If God heals people from cancer and all sorts of diseases, then why won't God heal amputees?
This is a question that has puzzled many thinkers over the years. Marshall Brain seems to think this question on it's own is enough to prove that God doesn't exist. He says that since God, in his observation, doesn't heal amputees, then there are two options: God hates amputees, or God does not exist. But as I am about to demonstrate, he presumes the theistic world view to start off in order to even ask the question. Here's how a typical conversation between a theist and atheist goes when asking this question.
Joe: "Do you believe God answers prayers?"
James: "Sure I do. God has answered many of my prayers."
Joe: "Do you believe that God answers prayers of healing from disease and ailments?"
James: "Of course. God healed me of cancer."
Joe: "Then why doesn't God heal amputees?"
James: "Because it's not his will to do so."
Joe: "So God answers the prayers of people with cancer, but not with amputations?"
James: "Right, because that's not his will."
Joe: "Well, that's not fair to the amputees."
That last statement by Joe is where we will stop for now. Joe the Atheist says it is "not fair" that God heals one group of people and not another. In fact, this is the point on which the question itself is based. The question itself has an assumption of fairness and justice behind it. They wouldn't even ask the question if they thought it was justified that a hypothetical God would heal one group, but not another. They believe that there is an inconsistency here, one that reveals a glaring contradiction about God's very nature.
This contradiction is not merely restricted to amputees, either. Why would God save one person from a tragedy, but not everyone? Why would God allow someone to be hurt in a car accident, but not make everyone get hurt in a car accident? Why doesn't God treat everyone equal in everything? Which leads us to the first point: God does not treat everyone the same as they go through life. The atheist is basing their question on an idea that is in actuality false. A casual stroll through the Bible should demonstrate this quite clearly; the Israelites are God's "chosen people;" Job is put through a world of suffering, whereas his friends are all living comfortably; Jesus says that rain falls on the just and unjust alike. It is the myth that God treats everyone equally in all things that has given rise to universalist ideology: everyone goes to heaven. There are many paths to God, not just one. Jesus is not the only way to Heaven.
But this is not my central point of the argument.
Much of the atheist's argument is based on the assumption that God should answer our prayers because of Biblical promises that he will do so. That assumption, as I have discussed hundreds of times, is an invalid assumption. This is not the point either.
The atheist, in order to accuse God of being "unfair" to amputees, must appeal to a real standard of right and wrong. They are saying that God is not appealing to the standard of fairness and justice they observe in denying healing miracles to amputees, but not cancer victims. But where do they come up with this standard of behavior? How are they able to discern what is fair and what is just, compared to what is unfair and unjust? The trouble is that making this statement about humanity as a whole requires for there to be some sort of objective standard on which "fairness" and "justice" are based, which determines good and evil in an unchanging way.
But unfortunately for atheism, objective moral values don't exist if God doesn't exist. Objective morality doesn't exist if there is no unchanging moral standard that has existed for everyone to observe. Many atheists agree on this point. Bertrand Russell, for example, has this to offer:
"Ethics arises from the pressures of the community on the individual. Man . . . does not always instinctively feel the desires which are useful to his herd. The herd, being anxious that the individual should act in its interests, has invented various devices for causing the individuals interest to be in harmony with the herd. One of these . . . is morality." [1]
And we all know of Nietzsche, the great German philosopher, who proclaimed "God is dead." This shouldn't be taken as Nietzsche really believing that God actually died, but rather that the concept of God cannot be used as a guide for morals anymore. With the death of God comes the death of all value in life, and that includes morality. The natural consequence of atheism is relativistic morality. According to atheism, morality is something that has changed over time, something that evolved along with the homo sapiens. This essentially means that actions like murder and rape eventually were recognized as being not socially advantageous, and therefore over time labeled as taboo. But how does this allow for any sort of objectivity? Nothing is even really wrong in this view.
What atheists don't want to admit is that if objective moral values exist, then there must be something objective for them to be grounded in. The only explanation of this that has any sort of coherence is that God's nature is the very standard by which we observe moral values. Thus, when an atheist asks "Why won't God heal amputees?" they are implying that God is unfair, and appealing to a standard of fairness to make that claim, which can only reasonably be God.
