of suddenly.

But gods don't do this, because they don't exist. Apologists can try to explain how their gods are indistinguishable from nonexistent, mythical beings, but it's much more sensible to conclude that gods are imaginary.

Of course, animals are innocent of wrong-doing, aren't they? They are not aware of the pain their actions cause.

God gave us self-awareness along with our animal nature and our place in the material world. To stop us doing harm to others and to the world.

Hasn't worked yet, has it?

Mary C,

"Where would Ms Jacoby have wished God (assuming she allows the possibility of one) to intervene?"

I didn't read it that way. I took it as "hurricanes are not acts of God intended to punish evil." You know, a friend of mine actually quoted scripture to justify the destruction of New Orleans.

The destruction Hurricane Katrina caused was due to the warming temperatures of the ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Further deaths resulted in the citizens of New Orleans building houses below sea level. Finally, the Federal Gov't did not provide enough funds for flood defence.

Where would Ms Jacoby have wished God (assuming she allows the possibility of one) to intervene?

Evil in men comes from their nature. We are animals, clever animals, but animals nonetheless. Given our animal background, how would Ms Jacoby have wished God (assuming she allows the possibility of one) to design us?

If you believe in God or some form of Singularity:

Father Edward Schillebeeckx notes the following in his book, Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover):

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line: One of God's greatest gifts to us is that of the Future.

Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??

And also in one profound, short paragraph, Schillebeeck vitiates all prophecies ever made and relegates all prophets to the fortune teller waste pile.

Thanks again to Susan for a well-penned article.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that religious belief is little more than self-centered arrogance born of fear. Thanks for pointing out the arrogance aspect of the "god spared my house/won my award/beat the other team" idiocy.

Jihadist, you write "God gave man free will. How man react in the face of personal and community disaster is entirely up to him and mostly dependent on the personality of the believer, upbeat, depressed, optimist, pessimist etc. S/he can blame God. Or s/he can derive strenght from his/her faith in God to see him/her through. Solitary prayers is good to see through one's private fears and grief. Group prayers is good for collective spiritual and practical support."

Either god is involved in the affairs of the world or he isn't. If he is then one has to ask why he allows such horrible things to happen to innocents. If he isn't involved then what good is faith or prayer in the face of such indifference? Which is worse, a god who simply doesn't care or one who's a malicious sadist? Neither view is of a god in any way worthy of worship, faith, respect, or love. Neither is a source of comfort. If you say that god is not answerable to us then of what use is all the ritual behavior of religion? Is it simply a way to pass the time between the forceps and the stones? Religious ritual aimed at an unfathomable and silent god is tantamount to thumb twiddling, and as the hardships, disasters, and random cruelty of nature demonstrate time and again, utterly and completely pointless.

The problem of evil, particularly non-moral evil, is insurmountable for me. I have trouble understanding how anyone can reconcile natural disasters with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient diety.

The idea that there's some greater reason for suffering as a result of such disasters fails to recognize that any possible benefit created by such suffering could have been caused by a deity without the gratuitous suffering.

As is usual, I completely agree with Susan.

Stevens-Arroyo is just another atheist-hating prick, and he deserves to be exposed as such.

The Jihadist is back and like other "liberal" Muslims, she refuses to accept the reality of history i.e. Big Mo was a "holey, not holy, hallucinator" as he supposedly saw visions of a "pwtfft" aka Gabriel. From these hallucinations, came one of the most violent/terror/"Allah wrath" religions humankind has ever seen as evidenced by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia and the following contemporary acts of terror in general supported by Iran and the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia financially and "theologically" with the blood money of oil profits:

The arson/terror acts of seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the UK train bombings, the train bombings in Spain, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

Instead of accepting the reality of history and demanding a deletion of Big Mo and his scribes' koranic militaristic agenda , The Jihadist and her ilk continue an almost 24/7 "wishy wash" with verbage about other religions, natural disasters, other life styles and other economic and government institutions while Islam continues to bring us closer to a world war making natural disasters like Katrina pale in comparison.

It is important that we continue to remind The Jihadist and her ilk of the seriousness of the situation. This will continue until we see an acceptance of reality and a condemnation of the actions of Iran and the "Wannabees".

Hello Jihadist,

Several points.

First, Arroyo and Jacoby post here under their own names. As such their careers and reputations are at stake, and here for all to see. Accusations such as the one I mentioned have far more force coming from Prof. Arroyo than accusations from random anonymous internet yahoos.

Second, I do not think you realize that this can have a serious impact on the work offered to a freelance writer. Reputation is crucial, since publishers can refuse to solicit or accept articles for any reason, or no reason at all. If just one of them is led to believe such a negative thing about SJ, then that leads to lost work and lost income. Most people with stable employment don't appreciate just how precarious this can be: your employer would probably laugh the allegation off, or not have legal grounds to dismiss you, or could be sued if they did. Freelancers have little to no recourse.

