Ben Goren called my attention to a piece on Uncommon Descent (the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolution and pro-religion website, though the second adjective is redundant)—a piece going after Ben’s recent post on this site that dealt with theodicy. I was vastly amused at the author’s (Vincent Torley) attempts to explain why Jesus never calls 9-1-1 (he mentions Lucifer!), as well as the additional theodicy promoted by the commenters. And I saw that Ben is actually arguing with believers in the comments! So I asked Ben to write a short piece on the IDers’ response. Here it is, but do go look at Torley’s piece and some of the comments.
The Common Descent of the Omnincompetent
by Ben Goren
Some of all you may remember that, a week and an half ago, Jerry lent me the power of his bully pulpit to preach a sermon demanding an answer to why Jesus never calls 9-1-1. Vincent Torley of Uncommon Descent attempted a response…weakly.
In Torley’s own words, he refuses to “put forward an answer to Ben Goren’s question,” and, instead, identifies “a few background assumptions that Goren makes, in his argument.” He gives five assumptions of my argument that he takes issue with: that the gods share our responsibility for moral action; that lesser gods (including, confusingly, not merely the Heavenly Host but also Satan, in a later response) don’t act on behalf of the greater gods; that there are no unknown-to-us higher priorities which justify the inaction of the gods; that no humans (later clarified to mean Adam and Eve) have the prerogative to make decisions on behalf of all humanity; and that humans are capable of hearing and understanding the words of the gods. (Full disclosure: Torley wrote of the Christian pantheon, which I have generalized here.)
Torley further expands upon those assumptions in his response, turning them into powerfully weak excuses for Jesus’s omnincompetence.
I myself gave direct answers to each of Torley’s objections in the thread, and have continued to engage him. To his credit, he makes plain that he himself would call 9-1-1 in case of an emergency. . . but insists that, for any and all imaginable reasons, Jesus cannot possibly make such a call. Not even to stop a serial child rapist priest who has already raped dozens of children in his care—again, even though Torley himself would do so. Clearly, Christians themselves are infinitely more aware, capable, and moral than their gods. Their gods may be seriously fucked up, but they deserve credit for being better people—much better, comparatively—than their gods.
If you read through the comments, you’ll see just how remarkably prescient I was in my own essay. A common recurring theme is the one I identified as particularly unsatisfying, as many chose to “reassure us that their gods do dispense justice, but they do so only after death.” That one is very, very popular over there. And Torley himself replied to me by “[placing] the blame on an ancient ancestral maternal progenitor who procured culinary counseling from a speaking serpent.” Satan, by Torley’s and others’s description, can whoop Jesus’s ass even when Satan is hogtied and Jesus is loaded for bear.
I haven’t carefully read each and every of the four score and some-odd responses in the thread over there, so it’s possible I missed an honest, real, credible responses; if any of all y’all stumble upon one, I’d appreciate having it brought to my attention. I don’t have the time to reply to everybody over there, and likely won’t be welcome there much longer. But, by all means, feel free to join in the fun!
I got lost at “lesser gods and greater gods.”
WTF???????
There is but one god, Kink the Cat!
And woe unto he who neglects the Snax.
Hypothetical, Doc.
Besides which, there’re actually two gods: Baihu and the Sun. And the Invisible Pink Unico…erm, I need to come in again, don’t I?
b&
Hi Ben,
Great initial article focusing the theodicy issue on that very specific question ‘Why doesn’t Jesus call 9-1-1′. And I admire your patience and tenacity in engaging the folk commenting on the ID website.
I have a slightly tangential question for you – I notice in one of your comments you state “Torture is inexcusable under any circumstances; infinite torture infinitely inexcusable.”
Ever since reading Sam Harris’ ‘ethical defence’ of torture, I’ve found myself struggling to rule-out torture in all circumstances – I’ve had my mind changed on the issue.
Sam issued a public challenge (I seem to recall with an offer of $10,000) for anyone who can rationally reason why the ‘torture’ used by the police as described in the section entitled ‘The Beating’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on torture. Do you have, or know of, a piece that argues the police were wrong in that instance?
regards, Chris.
Oh, that’s too easy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuBea
Everywhere police brutality is permitted, officially or otherwise, it’s used far more often for raping with broken-off brooms innocent dark-skinned immigrants than it is for saving kidnapped children. The police have most emphatically demonstrated utter incompetence at all attempts at ethical terrorism. Even if one grants the myth that torture occasionally produces actionable intelligence, it is at the intolerable cost of tyranny for all.
Sam’s error in defending this particular indefensible crime is twofold.
First, in insisting that inaction is intolerable and something — anything — must be done; and so anything that is done is considered justifiable. That’s why Iraq is the mess it is today. Sometimes, that which is intolerable cannot be solved by any means at our disposal, and any attempt to solve the problem will only make it worse.
Second, that the police are qualified to dispense vigilante justice — that they can be trusted to be judge, jury, and executioner, all without oversight, and on a timeframe all would accept is woefully inadequate even for opening arguments to be presented in an actual tribunal. Yes, the police are absolutely certain of the facts, and sometimes they’re actually correct. More often than not, even. But the criminal justice system is replete with cases where not only were the police certain, but convictions obtained and innocent people sent to rot in prison for decades…only to be finally exonerated with the assistance of, for example, new forensic technology that unequivocally confirms the defense of the convicted and inescapably identifies an entirely different person as the perpetrator.
Even in the case as presented, there are so many possible confounding factors. The car thief could have let the child out of the car already. The thief could have already killed the child, making rescue moot and torture pointless. The thief could have a twin as an accomplice or decoy or even an unwitting dupe on whom the real thief planted the evidence, and the police could be torturing an innocent. The woman might not even have a (missing) child and could be using the police to extract vengeance on the sumbitch who stole her car, or the car wasn’t stolen and it’s her ex who was driving and has now been tortured, or…the possibilities are endless — which is why the police aren’t qualified to do more than detain and arrest and question in the presence of counsel, and to make observations at a crime scene.
Not beat the everlovin’ fucking shit out of everybody who makes their spidey senses tingle.
Sam’s naïve faith in the fallible human police in such circumstances is bizarre and, frankly, inexcusable in somebody who sees so clearly the folly of equivalent faith in the perfect divine.
Do I expect to collect ten grand from Sam from this? Hardly. Challenges issued such as this are not meant to be paid.
b&
I also liked how the police and prosecution conspired to conceal the inhumane and illegally coercive cruel (and pre-conviction) punishment from the justice system so the defendant was deprived of his rights after he was first brutalized while presumed innocent.
Also (and you pointed this out), the presentation was rigged as part of appeal to emotion when the child was found and revived unharmed. if you torture the man to near-death, conceal it from court and his defense, and don’t find a child, is it still “morally justifiable?” Hint: no.
Hi Mr Love,
I share yours and Ben’s abhorrence at the thought of torture, and agree that it should remain illegal. But I genuinely can’t argue against it in this type of situation.