Greg Koukl has this to say:
"Justice and fairness are concepts that dictate that comparable treatment be given to different people based on--now watch this--the common standard of what's right. Justice and fairness dictate how people should act. How they are obliged to act. How they ought to act. Why am I emphasizing all of these oughts and shoulds and obligations? Because all of those are words that have no meaning in the context of relativism because relativism says that there are no standards that are absolute for all people such that they ought to and they should and they are obliged to act in a particular way. Our notion of justice and fairness is founded on the idea that there are concepts that apply to everyone."[2]
So here's that conversation again, but with a continuation and conclusion.
So why doesn't God heal amputees? That is not for this essay to determine. There are many good answers already available, some that I have alluded to in my own writing, and some written by others. I will be responding more in detail to the question later. This essay's purpose is to show that one can't even ask the question without presupposing God, which makes the dichotomy conclusion, that God either hates amputees or doesn't exist, false as it stands.
Joe: "Well, that's not fair to the amputees."
James: "How did you come to that conclusion?"
Joe: "Because he's giving something to one group of people, and denying it to another, simply because they're amputees. That's not fair."
James: "What is fair, and what isn't? How in the world did you come to such a conclusion? You're supposing a standard of morality when you say such a thing, but according to your world view, there is no real standard. The only standards you have are ones that change with the times and locations."
Joe: "You're avoiding the question."
James: "I'm not. I'm pointing out the inconsistent nature of your world view. In one breath, you can tell a theist that there is no objective morality. Everything is subjective, including morality, fairness, and justice. But in the next breath, you can condemn God for something you perceive to be immoral, unfair, and unjust. If you really believed that morality was subjective, you wouldn't be telling me this, for what you perceive as wrong is not what I may perceive as wrong. You presuppose objective morality in order to make your argument, and in order for objective morality to exist, it is necessary that God exists."
Joe: "Well, how is basing your morality on one being objective? Isn't that subjective?"
James: "Not if your basing your morality on the only being who's eternal, unchanging. If I were to base my morality on the average human, who is hypocritical, it would indeed be subjective. God, however, doesn't change, and is the perfect example of holiness and justice."
Joe: "Even so, I don't see a reason why objective morality can't exist without God."
James: "It's fairly simple. What you're trying to do by saying that is have your cake and eat it too. What does it mean, then, that the concept of 'justice' simply exists, even independent of humans? That's a consequence of what you're saying. 'Fairness' simply exists and has control over us, despite not really haven't a foundation in reason, or even consciousness.
Joe: "It could have arisen through evolution."
James: "So was morality different when we were primitive people?"
Joe: "I suppose it was."
James: "Is that objective?"
Joe: "No. I don't believe in objective morality, I'm merely proposing an alternative."
James: "No, Joe. You really do believe in objective morality. You are merely paying lip service to subjective morality. No one really lives as though subjective morality is true, and it's obvious that you don't either, since you think God should heal amputees because it's 'not fair' to do otherwise."
Sincerely,
Patrick Dunnevant
[1] Craig, William Lane and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. "God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist." Oxford Press. 2004. Pg 17-19.
[2] Koukl, Greg. "Relativism Self-Destructs." 1993. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5539
16 comments:
*claps* nicely said
your brother in Christ
Dave
Hi Patrick,
I think your argument is logically flawed in a fairly obvious way.
You are saying that since atheists appeal to, and in fact rely on a concept of 'fairness', which is somehow objective and therefore an argument for theism.
However, the atheist position does not rely on the existence of fairness at all. It is not necessary for the atheist position that fairness exists. It's only an internal contradiction in the theist worldview.
As you point out, the world is actually quite unfair, and while humans strive for 'fairness' and shared human flourishing, it is often overtaken by other motives. For example, as you point out in other places, at certain times in (biblical) history it was apparently necessary to put homosexuals to death as a means of preserving population and food supply.
What is the objective moral here? That human existence must be preserved at all costs? Because that is, in fact, the moral norm at the basis of evolution.
You are saying that since atheists appeal to, and in fact rely on a concept of 'fairness', which is somehow objective and therefore an argument for theism.
However, the atheist position does not rely on the existence of fairness at all. It is not necessary for the atheist position that fairness exists.
Actually, it is quite necessary for some standard of fairness to exist if one is going to say, "That is unfair." If fairness doesn't exist, the the atheist has absolutely no argument. They're saying precisely nothing because their statement has no meaning.
