How do you defend your god's inaction?

by AlmostAtheist 105 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OldSoul

  SNG,

  If you are looking for an ethical/moral model to use for my concept, which seems to be the thrust of this thread, the best one I can come up with is R. Daneel Olivaw (from Asimov's Foundation series, and other novels) and his deliberations with Giskard over the Laws. Eventually they arrived (on their own) with a need to apply a Zeroth Law that took precedence over the First Law. But, application of the Zeroth Law necessitated an ability to foreknow the impacts of any course of action/inaction on humanity as a species. Without knowing the outcome, Daneel postulated, it is impossible to know whether the action/inaction would result in harm or benefit. Killing a specific human (in violation of the First Law) was justified once he knew the outcome to the species would be beneficial.

  Let's try applying that model on a grander scale. I say again, without being able to know the eventual impacts to the species it is impossible to know what "bad" or "good" is except in a metaphorical way. You look at a specific instance and judge the outcome to be "bad," but you really have no basis in fact to make such a judgment because you do not know what the eventual results to the species would be if things had occurred differently, do you?

  In evolutionary theory, I am sure you are aware of the impacts of cost/benefit on species development. Is it true that sometimes a short term cost ends up having an effect of benefit to a species?

  I hope this helps you to grasp a bit more my relating that God's moral judgment may not match moral judgment among humans, because it is derived from an entirely different perspective. You might think it odd that I call upon a character designed by a devout atheist (Asimov) to demonstrate that morality may be different given different perspectives, but I have a great degree of respect for the man's mind.

  If there are other aspects you have concerns about, I will happily do my best to answer those as well.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  seattleniceguy

  exjdub,

  The only roadblock that I have that prevents me from being a dyed in the wool athiest is that I see intelligent design in the human body, the animal kingdom, etc. I have not been able to work that out yet and the evolution theory just does not answer many of the questions I have. So the quandary continues...

  Keep studying! Evolution is a rich subject, and there are new insights around every corner. I'm writing a book based on my evolution series here, so maybe when it's done I'll send ya a copy? :-)

  OS,

  Sounds like we've wrapped up the discussion pretty well. On a very-much-side-note, regarding what you said about evolution:

  In evolutionary theory, I am sure you are aware of the impacts of cost/benefit on species development. Is it true that sometimes a short term cost ends up having an effect of benefit to a species?

  Alas, if only that's the way biology worked. Unfortunately, creatures cannot pay a temporary short-term cost to get a long-term benefit. Every single solitary change must be for the creature's immediate benefit. This has had some interesting effects. Notably, it often paints creatures into evolutionary corners which it will be virtually impossible for them to ever escape. For example, eye evolution in the insect world took the unfortunate path of compound eyes. This has produced a physical limitation on the resolution at which insects can see. For reasons of physics, it will be impossible for their visual accuity to improve without a drastic overhaul (e.g., getting rid of the compound eye system entirely and starting afresh), but it is difficult to imagine any circumstances which would allow this to happen, since getting rid of a functional system would have immediately detrimental effects compared to the members of the species that can still see. So unfortunately our friend the fly is stuck with vision that is functional but not nearly as clear as, say, a rat's.

  { end of side note }

  SNG
• 

  JamesThomas

  LT, made a bold -- yet testable -- statement that stepped way outside the box of the traditional limited-deity basically being tossed around here.

  If God "is", unbounded and unfettered how may we define "Him"? If God is omnipresent, then surely we are but shards of that existence? If God is omniscient, surely we are part of that knowledge, and maybe have access to that Universal Mind? If God is omnipotent, surely we have a portion of that power and allegedly a mandate to use it? If God is the God of the living (including those who have made the transition from this life to the "next"), surely we are never removed from that ever-present/omnipresense?

  So why all this brain-chatter about obligation, etc., when we haven't even got past stage one, by abducating our own "Lordship"? Examine this phrase, rest in it and let it settle: Be still and know "I am" God.

  OldSoul replied:

  I think I understand what you are communicating here, but I don't think there is enough groundwork laid for someone else to cross the bridge. Not even sure the bridge has been built yet.

  If our true Source is Infinite, then there is no room for an individual "me". No need for a bridge, for there is no point A, and point B; and no one to cross if there was. There is just THAT, which is the Source, Sustainence and Existence of all.

  Is the conscious-awarness reading these words, only a separated fragment of the Whole as it seems? Is there a willingness to step of the edge of our cherished beliefs, concepts and entire life-story of who we believe ourselves to be -- and see?

  

  j
• 

  exjdub

  LOL! Thanks, you're not so bad yourself for a frothing-at-the-mouth, lying, evil APOSTATE!