As Sam Harris says himself (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy#torture) realising that there are cases where it is not only ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary, is unsettling. I would genuinely like to have my views changed on this, but so far I have not met any conclusive argument that does so.
I’m not arguing that torture should extend to near-death – it’s clear that’s not required; crucial information can be obtained by extending interrogation with just the threat of violence.
But in a situation where we know there is significant risk of a child dying, where we have overwhelming evidence that the suspect is refusing to provide information we are very sure he holds (this suspect was caught with possessions from the car), even if despite that, there is an acknowledged chance he is innocent, yes I would still feel it is not only morally justifiable, but morally essential to torture,
Chris.
Then I have a challenge for you.
Imagine another crime scene.
You hear a gunshot, run to investigate. A dimly-glimpsed figure lightly brushes past you. You see the victim bleeding to death on the ground. Moments later, from the other direction, a police officer arrives, sees you standing over the victim, and orders you to freeze. You of course comply; what do you have to hide?
As the officer is patting you down, he discovers the murder weapon in your coat pocket. You realize that the real murderer planted it on you as he fled past.
Now, using the exact same standards of evidence and judgement you just presented for torture, explain why the cop shouldn’t shoot you dead, right then and there.
After all, your protestations of innocence are as meaningless as those of Sam’s kidnapper, since you were standing over the victim with the literally smoking gun on your person.
“Oh, but we’re discussing torture, not the death penalty.” So? The death penalty remains legal in the United States; cruel and unusual punishment is explicitly forbidden. The cop who executes you on the spot is remaining more true to the spirit of the law than the one who merely fucks you up a bit.
Summary judgement is evil. It is a perversion of justice, of civilization. It is not moral, not essential, not justifiable.
Period.
Ever.
Under any circumstances.
b&
But I genuinely can’t argue against it in this type of situation.
But you never know when you’re in that situation or not. Its only in hindsight that you can tell, and AFAIK our best hindsight analysis shows that in the overwhelming majority of cases where people think they are in that situation, they actually aren’t. And even worse, when people know they can invoke “we’re in that situation” to do something that would otherwise be illegal, they’re going to invoke the exceptional clause with abuse. As with the FBI and warrantless wiretapping. Its supposed to be for counter-terrorism but IIRC last year they used it somethnig like 40,000 times, and 39,900+ of those times was against drug traffickers, not terrorists.
The US already has a system for dealing with activities that are 99.99% of the time criminal but on very rare occasions can be justified: jury nullification. I would proffer to you that keeping such conduct illegal and using jury nullification in the rare instances where it works out, is a far better legal system than legalized torture.
Also: most executives, including the President, have unrestricted power to grant pardons for any reason or even no reason whatsoever. There can be one helluva political blowback for misuse of pardons, but that’s as it should be.
But, even in the case of the never-has-actually-happened ticking time bomb scenario…I think the least unethical way to handle that would be guilty pleas to torture and any and all other crimes committed, maximum sentence ordered…and then commutation to whatever would be standard for first-time conviction of felony battery. There must be a price to pay for such, and the price must not be cheap. Even in the infamous ticking time bomb fantasy.
b&
Morning all.
I think the case for torture in extreme circumstances is being confused by talk of ‘myths’, ‘fantasy’, ‘vigilantes’, ‘summary executions’, and ‘police brutality’.
I’ve made it clear that only in a scenario where it is believed, beyond reasonable doubt, that a suspect is withholding information that puts a person’s life at imminent risk, should torture even be considered.
It is simply untrue that “we never know when we’re in this situation”. The detail in ‘The Beating’ clearly indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect knows where the car and child is. But if you feel the detail/evidence isn’t enough, let’s assume he touched the petrol-pump while getting into the car, and the finger-prints match. And if that still isn’t enough, let’s have three babies, triplets in the back of the car. And if you still need convincing of a ‘thought experiment’ that will take you over the edge, assume these are your triplets.
See also the kidnapping of a child in Germany 2002, where the suspect was caught picking up the ransom-money, and eventually provided information of the boy’s whereabouts when simply threatened with torture. The boy was found dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html)
I am in no way supporting torture as any form
of cruelty, revenge, punishment, political oppression, or to obtain confessions. The case for torture in no way endorses nor excuses ‘police vigilantism’, nor grants the police the right to ‘convict’ suspects never mind execute them – this is about the few rare extreme circumstance where obtaining information could save lives. The full and fair judicial process regarding trial and potential conviction will follow.
As Ben points out, if police have used torture in any scenario other than one that meets our very strict criteria “There must be a price to pay … and the price must not be cheap”. The
police must know this at all times.
For those still not convinced, what level of interrogation are you willing to permit where we are confident there is crucial information being withheld? What level of physical and psychological discomfort – none? Some?
I’m simply saying that I’d extend it beyond shouting, and banging tables, slamming doors, sleep deprivation, lack of shower facilities, minimal food etc. But only up to a point – maiming and lasting injuries is too far. And only where we are certain beyond reasonable doubt.
Ben is wrong to suggest that I’ve become “desensitized” to “the neverending litany of police brutality”. (How my children would baulk knowing how I turn away from any violence on TV!)
Despite my genuine horror and abhorrence at just the thought of torture, I simply and honestly can’t say it’s unethical in the circumstances described,
Chris.
So, we’re in agreement, then: never.
Because reasonable doubt is always called for in the early stages of an investigation, especially when events are still unfolding.
In the example given on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Bullshit, on the short list of reasons to doubt should be that this is an estranged couple and the wife is setting up her ex-husband for a police beating. The account given makes clear that that wasn’t even a consideration. Nor, for example, that the real perpetrator spied somebody who looked like him, planted the car keys on the unwitting dupe, and made good his escape.
Indeed, quite obviously, the motivating factor was racism: the perpetrator was “an Islander,” his assailants used “an insult calculated to bring the Islander to his feet to fight,” the Islander “quite enjoyed handing out a bit of biffo” but the thugs swarming him were too much to prevent his own humiliation…
…no, I’m afraid that “reasonable doubt” was never the calculus under operation in this scenario, and was instead something the perpetrators dutifully ticked on a box afterwards to justify their racially-motivated hate crime.
b&
This is a response to Ben’s “There must be a price to pay for such, and the price must not be cheap.”
Well I mostly agree. Though I would say there must be the threat/promise/government option of a price to pay. The goal is to get the person considering the action to think very seriously and deeply about what they are willing to personally sacrifice in order to do it, so that the only people who will undertake it are those who feel the action is worth their own personal sacrifice.
There are actually lots of (less extreme) examples of this. Probably the most common one seen in the media is speeding a woman in labor to the hospital. There is no need to carve out a narrow legal exception for doing it; our legal system handles those cases quite well by saying speeding is illegal (period) and then opting not to necessarily enforce it. We don’t want everyone to decide for themselves when speeding is justified, that would me chaos. But we don’t want to punish lifesaving operations. So the solution is keep it illegal and when the courts think the operation did save a life, opt not to punish that illegal behavior.