As you point out, the world is actually quite unfair,
So wait. First, it wasn't necessary that fairness exists, but now, you're using fairness as a central point in your critique of my argument? Something is amiss here.
What is the objective moral here? That human existence must be preserved at all costs?
Um, no? I don't see how that has much to do with this argument.
Hi Patrick
I understand your argument to be saying this: there is an objective concept called 'fairness', which is in fact the result of God's existence. The existence of 'fairness' and 'justice' seems to be obvious to us humans, and even if their exact definitions are often elusive, there are some things that all 'right-thinking' people can agree on, eg it is unfair to stab a stranger in the back. The obvious nature of some of these moral norms is evidence that there is, in fact, an objective 'fairness' that God creates and humans can perceive, although inconsistently.
[If I have misrepresented you and created a straw man here please let me know, I am trying to confront your argument as directly as I can.]
God is evidently quite unfair by any such objective standard, which many would say is a contradiction, but that is Brain's point and a debate for somewhere else.
But my position is this: that there is no objective external reality of 'fairness'; fairness is in fact a name for several human instincts that have developed because of the survival advantage of acting socially, gaining mutual trust and co-operating. But these 'fairness' instincts, are no higher or more transcendent than other human instincts. And the ones we can all agree on - wanton murder, baby abuse - are closely related to such survival issues.
I am demonstrating this fact using one of your own examples. If fairness is objective, transcendent and God-made as you suggest, then apparently the Bible demonstrates that the key basic moral norm is still 'human survival', by mandating death for homosexuals in a time when population and food supply were threatened.
The preeminence of 'human survival' over 'the right not to be killed' would probably not be called 'fair' by most people - but it's no surprise to sociobiologists, and it's right there in the Bible by your own explanation.
If you do think that it is, in fact, fair, then I would say that you are admitting that fairness is nothing greater than 'whatever lets humans survive'. Which is hardly a very Christian attitude.
Anyway I'm sure your not convinced, but rest assured that atheists have thought this problem through carefully and they haven't found any internal contradictions. There is no objective transcendent fairness and no God. The only problem we can see is for theists, who claim both these things exist. So I think you should get back to trying to show that God is actually fair, or else that he doesn't need to be, which would address the internal contradiction in theism.
Also, I would like to offer you an argument which will convince me to re-evaluate my position. If you can provide an example of a moral judgment, or some attitude to fairness, shared by all 'right-thinking' humans, which demonstrably leads to a reduced probability of survival.
This is well nigh impossible, simply because it will be easy for me to jump through some possibly made-up hoops - I am no biologist. For example, fathers tend to be hostile and aggressive towards perceived potential mates for their daughters. This would seem to reduce the probability of procreation. We could ascribe this instinct to God since it seems to preserve the moral chastity of females, at the expense of survival. But i would suggest this is a method of natural suggestion which weeds out suitors without fortitude or strength who are less likely to be providers for children. I have no idea if this is a good argument or not, but it's enough for me... But anyway that's the kind of thing that might get me thinking. Just FYI.
I understand your argument to be saying this:
That seems about right.
God is evidently quite unfair by any such objective standard, which many would say is a contradiction, but that is Brain's point and a debate for somewhere else.
Then that needs to be demonstrated.
Given your example of homosexuality, that only seems unfair for a few reasons:
1) Most of us don't understand the ancient near east and the societal implications of homosexuality.
2) Some of us reading this are of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
If, as the Bible says, homosexuality is wrong, then God is not being "unfair" to those people any more than a judge is being "unfair" to murderers by sentencing them to death. It is our modernized, Westernized viewpoint that makes it seem unfair, not because it actually is.
But my position is this: that there is no objective external reality of 'fairness'; fairness is in fact a name for several human instincts that have developed because of the survival advantage of acting socially, gaining mutual trust and co-operating. But these 'fairness' instincts, are no higher or more transcendent than other human instincts. And the ones we can all agree on - wanton murder, baby abuse - are closely related to such survival issues.
The main problem I have with morality evolving as such is that if your theory is true, there must be a point were all actions were morally neutral. "Wanton murder and baby abuse" wouldn't have been considered wrong at that point, and loving your fellow man and caring for children wouldn't have been understood as good either. To me, that's an unbelievable possibility.