  Dave,

  ROFL! I froth at the mouth on occasion, and I am an evil apostate, but I never lie...well almost never.

  Not to go off topic too far, but what you said triggered a thought. It took a long time to accept that I am an apostate, at least from the perspective of the WTBTS. Even after I left the Borg and knew what I was taught from the time that I was 5 years old was a bunch of lies, it still took a long time to acknowlege that I am an apostate. It shows how effective brainwashing is. It took me years of being out to even admit that the Organization did not have the Truth. I always used the worn out excuse that JWs had the Truth, they just were making mistakes and there was apostasy going on. I always equated it to the jewish system of things in the first century. Still Jehovah's people, just not the proper leadership. I always thought that I would go back when things were straightened out. It took a long time and much reflection, coupled with a feeling of well being to work it out. I can only say that leaving the "Spritual Paradise" of the WTBTS and becoming an apostate has been a very cathartic and calming transformation in my life. All the tears, anger, denial and pain that I felt were worth going through so that I could feel the way I do now.

  It HAS been a good, enriching discussion, due to all of the great points brought to the table. And the fact that the believers have not recoiled in disgust when their beliefs are questioned. These apostate-types really aren't too bad, are they? :-)

  It most certainly has been enriching. Great points on both sides and a real refreshing discussion. I really appreciate the intelligence level on both sides and the fact that most everyone is expressing what they really feel, not just to hear themselves talk. A lot of thought has gone into the posts and it really has made me think. I will definitely re-read the thread and reflect some more on what has been said. I would say to any JW's that are visiting: Please fight the inclination to dismiss what is said here out of hand. Despite what the Society says, there is nothing wrong with research, becoming informed, and then defending what you believe in. It is a natural progression for humans. The Apostle Paul did it. Jesus did it. We were always taught to follow their example. How can something be forbidden that was practiced by the very pillars of Christianity?

  SNG: It would be a privilege to receive a copy of your book and you have whetted my appetite for what is in store. I am not an intellectual, although reasonably intelligent. If you speak as clearly in the book as you do in your posts, I should enjoy it. I have to say that I have not actively researched evolution to the degree that I should, so you will have a clean slate in which to present facts. I come to the table with no preconcieved ideas, or almost none at this point. So I will keep an open mind and will give it an honest chance to enlighten. Please PM me with details such as cost, shipping, release, etc. Thanks.

  exjdub
• 

  daystar

  A few months ago, my four-year-old son and I found a dead bird in the yard. We had a short discussion about it then, but I can't really recall how it went.

  Yesterday, we were walking into a grocery store and he was exclaiming about all the birds in the trees. He mentioned the dead bird we had found before. He asks me why birds have to "get dead".

  My response to him was simply this: It is the way of life. We're born, we live, we die. All animals do. Can you imagine how crowded earth would be if this was not the way of things? It would be horrible, I think. We would all starve, or die of terrible plagues, etc. before we ever had a chance to really live a good life. This is why we should love every day, and love all our human and animal brothers and sisters, so that we can enjoy our time on this earth.

  If I believed in God, I do not think I would see any reason in defending his perceived inaction. I think, in nature at least, all is as it should be, the "bad" and the "good".
• 

  No Apologies

  Oldsoul, you make some good points, but let me reply to a couple of your statements:

  Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean it should be done.

  Right, but we are talking about saving lives here. And its not a case of, person A can be saved, but only if person B is killed or allowed to die. I would say in any case where a person is able to take direct action to save a another human life, without endangering any other person's life, and where there is no way the person in danger can save themself, then for the first person not to act is wrong. If I saw someone unwittingly about to walk off a cliff, and I simply stood by and watched, how can I not feel guilty?

  Do you know what the eventual harm/benefit ratio to the species would have been if there was no earthquake and tsunami? Then on what do you base the valuation system of Good and Bad (morality) if you don't know what the eventual results of action/inaction will be?

  So then doctors should never operate on someone without first determining what possible harm this person might cause if the doctor.

  We're talking about a supposed omnipotent being here; if he knows what the eventual results are, then he also will know a way to avoid any possible negative consequences. If he is not that all-knowing, then just like the rest of, you ignore what might happen, you act now to save the life, as long as it does not directly harm someone else.

  I hope this helps you to grasp a bit more my relating that God's moral judgment may not match moral judgment among humans, because it is derived from an entirely different perspective.

  Again, if you are saying his moral standards are so different from man, who is supposedly made in His image, then the whole conversation is moot. I certainly have no interest in worshipping someone whose standards are that incomprehensible. Well, I probably wouldn't be interested in worshipping him even if I could figure out his standards.

  No Apologies