For the woman in labor…the proper response is for the police to call for an ambulance (or otherwise arranged emergency transport), and, once the woman is under proper care, cite the dumbass driver for nearly getting his wife and soon-to-be-newborn killed when they could have just as easily called for the ambulance themselves. A seriously hardcore ass-chewing would be called for, and little mercy in terms of the number and severity of citations issued. Some back-channel communication to the judge would be in order, so the judge could repeat the ass-chewing…and consider whether or not he’d be willing to reduce the penalties to a token amount in exchange for being shown all the baby pictures.
In disaster or similar situations where emergency services are unreachable or otherwise unable to provide assistance, sure. Pull the car over, see what’s happening, tell the driver to take some deep breaths and be careful, and send him on his way with best wishes. But not under normal circumstances.
b&
Just wanted to toss into the ring that the “torture is ethical under extreme circumstances” scenario assumes that torture is effective. I think Ben briefly mentioned this, but I think this is really the key. Even assuming we could some how implement an “ethical” torture policy that does not in the long term result in turning our society into a hellhole no decent person would wish on anyone, it still all rests on the assumption that torture is effective.
There is fairly good data on this. Torture is not effective. Its efficacy isn’t zero, but it isn’t good. There are techniques of interrogation that are more effective. I can’t remember names or exact details, and don’t have time to search, but in Germany in WWII there was an interrogator who used benign methods on allied POWs with great success. After Germany was defeated former POWs who were victims of this man sponsored him for clemency and immigration to the US. He worked with government agencies to develop the very successful benign interrogation techniques, based on those he developed and used on POWs during the war, that were regularly used from then until Bush Jr’s administration.
And, I should point out, are stilled used to great affect by the FBI and DOJ today though with all the War On Terror hype no one ever hears of it. The skill set has evolved of course, but it started with this German interrogator’s techniques.
Everything I’ve heard from any American military officer in some sort of interrogative position has said that they don’t use torture because it doesn’t work, and that they’re universally horrified at the thought of using it.
Everything I’ve heard from the CIA and similar organizations is that we’ve got to beat the everlovin’ shit out of those motherfuckers so they understand just who the fuck they’re dealing with.
So, a lot of the debate over the effectiveness of torture comes down to whether you place more stock in the military or the James Bond wannabes.
b&
The FBI also has a strong history of being against the CIA on this issue. Though in both institutions, the military and the FBI, there are those that can be counted on by the Cheney’s of the world to “make the tough choices” and “do the hard things that know one else will do.”
Yes.
You know who else made the tough choices and did the hard things nobody else would do?
Torquemada.
Hitler.
Osama bin Laden.
Sometimes, there’s a reason why nobody else would even think to do something.
b&
Yeah. I am so disgusted whenever I hear the cliche “we need someone who can make the tough choices” type statements from certain categories of politicians and their supporters during election campaigns. No, we don’t need assholes, thank you very much. We’ve had nearly all of human history to see if there really is some benefit to letting assholes run things and the data isn’t looking good for the assholes.
In the context of this comment please consider Cheney as an example of what I mean by asshole, rather than merely the standard general meaning. After all I was once given “asshole” as a nickname.
Hi Ben – thanks for your reply, many interesting points.
But just to be clear, again with reference to your principle “torture is inexcusable under any circumstances”, and taking into account the confounding-factors you list: even if this were your child in the car, you believe resort to any level of physical violence against this suspect would always be ethically wrong, and if it were in your power, you would not allow it?
Chris.
Correct.
Lincoln put the concept most elegantly. As he would not be a slave; so he would not be a master. Even were I personally confident that none of my “What if I could be worng in such-and-such a way or any other way I haven’t thought of?” hypotheses could apply, I still would not torture.
With, of course, an obvious caveat. I’m human and have similar weaknesses as all humans. Would I choose death rather than comply with the orders of the Nazi colonel backed by stormtroopers? I’d sure like to think so. Would no amount of torture compel me to torture somebody else to end my own agony? I’d hope so. Is that realistic? Perhaps not. I do hope I never find out!
b&
Hi Ben,
I find your take on this rather astonishing, if not a little disturbing; hard to believe you’d run the risk of your own child’s death on such a principle.
I agree with your point “Sometimes, that which is intolerable cannot be solved by any means at our disposal, and any attempt to solve the problem will only make it worse.” But the key word there, is ‘sometimes’.
That clearly wasn’t the case in this emergency. Despite the uncertainties that possible ‘confounding factors’ may have given rise to, your claim that it’s a “myth that torture occasionally produces actionable intelligence” is shown to be untrue by this case.
The police did not rape the suspect with broken-off brooms. Just the initiation of a minor beating and the threat of more in a genuine attempt to save this child’s life; a beating which caused no lasting damage to the suspect.
As for your expectations re collecting the $10k from Sam Harris – aren’t you jumping the gun somewhat? Surely Sam would have the right to reply first? Conversation – it’s all we’ve really got,
regards, Chris.
Aye, there’s the rub.
In the fantasy, as well as in the official after-the-fact report rationalizing the brutality written by the criminals in uniform covering their asses, absolute certainty was had and warranted.
In reality, it’s not, and never is.
In case you’re not sure, see my previous response for an entire host of off-the-cuff possibilities of how the police could very easily have been in error given the description of the case. Especially consider the example of the innocent lookalike bystander on whom the perpetrator planted the keys! Or the estranged husband, for that matter — or make up your own; it’s a good exercise.
I’ll even grant the police the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that the majority of the time they get it right…but we know for a fact that they often don’t get it right, which is why there’re so many “not guilty” verdicts and decades-late successful overturns on appeal.
I really, truly, honestly shouldn’t have to explain why summary judgment by police (or anybody else!) is a really fucking bad idea. As civilized people, we should have learned that lesson ages ago.
…else why not hand policing over to Judge Dredd?
b&
Hi Ben,
(I’m responding to the ‘challenge’ you set above, but for some reason that comment of yours doesn’t have a ‘reply’ button under it).
We started this conversation with one specific question: can we imagine any circumstances in which torture is morally acceptable.
My fundamental point is that, if we can find just one scenario, then we cannot state that torture is categorically unethical.
And the only type of scenario I could possibly imagine, is one where we are ‘confident enough’ that a suspect is holding information that could save one or more persons whose lives are at imminent risk.
So your challenge to find fault in the policeman killing me in that ‘framed murder’ scenario simply doesn’t fall into the type of scenario I’ve outlined – in your scenario I don’t hold any information that is putting other peoples’ lives at risk.
I really don’t understand how you’ve escalated matters/comparison to killing someone suspected of a crime? That’s not a position I’ve defended, nor would I. Sam Harris has also made it very clear he is against the death-penalty too.
Oh, and btw, I live in the UK where we thankfully outlawed capital punishment decades ago.
It’s fact approaching midnight here, time for me to log-off and sleep.