I am demonstrating this fact using one of your own examples. If fairness is objective, transcendent and God-made as you suggest, then apparently the Bible demonstrates that the key basic moral norm is still 'human survival', by mandating death for homosexuals in a time when population and food supply were threatened.
No, that's not the basic moral norm. If that were true, then why would the same God wipe out most of the human population with a flood? Why would Jesus Christ have to suffer such a horrible death? If human survival was the basic principle by which God operated, why do humans die at all?
The basic moral norm is holiness. We must strive to be without sin. THAT's what the point is.
The preeminence of 'human survival' over 'the right not to be killed' would probably not be called 'fair' by most people - but it's no surprise to sociobiologists, and it's right there in the Bible by your own explanation.
If you do think that it is, in fact, fair, then I would say that you are admitting that fairness is nothing greater than 'whatever lets humans survive'. Which is hardly a very Christian attitude.
You must have a serious problem with the death penalty. That's really what this is, not just killing people to prevent collapse of society. This is judgment based on the breaking of God's laws.
Anyway I'm sure your not convinced, but rest assured that atheists have thought this problem through carefully and they haven't found any internal contradictions. There is no objective transcendent fairness and no God. The only problem we can see is for theists, who claim both these things exist. So I think you should get back to trying to show that God is actually fair, or else that he doesn't need to be, which would address the internal contradiction in theism.
I'm not sure how punishing sin is somehow "unfair," especially since what was and what wasn't sin was clearly spelled out in the Old Testament for those people to observe, just like our laws are clearly spelled out today for us to observe. And since such a time was heavily reliant on oral transmission of writings, most people would probably have had the entire Old Testament (or whatever they had available to them) memorized anyway.
God is a just God who punishes people who are unjust and sinful. That's simply how it goes. He wouldn't be a good God otherwise.
Also, I would like to offer you an argument which will convince me to re-evaluate my position. If you can provide an example of a moral judgment, or some attitude to fairness, shared by all 'right-thinking' humans, which demonstrably leads to a reduced probability of survival.
I think I know one. If you have a child, perhaps one of about five or six, and you as a parent are presented with a choice of someone taking your life or the child's, or having to sacrifice your own life to save the child, I think all 'right-thinking humans', as you say, would agree to be killed and have the child spared. There are thousands of examples of that happening in real life. But that's not just a "reduced probability of survival..." That's a guarantee of death, isn't it?
This is well nigh impossible, simply because it will be easy for me to jump through some possibly made-up hoops - I am no biologist.
Perhaps the fact that some people may want their child to die instead of them? Of course, I would point out that they would feel despicable afterwards, and they would know that they made a mistake; if you can state hypotheticals, so can I.
For example, fathers tend to be hostile and aggressive towards perceived potential mates for their daughters. This would seem to reduce the probability of procreation.
I don't see that it does. Sure, fathers are hostile, but that normally doesn't stop people from having sex, does it? Or marriage?
We could ascribe this instinct to God since it seems to preserve the moral chastity of females, at the expense of survival.
I think, more likely, any feelings of hostility don't come from God at all, unless it is hostility towards evil.
I think this sort of emotion stems from wanting the best for their daughter, and in the process taking it too far.
But i would suggest this is a method of natural suggestion which weeds out suitors without fortitude or strength who are less likely to be providers for children.
Without fortitude, huh? What exactly is "fortitude" if there is no objective morality?
I have no idea if this is a good argument or not, but it's enough for me... But anyway that's the kind of thing that might get me thinking. Just FYI.
I've heard a lot of people make the argument that morality has evolved in such a way, or that morality is a product of our instincts. But I reject that sort of argument for a reason that C.S. Lewis once gave. Let's say that there was one person who was trapped in a burning building. At this point, you would feel the pulling of two instincts: the instinct for self-preservation, which tells you to stay out. Also, you would feel the herd instinct, telling you to save the person in the building. But at the same time, you would feel something inside you, separate from the instincts, telling you to acknowledge the herd instinct and ignore the self-preservation instinct. This cannot be an instinct itself, since it distinguishes between instincts.
Secondly, if morality evolved as part of instincts in our brain, then all morality is materially based. But if that's true, we cannot condemn any person for committing immorality, because that's simply how they are wired. They simply have "bad molecules." That is also absurd to me.
