How do you defend your god's inaction? (page 3)

daystar

Ah, from that perspective, probably not much other than the source of your moral compass.

AlmostAtheist

If you had ever been a witness you already know the biblical reason why God PERMITS suffering and what He has done to eliminate it forever.

Yep, the whole "you think you can rule yourselves? Fine, go for it. When it's proven that it doesn't work, I'll be ready with a plan to save you all" idea. I bought it at the time, honestly, I really did. But now that I'm out from under the "everything the F&DS says is true" umbrella, I have rethought the question. I don't mean to drag you into a debate on it, it would truly be pointless. As I said, it's been debated forever. I just wanted to see how various believers feel about it.

I appreciate your input, I really do.

How is my view of "Man is god of this world" any different to the atheists' view that "Man is god of this world"?

Consider two children. One is playing alone in his backyard, the other is playing with his dad. Both children are attacked by a dog, and both die. The dad does nothing, just watches. It's clear that he COULD do something to save his child, but he doesn't.

The atheist view presupposes that there is no "dad" watching us. We get mauled, we get mauled. It's a shame, but it happens.

The theist has a "dad" standing there letting it happen. As I was getting mauled, my dying thought would have to be, "Why isn't daddy helping me?"

I'm not trying to debate with you either, LT. I happily will, but I'm not trying to draw anybody into yet another "why, oh why?!?" thread. I am glad you replied and shared your view. I don't understand it any more than I see the logic in DefD/JW's view, but that's not the point of the thread at all.

Dave

LittleToe

Daystar:

Ah, from that perspective, probably not much other than the source of your moral compass.

Is that a reply to my comment, coz it seems a little disjointed.
Dave:Your analogy is good. Now think on "God" as a friendly neighbour who wonders why the heck the kid's dad didn't do anything about it... ...even worse, the aunts and uncles were in the garden, too, and half the town. Seems kinda creepy that they should then start pointing at him and saying it was his fault. Who's dog was it, anyhow???
Further, why is it ok for an atheist or deist to say "sh!t happens", but not for a theist? Seems a bit like dual standards, to me.

funkyderek

LittleToe:

How is my view of "Man is god of this world" any different to the atheists' view that "Man is god of this world"?

Scenario one: Imagine you're walking along a deserted road with a friend, and suddenly your friend collapses on the ground. He seems to be having some sort of fit. You move him into what you hope is the recovery position. You're not sure if you're supposed to hold his tongue to stop him swallowing it. Your getting no signal on your mobile phone. Your friend stops breathing. You try mouth-to-mouth, a little concerned that you may be doing it wrong. There's no response. You feel for a pulse. There's none. You start pumping his chest the way you've seen them do it in ER, hoping it will work. You hear a crack, probably one of his ribs. You continue anyway, because what else can you do? A car arrives a few minutes later, but it's too late for your friend. You realise that had you learned first aid, you might have been able to save him.

In scenario two, the situation is almost exactly the same but the road isn't quite deserted. By a stroke of luck, a doctor was hiking in the woods nearby and he sees your friend collapse. He remains out of sight and watches your clumsy attempts at administering first aid. He tuts quietly to himself as he sees you manoeuver your friend into an incorrect position. He chuckles slightly as you breathe air into your friend's stomach, and finally turns and walks away in disgust when he sees your hopeless attempts at heart massage. The end result is the same. Your friend dies, and you know that if you had just done a first aid course, things might have been different.

That's the difference between the atheist and theist worldviews. There was someone who could have made a difference, but for his own reasons, he didn't. You could justify the doctor's inaction by claiming that you should have known first aid, his allowing you to make the mistakes will be a valuable lesson for the future, or even that your friend should have had regular check-ups, but those justifications sound a little hollow to me. Theists' excuses for their god's inaction are just as hollow.

LittleToe

Derek:

There was someone who could have made a difference, but for his own reasons, he didn't.

There was? Prove it.

And as with Dave's scenario, please allow me to elaborate on it, if I may.