Ben – I’m grateful for you taking the time to have this conversation, I think it’s important that even the most difficult and troublesome topics are discussed. We’ve taken the time to listen, to understand each others point of view, and now we can agree to differ.
Till next time,
regards, Chris.
You’re proposing police vigilantism, but insisting that you’re not. I’m trying to give you examples of police vigilantism to show you how horrific it is.
If you don’t trust police to make life-or-death decisions with people they’re convinced are guilty, why should you trust them to…well, make life-or-death-plus-torture decisions with those same people?
b&
I think you find this example compelling because you have the benefit of the narrator’s omniscience. This does not exist in real time, in the real world. Even if this is a true story, the officers did not, as Ben pointed out, have certain knowledge that they were beating the actual perpetrator.
Its hard to say what I would do in that circumstance, but I think if I *were* to torture the kidnapper, I’d be perfectly fine with the government saying my actions were illegal and I’d be fine going to jail for it if a jury says I deserve that.
I’d much rather deter the police from torturing my child while a suspect and similarly deter myself from torturing a bad guy when my child is at risk, than deter neither. Especially given that the former probably happens every day but the latter has only happened maybe a few times in modern history.
“Sam’s error in defending this particular indefensible crime is twofold. ”
Sam has stated that he’s against torture as public policy, although he did defend the idea that an individual might be justified in violating any non-torture laws in extenuating circumstances.
Yeah…Sam definitely didn’t bring his “A” game to this one.
If there should be a blanket ban on torture as a matter of public policy, as the first half of the sentence suggests, it should be because there are no circumstances in which it can be justified. But then the second half declares that there are such circumstances. So which is it? If there aren’t any circumstances, then why are we contemplating their possibility? If there are, why can’t we clarify what they are in law and policy?
b&
Hi Ben,
As per my reply to Mr Love above, even without 100% certainty, there will be scenarios where we are ‘confident enough’ that a person holds information that will lead to the saving of a child’s life.
And if the detail of the case in ‘The Beating’ isn’t ‘enough’ confidence, are we really saying we can’t imagine a scenario (thought experiment) where the evidence is so overwhelmingly stronger?
Regarding illegality, Sam draws comparison to trespass laws, where we can have a principle of it being illegal but we all know of rare circumstances when that law could and should be broken,
Chris.
Empirically, this is just simply not the case.
And, as exhibit “A,” I present you the neverending litany of police brutality you’ve quite plainly already become desensitized to.
As exhibit “B,” I give you the modern judicial system and the near-universal disdain for “frontier justice.”
b&
I don’t quite agree. Regarding a similar policy, the death penalty, I could quite easily imagine someone considering it ethical to execute for specific crimes – serial killers/rapists, for instance – but against the death penalty as a matter of public policy because of the error rate involved, and against making exceptions, even for those this person believes deserve death, because that error rate is impossible to rule out (as you point out with your possibilities regarding the kid in the car). In other words, it’s not so much that this person views execution as always wrong, but that because we can’t be sure we’re always right, we should not be using the death penalty regardless.
Likewise, it sounds like Sam is saying (from what I’ve read here) that while in some instances it may be morally justified for someone to torture, it should not be established govt. policy due to the error rate and other factors (such as racist cops) that would lead to the abuse or misuse of such a policy. My question to Sam would be to inquire as to what legal ramifications should be enacted on those who DO fit the alleged moral criteria and torture someone based on the circumstance, as the only way this position remains consistent is to legally punish those who torture, even if they are judged morally justified in their actions. If Sam isn’t okay with punishing vigilante torture, then he’s got problems to address in his position still.
You’re trying to square the circle.
We haven’t had actual cases of morally justified torture. But we’ve a seemingly-infinte list of examples of abuse and misuse of such policies.
Were it possible to do so, we’d already have figured it out.
Just as with religion; were the gods real, we’d have found them by now.
b&
“Sam draws comparison to trespass laws, where we can have a principle of it being illegal but we all know of rare circumstances when that law could and should be broken”
The comparison to trespass laws isn’t the best one; the harm in violating trespass laws is very small.
Even if we were to put in the words “imminent danger” into any law authorizing torture, the question is “what does ‘imminent’ mean?” The torture of terrorists might be justified under the definition of the word if we even suspected that someone was planning something somewhere.
I think that is Sams main failing, I certain naivety in regards to the real nastiness of authority.
Agreed. And it’s especially puzzling in somebody who’s spent so much time hanging out with people like James “The Amazing” Randi.
I think part of it might be from imagining himself in the position of the one called upon to torture, and knowing that he’s an intelligent and honest person and wouldn’t abuse his power; ergo, anybody else in that position would be intelligent and honest and wouldn’t abuse the power.
But, as Randi would point out, people with that sort of an approach are the first and easiest ones to be suckered.
There are solid objective reasons for me to believe that I’m personally in the upper percentiles of human intelligence and observation. There are few people more qualified than I am to make these kinds of decisions — and I’d be utterly hopeless to be able to do it, on the spot, in real time. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the police in the Stanford example hadn’t even adequately established that there really was a missing baby! And they’re willing to torture somebody on certain knowledge that this man had kidnapped the baby and locked it in a car? Didn’t even consider the possibility that the man had handed the baby to somebody else? And so on? And instead went straight to brutalizing “The Islander”?
For Sam to wave all that away, in this of all examples, of declaring that near-certainty was warranted…displays an unbecoming degree of naïveté on his part. Charming in other circumstances, but not when it comes to torture, to nuclear holocaust, to fingering terrorists….
b&
I don’t know Sam’s positions on this stuff well enough to comment on him specifically, but in general terms what you point out here is exactly why we have to be careful to design our systems with certain features rather than rely on individual people within the system to consistently do the right thing.
We need to devise our systems so that they yield the results we want regardless of the weaknesses, errors and other foibles of individual people within the system, to the best of our ability. This applies in everything from manufacturing processes, to airline risk management, to justice systems.
Yes me too! Genesis mention gods numerous times. Christianity is polytheistic not monotheistic! There is God, Jesus, the very powerful Devil. That alone is three Gods! That does not deal with whats gods they are referring to t in the first three chapters of Genesis. Then there is mention of the Queen of Heaven! Then the Catholics have Mary!
I laughed and laughed at the person who said Aquinas’ unmoved mover was a prediction for quantum indeterminacy.
Saint Thomas Deepak Aquinas.
🙂
😎
Also, the “unmoved mover” stuff is from Aristotle, who was bastardized by Aquinas and others to have a reputable sounding philosophy. He succeeds not because Aristotle’s philosophy is terribly Christian-friendly, but because of the sorry situation of motivated reasoning by a genius, alas.
It does surprise me how many Christians don’t internalize what the concepts of *all knowing* and *all powerful* mean. The idea of a “war” between heaven and hell is one of many examples that demonstrate that failure of understanding. With an all powerful being there is no possibility of a “war” against that being. None. Nor does such a being need underlings. There is no need to delegate. No need for hierarchy. No need for angels, or saints to intercede.