Thanks for your comments.
Hi Patrick,
Just to clarify a what I mean by human survival: what i mean is the maximisation of the human population. The death penalty and the willingness of humans to sacrifice themselves for children can both promote human survival, even though they mean certain death for a particular person. Indeed, for the parent/child situation it seems somewhat obvious; the child still has great breeding potential, while the parent must have already used up a significant amount of their fertile life.
A fascinating article by Roy Baumeister called Is There Anything Good About Men looks at the differences between men and women that arise because of natural selection. It explores the reasons why mean are the ones who end up as the risk-takers, the ones who end up going to war and the ones who got left off the lifeboats on the titanic, while women and children are rescued. For humans, having adult men who are willing to sacrifice themselves is not a significant survival cost, because one man can impregnate dozens of women, and the next generation will be exactly the same size anyway.
DNA analysis of living humans bears this out - it shows that only half as many men as women have living descendants alive today. IE, a comparatively few successful men paired up with a lot of women in history.
It's an interesting article and it gets you thinking about the importance of human history in our social relationships and expectations.
On a related note, you say this :
The main problem I have with morality evolving as such is that if your theory is true, there must be a point were all actions were morally neutral. "Wanton murder and baby abuse" wouldn't have been considered wrong at that point, and loving your fellow man and caring for children wouldn't have been understood as good either. To me, that's an unbelievable possibility.
But before you say it's so unbelievable, consider nature.
'Wanton murder' as such is a pretty rare thing in the natural world, since a species killing itself - even a bacterium or virus - is a seriously bad survival disadvantage. But nevertheless it occurs in some mammals - males of many species will wound each other mortally to become the alpha, and gorillas were documented by Jane Goodall in the 80s going to war with each other and doing very nasty things. It's not 'immoral', it's just the way things work. Same way that humans have enjoyed bloodsports, tolerated slavery, condemned homosexuality and frequently gone to war throughout history - all of these while flying the banners of the Christian God.
As for caring for children, that is a little more complicated that 'not killing your own species', and you don't see parental instincts in animals until you get to quite complex creatures, like cats and birds. But there are plenty of species that don't care for their children. Do you blame bacteria for not looking after their babies?
An absence of morality is not an unbelievable possibility at all. It's just that when humans do it, it undermines the entire structure of human society and its mechanisms for perpetuating itself - so of course we abhor it.
Anyway, once again, I'm sure you don't agree with me on all these details, but I think you have followed my point that your theory in the original article really isn't a problem for the atheist worldview, and you will have to resume the battle on a different front perhaps.
Hi Patrick,
Hi franith,
Just to clarify a what I mean by human survival: what i mean is the maximisation of the human population.
If that's the case, then you've officially (and most likely deliberately) made it impossible to answer, and in addition, nonsensical. You're asking me for an example of a moral judgment shared by all 'right-thinking' humans, which demonstrably leads to a reduced probability of the maximization of survival. I mean, what in the world does that mean, franith?
I could point you to the many self-destructive activities that we as humans regularly commit, like smoking, drinking, or suicide, but you would be able to quip that it's not shared by "all right thinking humans."
The death penalty and the willingness of humans to sacrifice themselves for children can both promote human survival, even though they mean certain death for a particular person. Indeed, for the parent/child situation it seems somewhat obvious; the child still has great breeding potential, while the parent must have already used up a significant amount of their fertile life.
Of course, you neglect to point out that in such a situation, no one is actually thinking about "breeding potential." This is yet another example where people can simply slap the evolutionary theory onto something in an attempt to explain it, even though it goes contrary to what we're actually thinking, and claim it to be valid.
We would do this because the child hasn't had a fair chance at life, and we are old and have lived our lives. Whether they have "breeding potential" is about as far out of our minds as possible. You would save a castrated or infertile child just the same as you would save a fertile one.
A fascinating article by Roy Baumeister...
I truly do not understand how most of this is relevant to our discussion, save this:
For humans, having adult men who are willing to sacrifice themselves is not a significant survival cost, because one man can impregnate dozens of women, and the next generation will be exactly the same size anyway.
But women would regularly give their lives for their children too. I'm sure you wouldn't insinuate anything different.