Third, the abovementioned anonymity protects us far more than it does Jacoby or Arroyo. Who knows who "Jihadist" or "Minimalist" are? And who cares? I tend to let personal abuse slide, because they don't know the real me and can't hurt my reputation or career. I'm glad you're self-assured enough not to let it bother you as well, but you'd be well within your rights to report personal abuse. Most professional forums frown on such things, particularly a forum meant to encourage respectful dialogue between different faith (or non-faith!) groups.

Obviously somebody above Arroyo agrees with me, as the offending comment has been deleted. I get the feeling that the forum is not regularly moderated beyond auto-monitoring for profanity, so you probably have to actively report highly offensive statements. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.

Finally, if you know of another regular columnist on this site who is a female atheist, I would like to know who it is. Otherwise it is pretty obvious that Arroyo was speaking of SJ. His use of the word "the" implies that there is only one and he knows it.

Minimalist

By the way, before I get off, re what you posted on alleged "libel" in On Faith by its panelists.

Firstly, libel is subjective until and unless the court decides. Agreeing to the court decision is another matter. What is said to be libelous may be what one disagree it. If one agrees, it is not but only stating true and/or obvious.

Secondly, you may be starting a "flame war" which should be doused here and now. There may be readers who thinks what Ms. Jacoby wrote about Mother Teresa and others (both living and dead) to be libelous.

Thirdly, just role with it. I have other posters who calls me a terrorist, who claim I do this and that, I am assciated with this and that - all patently untrue and neither did I ever bother to report to On Faith blog managers that they are "Offensive".

Fourthly, for some Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Pagans/Wiccans here in On Faith, hearing someone complaining about someone allegedly offending someone else in calling them something or the other, or ascribing certain views and characteristics to them in less than civil language and tone to read and hear is just laughable.

Fifthly, Arroyo and Jacoby, I am sure, are less affected or offended by what the other wrote than their readers are. What some readers said about them in their threads following their essays are several times more offensive than what Arroyo and Jacoby wrote.

It is just a simple matter of whether in dishing something out with relish, one can take it when others served up dishes of digs in response. Or chose not too.

By the way, only when explicitly named is it really "libel" in some courts' decisions. Not explicitly naming gives the benefit of the doubt. Are you absolutely sure Arroyo is referring to Jacoby in his 4 Sept 2007 post? Jacoby and Arroyo would know for certain. We don't.

Norrie Hoyt, an American trained lawyer, former state legislator and regular poster here, can help clarify on what is libel and/or slander for you.

All the best

J

Ahhh, two atheists already in this thread. Time for a believer to jump in and drive atheists up the wall.

Actually, I had a hard time understanding where Ms. Susan Jacoby is coming from as I am from a different culture and faith.

But anyway, for believers, it is all so very, very simple. Of course there are tortured believers, there are serene believers, there are hyper-believers to name a few.

God gave man free will. How man react in the face of personal and community disaster is entirely up to him and mostly dependent on the personality of the believer, upbeat, depressed, optimist, pessimist etc. S/he can blame God. Or s/he can derive strenght from his/her faith in God to see him/her through. Solitary prayers is good to see through one's private fears and grief. Group prayers is good for collective spiritual and practical support.

I can't recall any religious text saying that God make man perfect and disease-free and the world disaster free. All the religious texts are full of diseases and disasters that man has to cope with, with or without God's intervention. The last direct intervention by God in human affairs was during the time of Jesus in the form of miracles as recorded in the Bible. Other than that, just "hands off" with reminders for man not to do this and that. And left it at that until Judgement Day.

God giving wind, water, and rocks free will? Never saw any scriptures saying God did so. But the wind do shift its direction. Water do deviate from its ground course. Rocks do move with the blow of winds and currents of water. And what has that got to do with how man deals with his environment and disaster with determination or otherwise?

I can't recall either any religious text saying God will one day wipe away all tears of believers or man. Only that believers pray for strength and resolve, or to guide one to the Right Path. Any believer who pray to God to ask God to bring rain or to stop rain is an idiot. Just as any believer who ask God to stop his nicotine addiction and problems with alcoholism.

God did counsel patience under all forms of adversity in some religious texts. Privately griping and whining to God, having arguments with God, complaining to God why It has forsaken us is better than going for therapy. A shrink charge by the hour, only certain time and days of the week while God is available at all times.

The gulf between believers and atheists on life and death, on man-made and natural disaster is perhaps unbridgable at the most personal level - belief or non-belief in a God to see one through. Other than that, most of the response is similar -to go to doctors for diseases, to organise for aid for humanitarian assistance and such.