Perhaps if Christians accept what all powerful and all knowing mean they will desist in claiming their god can’t prevent evil and admit that if their god exists it desires that evil occur, for if that god didn’t want that evil to occur, it wouldn’t. Period.
Scote,
Along those same lines, and cutting to the chase, I assert that if an all powerful god did not want its existence disbelieved, then everyone would believe in its existence by fiat. An all powerful being cannot have such a simple desire (to not be denied as existing) and that desire not be made manifest.
In other words, the existence of one atheist is proof that there is no omnimax entity existing that desires to be known universally as existing. (And clearly the xtian god expresses the keenist expectation that everyone believes in its existence.)
Never mind omnimax. Jesus can’t figure out how to hold a press conference?
We are to believe that, when John was baptizing him, YHWH confirmed Jesus’s authenticity with a booming voice from above. Is it too much to ask for a simple Twit to that effect today?
b&
Or a book of morals that is actually clear and internally consistent? One would think an all powerful god would be able to write a book that would give everyone the same message…
Maybe YHWH has millennial long laryngitis and can’t use the booming voice?
Send chicken soup!
He needs more chicken soup? What the hell have all these people been sacrificing chickens to him for, then?
b&
They didn’t use egg noodles.
You mean…packaged!?
Well, that would explain it….
b&
Quite. Though Christians will often attempt to counter by claiming that true knowledge of god would take away our free will to believe in and accept Jesus. Yet they also contend that Satan is an angel, who despite knowing for and working for God personally, rejected god and is working against him (while also working for god, as his jailer). :-p
Scote,
This is what happens when a theology is invented by individuals who are operating under the illusion of freewill. They have to contort their mythology to account for something that doesn’t even exist in the first place. (Ironically while making up something else that doesn’t exist to begin with.)
Isaiah 45:7 Does claim that God creates good and evil—–not that either Christians admit such. Even atheists only rarely in my 73 years quote such!
I’m confused… I thought Intelligent Design was just science and had nothing to do with religion, so why are they defending Jesus… 😉
They could be defending Jesus in their spare time.
I see what you did there…
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php
I didn’t see it, but thanks for the reference!
Exactly! And the answer is b/c ID is really all about religion, spun by the religious. But in their hidey hole they feel like they can let their pony run.
Thank you. I was wondering that myself.
Two thing struck me about the comments. One was how literally people took Ben’s “call 9-1-1” metaphor. The other was how quickly the people commenting began to argue with each other about things like predetermination. On the whole their comments leave me unmoved in my opinion that if their is a god, It hallmark is not clarity.
I was struck by that too, but then they’ve been told the Bible is true so I suspect they can’t see metaphor for what it is. Of course, Jesus isn’t going to phone 9-1-1. But it is reasonable to expect him to intervene to prevent suffering.
But I mean it literally.
Jesus can walk on water, raise the dead, heal the sick, answer prayers — perform all sorts of miracles.
But this doesn’t even require a miracle! Just a simple phone call, a phone call that countless people can and do make all the time.
I mean, sure. If Jesus wants to miracle something wondrous that renders the phone call moot, he’s more than welcome to knock himself out.
But is it really so much to ask for just a simple phone call? A no-miracle, no-charge, anonymous, works-anywhere-with-a-cell-signal, phone call?
b&
But he would probably be taken as a crank caller if he gave his name as Jesus H. Christ, unless he used a false name. How do you know he doesn’t make 911 calls and uses a fake name, and so we wouldn’t know?
Why is it ok for lots of people to die and one baby saved to demonstrate a miracle from god?
It’s ok, no need to answer.
The 9-1-1 operators are professionals. There’s no obligation to identify yourself at all. At most, identifying himself as Jesus Christ would get a bit of sarcasm, but it wouldn’t get him dismissed as a crank.
But, you know what?
First, of all, getting the credit for doing shouldn’t matter to anybody, least of all Jesus.
Second, if it did matter…if he called 9-1-1 consistently, in every case where nobody else could have called 9-1-1 but first responders were needed…well, word would spread very quickly, and the miracle of mysterious 9-1-1 caller Jesus H. Christ’s knowledge and compassion would soon be known to all.
b&
But he doesn’t even have to do it terribly consistently – just as much as, say, a 6 year old would!
Indeed.
Though, of course, it would raise questions as to why Jesus was no more competent at this sort of thing as a six-year-old…but it would certainly be an infinite improvement over the current state of affairs, and most welcomed.
b&
Of course there will be no justice dispensed if one accepts Jesus just before one dies. Then one can get away with raping and murdering children etc. The only unforgivable crime is blasphemy.
Torley’s theology may be hopelessly twisted but I have to admit I find it similar to the charmingly anthropromorphic gods of the pantheists. ( come to think of it Christianity is only thinly disguised pantheism) I’ve always found the old Greek and Roman myths more interesting and enlightening than the myths of the old testament.
“Satan can whoop Jesus’s ass even when Satan is hogtied and Jesus is loaded for bear.”
Oh yes. I think the dark lard (picture Ralph Fiennes in a dark flowing evening gown) makes far fewer scientifically conflicting comments than other character in the bible.
Curious how the authors of the bible always seem to know exactly what God thinks, and yet really haven’t a glue what the dark lord is up to. Maybe they got the two confused in the beginning.
I commend Ben for his ongoing efforts in the comments at Uncommon Descent.
It looks like commenter Barry Arlington is a good ol’ proponent of “Sophisticated Theology” over there–he quotes from the likes of Chesterton and David Bentley Hart, and he approaches all of Ben’s comments with a tone of great pity and condescension.
Ben’s latest comment over on Uncommon Descent (#98) highlights the contrast in worldviews so nicely. Whereas the advocate of “Sophisticated” Theology wants us to accept that we live in a “fallen” world where we must embrace the virtues of “mystery” and “faith,” Ben reminds his interlocutor that the world we actually live in today is literally a world built by science, and it is a world in which real PROGRESS occurs. In the progress-orientated world of science (and its associated technologies), the absolute emptiness and circularity of “mystery” and “faith” is so patently obvious.
I think it was Dawkins who said that if we had no science we would be living in hovels, scratching out a meager existence. But if religion were to disappear, well, there would not be that big of an effect.
Posted in the Diso-Toot! Good on ‘ya, Ben! I see from the comments over there the expected smirking over your naive essay while ‘rebutting’ it by special pleading and not a single shred of evidence.
In a way I am a little surprised since I know that that site is supposed to be about ID and heavens no, not about… you know… (yaweh). And yet there it is, out in the open.
I think the official disco-toot site with disabled comments is “evolutionnews”
Uncommon descent is Dembski’s bl*g, not that there’s a difference in content
Well, I have posted a short comment and am currently awaiting “moderation.” I hope that doesn’t mean I’m too intemperate.
For me, my first post required moderation. After that, everything I’ve written has appeared immediately.
Took a few hours for the first post to clear, if I remember right. There’s obviously an human doing the initial review.
b&
Ah, I am #100.