But before you say it's so unbelievable, consider nature.
'Wanton murder' as such is a pretty rare thing in the natural world, since a species killing itself - even a bacterium or virus - is a seriously bad survival disadvantage. But nevertheless it occurs in some mammals - males of many species will wound each other mortally to become the alpha, and gorillas were documented by Jane Goodall in the 80s going to war with each other and doing very nasty things. It's not 'immoral', it's just the way things work. Same way that humans have enjoyed bloodsports, tolerated slavery, condemned homosexuality and frequently gone to war throughout history - all of these while flying the banners of the Christian God.
Of course, if you will give this explanation, then I can certainly say that God doesn't heal amputees because "that's simply the way things work," the "natural order of things." It's not immoral of him to single out one group over another. You have invalidated your entire argument by admitting this.
As for caring for children, that is a little more complicated that 'not killing your own species', and you don't see parental instincts in animals until you get to quite complex creatures, like cats and birds. But there are plenty of species that don't care for their children. Do you blame bacteria for not looking after their babies?
No, because bacterium don't have the metal capacity to even think, much less "look after their babies."
An absence of morality is not an unbelievable possibility at all. It's just that when humans do it, it undermines the entire structure of human society and its mechanisms for perpetuating itself - so of course we abhor it.
How does treating people unfairly "undermine the entire structure of human society," by your reckoning, franith?
Anyway, once again, I'm sure you don't agree with me on all these details, but I think you have followed my point that your theory in the original article really isn't a problem for the atheist worldview, and you will have to resume the battle on a different front perhaps.
No, franith. Your explanation is merely an extention of evolutionary theory onto something where it probably doesn't belong. In fact, your sort of explanation results in more absurdity than I originally mentioned.
You are saying that morality is based on environmental factors that have determined what is better for the survival of the species. But firstly, morality is about much more than simply the past: morality is about looking to the future. Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. But more importantly, if evolution is based entirely on what's the best for the survival of the species, then morality is based on pure selfishness.
Why should I be unselfish, for example? Because it's better for the group. Why should I care about what's better for the group? Because it's better for the species. Why should I care about what's better for the species? Because if the species dies out, then I will not survive, and my personal interests are voided. Thus, it's better for me.
So it's best to be unselfish because it's better for me, which is selfishness. "I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish."
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5237
Hi Patrick,
This is all getting a little heated but I feel i have to respond to your final point.
By your and STR's definition, a parent who sacrifices themselves for their child is acting 'selfishly', because their actions will tend to maximise human survival. In the same way, a soldier who dives on a grenade is acting selfishly, because he is saving several of his friends. This may seem extreme. It is! And it's because applying the word 'selfish' to actions which tend to maximise human survival is totally specious.
The evolutionary aspect of morals is absolutely nothing to do with acting 'selfishly' in the way the word is normally used. Acting 'selfishly' usually refers to the exact opposite, acting in an antisocial way that will tend to diminish a wider group.
Nor is it anything to actually do with what the person who dives on the grenade is thinking at the time. What do you think that person *should* be thinking?
- 'I will dive on this grenade because humanity will benefit with an increased chance of survival.'
- 'I will dive on this grenade because God says I should.'
- 'I will dive on this grenade because I love my friends and I know they would do the same for me.'
I hope you can agree the 'right-thinking' human is number 3.
So understand that when I make a moral choice I'm not thinking 'how can i maximise human breeding?'. It's not something I actually care about in the slightest. What i am (typically) thinking is 'What would i want done unto me.' It just so happens that humans like you and me who think this way have tended to succeed, and humans who tend to think 'what do i want' have died out. That's the point. Our morals are still personal and valuable, it's just that the machinations of nature have made our social arrangement more successful and widespread.
Humans are deeply suspicious and resentful of anyone who seems to be acting selfishly and will be quick to remonstrate the offender. It's a deeply perjorative label - your own post assumes that 'acting selfishly' is a repulsive basis for morals. Which it is. Sometimes it's actually this exact moral framework that sometimes makes atheists and theists so bitter with each other.
Theists often think (i used to myself) that atheists are acting selfishly and thinking 'what do i want' when they reject the existence of god, because it lets them sleep around, or worship money, or worship themselves, or something like that.