Half a dozen other doctors and paramedics from that region walk by, one even pushing a crash-cart with defibrilator. Why are they pointing the blame at the guy in the wood with a pocket-knife for company?

funkyderek

(I started typing my above post before Dave posted his, so there's a little overlap. I anticipated certain objections, which is why I chose a more complicated analogy.)

LittleToe:

Your analogy is good. Now think on "God" as a friendly neighbour who wonders why the heck the kid's dad didn't do anything about it... ...even worse, the aunts and uncles were in the garden, too, and half the town. Seems kinda creepy that they should then start pointing at him and saying it was his fault. Who's dog was it, anyhow???

When you use that analogy, it's obvious the neighbour is not to blame. However, when you talk about your god, he's more like the doctor in my scenario. He has a skill that others on the scene don't have. The deceased and his friend could (possibly) have prevented his death by having regular medical check-ups, and by learning first aid, or even by sticking to well-populated areas. Similarly, humans could have prevented the catastrophe in New Orleans by not building a city below sea level in a hurricane-prone area, and by spending money shoring up the levees. However, once the emergency began, humans were powerless to stop it. Your god could have. He's like the doctor who stood back and watched someone die, when he was the only one who could have prevented it.

funkyderek

LittleToe:

There was someone who could have made a difference, but for his own reasons, he didn't.

There was? Prove it.

Well, in my scenario, I invented him and placed him there. In the worldview of those who believe in an omnipotent deity, it is necessarily the case that said deity could prevent any sort of catastrophe, but, at least sometimes, doesn't.

Half a dozen other doctors and paramedics from that region walk by, one even pushing a crash-cart with defibrilator. Why are they pointing the blame at the guy in the wood with a pocket-knife for company?

I don't understand who those other medical personnel are supposed to represent. In my scenario, the deceased represents the victims of some sort of tragedy, his friend represents other humans who try their best to help, but should maybe have been more prepared, and the doctor represents the god who could fix things, but chooses not to. If there are other doctors, then they can really only represent other gods. The analogy is that first aid is the limit of human technology, whereas proper medical training is something only God can do.

LittleToe

Don't you see that you are setting up the sociological experiment based upon your own biases and predilections?

You acknowledge that "God" isn't to blame and that at any number of points Man could have helped himself and/or his neighbour, yet you still want the ultimate fallback fallguy.

But there's a further element that is often disparagingly thrown about in terms of "God's thoughts are higher than ours", that being that culturally why are Western ethical models to be favoured other other potential models?

Why should the "Doctor" step in?

It's analogous to the mugging scene where a gang of three or four in mugging someone and there's a hundred people on the street. Is it my fault that it happened, if I observe it from an upstairs window? Is it ethicall worse if I'm walking pass the end of the alleyway? What is I happen to have a knife? What if I have an Uzi - should I shoot the gang? What's the "right" course of action ethically - in London, New York, Paris, Nairobi, Calcutta, Peking?

AlmostAtheist

However, once the emergency began, humans were powerless to stop it. Your god could have. He's like the doctor who stood back and watched someone die, when he was the only one who could have prevented it.

Yes, exactly. And I think the difference between the LT position and the Dave position is that LT believes the doctor was within his rights not to step in, while I believe he wasn't. With power, I think, comes an obligation to use it. A similar idea was voiced when the tsunami hit, ads proclaimed, "If you're reading this, you're rich enough to donate." In other words, you have the power to help, and with it comes a responsibility to do so.

So unless I'm missing something (surely not!), we differ only in what it is right to do when faced with a problem we have the power to solve. It's not a debatable point, I don't think, since it's just a matter of opinion.

(No, I'm missing something. I can smell it sneaking up on me...)

Dave

LittleToe

it is necessarily the case that said deity could prevent any sort of catastrophe, but, at least sometimes, doesn't.

Why is that "the case"?

Further, on the point of the analogy, the other people are other humans who have all the skills and abilities necessary to alleviate suffering or avert disaster. Why does "God" have to step in? Isn't there a case that He might be saving Himself for the truly miraculous?

Winding back to your own analogy, the chances are He'd be sued for breaking some ribs (which is almost inevitable). We're a fickle race.

How do you defend your god's inaction?

Share this