It’s apparently an old thread, though, so it may be too little, too late.
You’re in! And a dandy little comment it is too.
Still no reply to your superb question, nor to my response to Virgil’s “But you have faith too!” taunt.
b&
Oh, there are a few hardy souls still at it on Uncommon Descent…
I probably should have just let the amazing ‘good empirical evidence’ for demons go by, though.
Virgil has replied to you with the classic, “But without God there isn’t any evil. It’s all whatever happens.” All yours, if you’re looking for a softball.
b&
You and Ben have a lot of patience over there. They seem to be in love with declaring straw men about everything under the sun, coupled with recommendations to go wade through volumes of material that is completely irrelevant to the discussion being had (one can link to something on the web for just about any position). Of course, the goal is to just send you away and shut down the conversation until you read said material.
I made a drive by comment, which was really just questions asking Virgil to verify his position that atheism requires more faith than Christianity, which therefore implies faith is a bad thing. I just gave it one more go after the editor jumped in and accused me presenting a straw man, so I backed it up to the actual claim being presented-the Universe is the result of “contingent serendipity.” It should be interesting to see what kind of bullshit they come up with to wiggle out of that one (I predict more misdirection, anecdotes, and Gish Gallops).
Also, after reading through the comments, I gather Virgil is a liar for Jesus. He states in a couple posts that he isn’t Christian, then in other replies talks about eternal damnation. Well, I don’t care what he calls himself or whether he calls his “Intelligent Designer” God. Whatever it is, it damns people eternally and that certainly fits the criteria for some flavor of the monotheistic traditions, but as seems to be the pattern over there, let’s focus on semantics and “straw men” when they have nothing further to present for their claims. That site may possibly be worse than Catholic Answers and I’ve dealt with some real condescending piety over there–one thing they have in common, they seem to think Edward Feser is greatest thing since sliced bread with his penchant for word salads that subtly smuggle in some unjustified premise(s).
Could be worse. Could be Calvinists.
(Sound of crashing thunder.)
Years on the internet have made me too cautious to assume that someone with what seems like a weird combination of beliefs is ‘lying.’ There’s an amazing amount of variation out there — and a lot of people who vary that even further by using their own special definitions and meanings.
Oh, I’d never use that as a point of discussion with him, unless I had some link to him claiming otherwise. All I’ve gathered is he believes in an Intelligent Designer who isn’t necessarily a god but damns people eternally. That’s more than enough to focus on without introducing other assertions that he’d love to pounce all over and get into semantic arguments about. Of course, the unwillingness to even cogently state what the assertions are in the comments over there makes progressing into an actual discussion very difficult. And when it does progress…a story about a guy levitating for 30 minutes is sound evidence for demonic possession? David Berkowitz’s claim that his dog talked to him stands on equal footing; of course, it wouldn’t be surprising to hear them claim that is also evidence of demons, and now we’re just a stone’s throw away from demons masquerading as talking snakes in gardens…
Most recently I’ve been starting to push them hard on the, “How do you know that?” and, “Why should I believe you when I can’t tell the difference between your claims and all these other claims we both reject?” prongs.
b&
I didn’t think it could be worse. You’ve convinced me.
There’s so much wrong with the response to Ben’s post, and most of the comments, I don’t know where to start! I’ve just spent an hour reading the stuff, and now I’m too tired to respond. The cognitive dissonance amongst the commenters is amazing.
I had to laugh when the guy got threatened with being banned. I assumed it was for the personal way he was abusing Ben. Turned out it was for a “gross reference to humping.” FFS!
I’ll have a go at writing something in support of you later Ben. (I hope I will anyway – the body’s not cooperating today.) There’s certainly a lot there to address in their excuses for God’s failures.
I enjoy the way they’ll say god is beyond explanation then go on and explain god in detail.
Yeah. And if/when I comment on their site, one of the things I’ll be saying is their god also acts exactly the way you would expect if he wasn’t real.
Yeah, I’ve spent a good half hour on that UD horror show. Half an hour of my life I’ll never see again!
To comment would add insult to injury…they won’t understand it whatever you say.
For the record, I’m pretty sure there is no affiliation between Uncommon Descent and the Discovery Institute (other than common ideological ground). UD used to be William Dembski’s personal website, but he stopped having anything to do with it some number of years ago (the place is such a cesspit I don’t really blame him for not wanting his name attached to it). Perhaps UD is being confused with Evolution News and Views?
Yeah, I believe Dembski turned the asylum over to the lunatics who regularly comment there a while ago. Far as I can tell, it has no official relationship with the Disco.
He doesn’t need to literally phone someone. The point is that calling 911 is a type of intervention, that is contrasted with doing nothing and rubbernecking. He could intervene in whatever mysterious, divine way he wanted – literally calling somebody, changing the quantum field around, cause the falling tree miss the person by an inch, summon a bird that distracts the driver for a second so that the falling tree is missing her car and so forth. He’s omnipotent, he could do anything. He doesn’t and that’s a fact of life.
… and a few hundred died in the same crash. Or all the other instances where terrible things happen to obviously innocent people who could not have “deserved” their fate, say, stillborn children (persons according to Christian views) yet they could never even experience the warmth of the sun on their skin. If that doesn’t count for some reason, then retry this example with one day old babies, two day old babies and so forth, there will be a group of obviously innocent humans who suffer without ever having exerted their free will. Does God “use” them to teach other humans a lesson? As if that makes him look any better. What about the crowds of people who existed three, four, ten, twenty thousand years ago. Even in the ridiculous young-earth version there is plenty of time and place outside the “chosen one folk” who perished without ever having a fair shot.
Yet, he all-knowingly expected that his holy words would sow discord and seed thousands of religions and denominations, many of them with mutually exclusive tenets. He wanted it unclear. What’s more the confusion he himself seeded made lives of humans unfairly miserable, for example what about the children of the tribes that were neighbours of Christians (i.e. by cosmic lottery born outside the “correct” religion) and who then died at the hand of Christian invaders, crusaders and conquistadors? Likewise, it’s easy for, say Bible-Belters to choose the “correct” religion when growing up they “freely” pick the “correct” religion, when the entire culture around them got it “correct”. Someone has to do almost nothing, but just get educated by their correctly god-loving parents. How does that compare to someone who by happenstance is born in Mongolia, and there is no Christian around, and no way that they could even know about the “correct” religion. You will note that this is the same problem: there is a significant group, in fact the majority of humankind (including across history) who never got a fair opportunity, compared to those who are believers of the “correct” religion. And now those who have it easy arrogantly prattle about “freely” choosing god, and free will and such things. This is even more perverse since god apparently wants to lull different groups into a false sense of security, as each believes they got it correctly. God made it so that false versions are stable, and produce hundreds of years of traditions with generation after generation growing up in the false belief system, where they never get as much as a hint that their version might be the wrong one. And why does he tests some people, throws them curveball after curveball and some have it easy, and a fulfilling life in the “correct” belief system until they die? Theologians always pretend as if “free will” would act on the same conditions, but that’s not true. The problem of evil is more illustrative, but it’s only a small part of the problem.