The most unbridgable for non-believers to get into is the believer's build in internal support or mechanisms so to speak, in dealing with disasters and deaths.

If we die young, we reasoned God love the young. And get over it.

If we are poor, we reasoned God is challenging us to make ourselves better. And strive for it.

If we are rich, we thank God for being generous with us. And thank God for it and make donations.

If we are spared of our life and home in a disaster, we thanked God for giving us a second chance. And then move on to help those who suffered death and destruction.

Utter arrogance in belief? Not quite. The best balm and best impetus in dealing with the trials and tribulations of life. And an acknowledgement of the limits of humans over their own life, death and general fate that no one is spared of in one way or another for eons of human existence. What atheists calls chance and/or luck.

God must have his reasons? No quite. God does not need to provide any reasons. It is not answerable to us. We gave our own reasons for this and that and the human condition, including on why God don't answer our prayers of silly requests.

Of course, we all always excuse ourselves by blaming God for this and that, including not passing our exams, not giving us a son instead of a daughter, not getting that job, getting infected with HIV/AIDs etc.

That is not the embodiment of passivity, but rather a most active form of shifting the blame, fixing the blame on others. A very human trait. Only a matter of time before an idiot wants to sue God in court for him dying of cancer after smoking five packs a day and God did not answer his prayers to make him stop smoking.

Surely no believer hate a God accused to responsible for both human evil and impersonal natural disasters? Surely believers hate more their fellow humans whom God gave free will and consequent choice to do either good or evil, to fight against evil, but not doing anything about it. Instead, just to whine to God, to blame God.

Surely, believers knows that God is not their servant. God did assert it is the Creator and Master of the Heavens and the Earth. That it originates all life. That we will be personally accountable for what we do here on earth. Nothing said about God having to answer our prayers at all times or even at all when we to ask God for this and that and expecting God to comply like Santa Claus.

If God is dimunitised to fit human norms and foibles, to cater to human wants and self-interest, to indulge all human needs, and to be dumbed down so humans can understand God within its current capacity, then it is a God that I don't know what you are talking about.

It is bad enough that God, according to the Bible (Hollywood version) looks like everyone from James Mason to Morgan Freeman. And there's this idea that humans are God's children. How naive to expect God to pay special attention to man amongst all creation in the universe.

All that is needed is to thank God for being alive, then to get up and deal with life.

So, believers already have pre-set and build in mechanisms for coping with life and death, but are rather "inhumane" and not "humanist" enough apparently for some atheists as pointed out by Ms. Susan Jacoby in her essay.

Which brings us to this question:

How do atheists cope with life and death and natural disasters and diseases individually and collectively now that Ms. Jacoby tabulated how believers should not in her essay?

Thank you and best regards
J

Ms. Jacoby,

I realize this is off-topic, but you may wish to know that a certain other panelist on this site appears to be indirectly accusing you of "finding nothing objectionable" about child molestation. AT least, I think he was referring to you, since he was not man enough to name a name nor provide a direct quote. I only know that it was "The atheist blogger on this site" who is a "she".

I, on the other hand, am not afraid to name names: it was Anthony Stevens-Arroyo in his Sept. 4 post.

Now, perhaps Stevens-Arroyo was referring to someone else, as I do not think the author of "Emotional Child Abuse: The Invisible Plague" and other anti-abuse, anti-rape articles might find "nothing objectionable" about child molestation. Maybe there is another "the" atheist blogger on this site who is also a woman.

I don't wish to start any sort of flame war, but I was utterly enraged by Arroyo's comment and find it hard to perceive as anything other than libel. It has no place on this forum and Arroyo owes Jacoby an apology and a retraction. I encourage everyone to write to the OnFaith moderators/editors and let them know that underhanded insinuations have no place here -- not from commenters, and certainly not from the (supposedly) distinguished panelists themselves.

"The gulf between believers and atheists on this point is unbreachable. Whenever I hear survivors of natural disasters thanking God for sparing their lives and their homes, I feel nothing but amazement and incomprehension. How can anyone possibly see his neighbor's house destroyed by a tornado and think that a deity had something to do with sparing his own house? What utter arrogance is embodied by such beliefs."

This type of thinking has always irked me. How can anyone think that God plays favorites and always has the winner's back? When a team or athlete wins, they thank God for giving them victory. Does God not like the other team? When an actor/actress wins an award, he/she thanks God. Did God like his/her movie better than the others? When someone's child is spared in a car accident that killed others, God was protecting him/her. Does God care more about your child than the others who weren't spared?

If you believe in God, you can surely thank him/her for giving you the talent and leadership skills that helped you win that game. You can thank God for giving you talent and putting you in the right place at the right time to be discovered as an actor/actress. You can thank God for giving your child the good sense to wear his/her seatbelt, etc. But don't think that the bad stuff happens to other people because God likes you more.