Nevermind the weirdness of wanting to spread his divine word among humans, then undoing it at once by going about it in the most incompetent way imaginable, picking a prehistoric time in a mythologically rich location where people cannot read and write good and where it is obvious (even without all-knowing superpowers) that they’ll get away with different interpretations and directions, and would fight wars over it eventually. The overwhelming impression is that god hates us all – if he existed.
But as Scriven’s version of the argument made clear (and I believe Ben’s too), one doesn’t even need to assume that god does any of the miraculous stuff – even *just* the mundane is enough to refute, because that also *never* happens, hence also the more outlandish stuff isn’t even worth considering. (Think of it like this: if there’s no entity [say] who can do grade school arithmetic, there’s also no entity which can do calculus.)
Reading the comments under the UD piece, I was thinking, now if I was a Christian reader, how would I respond to your 9-1-1 question. I couldn’t. I am led to believe there could be a handful of readers (not necessarily those commenting) who will actually be persuaded to live in reality. Not overnight, but I think you planted seeds of logic that will eventually germinate and flower in some of them. Congratulations.
Thanks! And that, of course, is what this is all about.
b&
You nailed it with the argument that God dispenses justice after death. And therein lies the biggest problem and most successful lie Christianity has on offer: no amount of finite suffering is not worth infinite bliss, assuming that (ultimate) well beimg is the goal. Thus, anything and everything can be justified. The problem with such logic is that they damn well better offer some evidence that this is actually the case. But they don’t. Instead they run the “you have faith too” canard, a ridiculous argument if ever there was one since they are implying faith is actually bad.
But while we’re on the topic of infinite reward, how much suffering is actually acceptable prior to the infinite happiness? It’s trivial to assert that any finite suffering will trend toward 0 in the face of infinite bliss. But what about infinite suffering that is as infinite as the countable numbers? Is that worth having prior to the infinite reward? Suppose the infinite reward is then the infinite set of fractions between 1 and 2. Is God infinite with regard to the rational numbers, the set of fractions between any two integers, or is he irrationally infinite (a far bigger set)? And for every infinite set you can come up with, I can name one bigger. If God is infinitely anything, he is infinitely incoherent.
I guess you just have to be infinitely faithful.
Is that equivalent to being infinitely dense, and thus the reason the Big Bang is faith based?
There can be no doubt about that.
classic depowering of a god in order to excuse its actions (or lack of same).
So the ID crowd believes in “lesser gods”? Makes sense, I guess, since Behe testified in Dover that the Designer could be “Plato’s demiurge.”
All Christians believe in a pantheon on the scale of the ancient Greco-Roman ones.
The Heavenly Host? All the Patriarchs? Satan and the Daemons of Hell? Saints and the spirits of the dearly departed? Mary?
Even the ones who insist that those aren’t gods because they don’t worship them…pretty emphatically fail the anthropological analysis. Any other religion, they’d recognize the exact equivalent entities as gods — or, at least, as false idols.
b&
If I have one criticism, its in your attempt to generalize. I understand the point you’re making, but it comes off as intentionally insulting rather than anything else.
Its also weak because its a sectarian argument. I make the analogy of religion being kids playing cops and robbers on the playground, with sectarian squabbles being arguments over who shot who with their pretend guns. Your main argument is analogous to pointing out that pretend guns never fire real bullets, which is really hard to refute. But your many gods argument is lowering yourself into a who shot who debate. Be the adult monitoring the playground; don’t get into that fight. That’s for the kids to ultimately work out for themselves, and besides, its kinda pointless. One might even say, juvenile.
Sorry…I just don’t see it that way.
It’s also insulting to point out that the Bible is a fourth-rate ancient faery tale anthology that opens with a story of an enchanted garden…and I’m sure you know the rest.
Both are irrefutably true, and both strike at the very heart of the Christian identity. They see the Bible as sophisticated moral literature, and consider their declared monotheism to be the defining characteristic that sets them apart from the pagans.
But, of course, the Bible is horrid rubbish, and their pantheon is indistinguishable from that of the Pagans.
Hell, they’re not even henotheistic; even the non-Catholics seek advice and help from the dearly departed — with said dearly departed being indistinguishable from Roman personal ancestor gods. All I know of firmly avow the power Satan holds over this world — you can see explicit examples of that on the UD site. Prometheus and Pandora? Adam and Eve. Romulus and Remus? Abraham and Isaac. And on and on and on.
It’s not my fault that they’re lying to themselves, and it’s certainly not my fault that they get upset at having their lies revealed to them.
And, besides…if I’m to refrain from noting the essentially polytheistic nature of Christianity, wouldn’t that same logic similarly apply to anything else that would upset them? Say…identifying Jesus as an accomplice in every unreported crime in all of history?
Cheers,
b&
Lots of things are insulting but true; we don’t feel the need to mention every single one of them in every single argument. If my boss and I are in a disagreement over what action to take, that isn’t a very good time to tell him he has bad breath. Humans being imperfect and emotional, that’s going to reduce my chance of convincing him I’m right. So I save that true observation for a different conversation. “Theodicy…and oh by the way, you’re a polytheist not a monotheist like you claim” has the same problem. IMO its going to reduce the chance of you changing any theists’ mind about the theodicy problem.
Ben is cool now because the crazy religious people have critiqued his work. Remember Ben, we knew you before you were famous. 😀
Hey! You still know me! And Uncommon Descent is hardly fame more like the “lost and found” on the underside of the pizza delivery box….
b&
😛
To give up this assumption is to give up the common undertsanding of ‘benevolent’ in ‘benevolent deity.’
Giving up this assumption either gives up on omnipotence (if God wants to stop Satan but can’t) or is another case of giving up on the common definition of benevolence (if God doesn’t want to stop Satan).
Giving this assumption up undermines all other statements they may make about the nature of God. You can’t say that the most important priorities of God are unknowable and then preach about God’s priorities. Well, not without being labeled a hypocrite.
Well, giving up that assumption that gives up the notion of personal moral agency and undermines our entire criminal justice system.
As with #3, giving up this assumption undermines all past and future claims about the nature of God the theologian may make.
So … despite the common charge (from the god-squaddies, in various formulations) that scientists “set themselves up above God,” in fact it’s the Xtians (and probably Muslims, and other variants on Judaism) who themselves admit to acting in a way “better than god.”
Do these people have mirrors? Or mirror neurones?
As to your last two questions, I’m not sure…but I think they might stow thrones under the foo bird nest, or something like that.
b&
People who live in grass houses shouldn’t stow thrones (not in the attic, anyway).
B&, you’re a treasure!
“(i) the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;”
Passerby? That’s quite a demotion. It’s not as if you’d expect a self-described good shepherd to do this sort of thing for his sheep!
And I’m still chortling at “omnincompetency”.
Theo-idiocy indeed.
Yep. Big grins there. Right in the face of the big omnincompoop.
Quadruple rats. This is a topic and pair of threads (here, and at UD) to which I’d really like to contribute. However, with the new semester having started, that is not realistic.
I read Ben’s original post, and skimmed this one; just glanced at the comments at UD. They do the one thing I hoped they would do–put to rest once and for all the silly posturing occasionally burbled out by the DI crowd, that they are all about science, and not religion.
that the gods share our responsibility for moral action
Apparently, the gods are just too important to be held to the same basic standards of decency that we are. Yeah, it doesn’t sound good when a human “excuses” themselves on those grounds, and it certainly doesn’t sound any better when a “higher” being is “excused” on those same grounds.
that there are no unknown-to-us higher priorities which justify the inaction of the gods
If the gods were Superman punching world-ending asteroids away from the Earth, maybe. That is, if they were merely superhumans entities with limitations. When the gods are supposed to see everything, know everything, and be capable of everything – or close enough to make no difference – then this excuse is tantamount to admitting the god in question is callous.
That these gods are callous and snobbish isn’t too surprising. That these qualities are supposed to be justifications painting them in a bad light… well, it is astounding that the followers can keep a straight face.
EDIT: “justifications painting them in a bad light…” should be “justifications painting them in a good light…”
reasonshark, man, you hit the nail on the head. That’s what angers and disheartens me about theodicy. If the desire to suck up to the Boss despite His evident callousness and/or incompetence were strictly about an imaginary being, it would only be faintly ridiculous. But no, the same attitude is applied to real bosses. Neglect and abuse by earthly fathers is excused with the same lines of “reasoning.” And that’s just tragic at best; malicious in the worst cases.
What I find amusing is that the responses to Ben’s arguments are presented in the way that the responders know and personally understand the mind of their God. It seems to me that this kind of megalomaniacal arrogance is common among believers, when the truth is that their personal understanding carries not more theological validity than mine, the Pope or the pizza delivery guy.
Recently my Facebook page has been peppered with cheers for this odious movie: The War Room. It’s a movie about being a “prayer warrior”, which is one of the most bizarre notions in Christendom. The idea that God intervenes in suffering, but only if third parties pray with enough fervor, or with enough total people is just strange. In it’s way it’s much harder to grok than when Jesus doesn’t call 9-1-1. He’s a god, so perhaps he’s busy and we just don’t rate his attention. But, no, we do rate, Jesus will (metaphorically) call 9-1-1, but only if you can get all of your friends to pray simultaneously… otherwise it’s tough nuts for Little Timmy. Morally, that’s even more perverse, but there are few things that my religious friends eat up more than the idea that their prayers will change things for the better, that when they ask their friends to pray for them that something is actually happening. It’s like prayer is a really really weak form of magic, but if you can pump it up with intense emotion, or can get a hundred other people to pray simultaneously, the total magic can add up to enough to fix a marriage, destroy a few stray cancer cells, or, if the whole world joins, and over time, maybe, just maybe, solve the Syrian refugee crisis.
So I’d like to see them describe why Jesus will supposedly help, but only if the conditions are just perfect, if the right number of people pray, or they pray with the right amount of intensity.
Here’s a footnote… a friend of ours recently had surgery. Our religious friends asked what time the surgery would be, and when told said, “OK, I’ll be praying for you then.” I’ve encountered this more than a few times, people attempting to synchronize their prayer with some event, as though it really were a kind of magic spell. If they believe in God, surely they believe they could pray now for a surgery in a week and God would remember to show up, no?
In a very large sense reading Sophisticated Theologians is a waste of time. Folk Religion, the kind that moves elections and causes mischief in the world, is just crass superstition in a nice building.
Why would prayer even matter to the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being that is G*d. Such a being would already know what is ‘wished’ for and should act accordingly. Acknowledgment with a blink should suffice, no? Prayer is one of the biggest illogical farces that religion produced.
Why do the gods need us to tell them what the moral and right thing to do is? Are they themselves not the ultimate source of our own morality? Either they already know and have already taken the most moral course of action, or they’re ignorant, impotent, and immoral.
b&
Even Descartes, no atheist, said that if one wants to pray, go ahead, but don’t pray for anything other than what god would do anyway.
Religious people like to wiggle out of this one by saying that they pray for God’s will, not to change the will of God, but to help them accept that, whatever it may be, just like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Of course, as soon as everyone finishes praying on those terms and the priest announces that Mass has ended, everyone rushes over to light a candle and donate money for “prayers of petition.” You know, the opposite of the reason they claim to pray when the pointlessness of prayer is pointed out…
One of my fundamentalist Facebook friends posted a status about how something is wrong with America when everyone trashes a feel good movie like The War Room and a movie like Straight Outta Compton is getting praise. This friend is also a Trump supporter and has shall we say a “problem” with minorities.
I pointed out not only his horrible ability to critique films, but that even if he were simply admiring the plot, telling women who are abused by their husbands to stick it out and wall themselves in a room and engage in wishful thinking is not a message to send to anyone. His most cogent response to all of my points was to declare that I am a pagan and the anti-Christ. The status has since been deleted; presumably because open discussion on his idiotic views is frowned about in his religious circles. Don’t want Lucifer or the anti-Christ impeding upon the power of prayer you know…
Tell him to go see McFarland. That’s a feel-good movie, if you want feel good movies. See if “feel-good” is really his criteria or if it’s something else. 😉
My same Christian friends who are swooning over The War Room refused to see McFarland because it was “left-wing propaganda”.
Wow! I was gone yesterday and missed all the action!
Ben vs. Christendom.
This is like the atheist version of David vs. Goliath. Instead of a sling shot, Ben uses his formidable intelligence and wit to conquer the evil giant.
I would have paid admission to see (read) this.
Ben, you are my hero!!!
Well done Ben in your rebuttals. You are doing a good job at highlighting the special pleading from the Christians there.
Looking at that comments section I’m dying to get in, trying to find the time…
Could any native English speaker please clarify for us foreigners the difference between theodicy and theidiocy? Both definitions seem to overlap so much, it’s hard to differentiate.
Sorry; the latter is likely as much my fault as anybody else’s. It’s a made-up word, a portmanteau of “theodicy” and “idiocy.”
b&
Ben, you missed the joke. =]
The oft-repeated refrain by the UD crowd, whenever Ben points out the contradictions and logical inconsistencies concerning an all-loving omniscient God, is that God is outside space and time such that man cannot know His mind, and it is an err to attribute humanlike characteristics (like logic) to Him.
This is the same God who finds pleasing the aroma of burnt-flesh offerings? Who forbids man from taking His name in vain? Who gets all pissy about false idols and graven images?
How come these same people have no problem themselves knowing the mind of God precisely when God despises the same things they despise — abortion, say, or sex education, or gay marriage?
FWIW, I’ve submitted comments as well to the thread at Uncommon Descent.
I have to commend Prof Torley for replying to Ben throughout the comments thread.
Nice to see Sastra there too!