But conversely, atheists think theists are acting selfishly and thinking 'what do i want' by making moral choices on the premise of a God-given personal eternal reward.
It's a misunderstanding on both sides. But I still think principles of natural selection provide a far more simple and consistent explanation of the way that you and I make moral choices and interpret 'fairness' than the existence of some God-made, eternal moral code.
It's this exact understanding of what fairness is that leads Brain to condemn God for being unfair. It's because Brain is saying if God was 'fair' in a similar way to a 'fair' human being like you or me, he wouldn't flood the entire planet and he wouldn't have created the Onchocerca volvulus parasite to eat through children's eyes.
Anyway, I am done with this thread, but I hope you can at least appreciate that there are rational explanations for the existence of 'fairness' that are completely naturalistic, and that as a result the simple contradiction you propose in the initial article is completely unfounded.
I suppose you may yet disagree that evolutionary morals are rational - but that's really a debate for another thread.
Pat,
Sorry if you`ve already dealt with this, but I have not the time to read through your discussion with franith, but this is one thing I would like to hear your answer to.
You say that the atheist, by saying that it is unfair for God to not heal amputees, is admitting some kind of objective morality - something which, as you said, cannot exist without an unchanging moral law setter.
I think Brain`s response to that would be that that isn`t what he thinks at all, but something for like this:
If the Christian worldview is true, then God is acting unfairly and not according to his omnibenevolent nature (though you dealt with this concern already). Therefore, God is either unjust and only heals people who he decides to on a whim, or he is non-existent (and in conjunction with his other objections, Brain would consider the latter to be more likely).
Anyway, thank you bro, keep up the good work!
CS
So it turns out that fairness is biologically built in:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts-to-fairness-as-it-49042.aspx
**********
"
The human brain responds to being treated fairly the same way it responds to winning money and eating chocolate, UCLA scientists report. Being treated fairly turns on the brain’s reward circuitry.
“We may be hard-wired to treat fairness as a reward,” said study co-author Matthew D. Lieberman, UCLA associate professor of psychology and a founder of social cognitive neuroscience.
“Receiving a fair offer activates the same brain circuitry as when we eat craved food, win money or see a beautiful face,” said Golnaz Tabibnia, said Golnaz Tabibnia, a postdoctoral scholar at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA. ...
In the study, subjects were asked whether they would accept or decline another person’s offer to divide money in a particular way. If they declined, neither they nor the person making the offer would receive anything. Some of the offers were fair, such as receiving $5 out of $10 or $12, while others were unfair, such as receiving $5 out of $23.
Almost half the time, people agreed to accept offers of just 20 to 30 percent of the total money, but when they accepted these unfair offers, most of the brain’s reward circuitry was not activated. "
***********
So the study actually found a 'treat others as they treat you' biological instinct!
franith,
The study you gave me was only testing twelve people, and 3/4s of them were female. Are you actually giving me this study as if it automatically makes the concept of fairness a mere biological instinct for the entire human race on the basis of twelve individuals? At least get a bigger sample size.
Besides, if indeed the idea of fairness is merely an idea in our brains, then why do we base so much of our government on it nowadays? What would stop any person from merely trying to subvert that instinct, or brainwash others into not being able to channel that instinct?
I'm srry to some athiests that post here
the Bible does not comdemn homosexuals as you may believe in the story about Sodom. Sexual Immorality, whether gay or straight, God sees equally
in addition, this was not the sole cause of the city's demise
XX, you seem to support (maybe not?) a POTENTIAL argument by Brain which says:
"If the Christian worldview is true, then God is acting unfairly and not according to his omnibenevolent nature (though you dealt with this concern already). Therefore, God is either unjust and only heals people who he decides to on a whim, or he is non-existent (and in conjunction with his other objections, Brain would consider the latter to be more likely)."
I hope I am accurately portraying you as believing this is a good argument.
The problem I have with it is that it is far too narrow (only 2 options) and that it also completely misunderstands the Christian worldview.
By saying that God is either: 1) unfair, or 2) non-existent, you have started the argument on an unbalanced playing field. I mean, neither of these possibilities allow God to look good, do they? (I know, I know, that's the point.)
The better solution is to actually understand the Christian perspective:
1. All humans are sinners, have violated God's perfect law, are enemies of God (at least to start), and do not DESERVE anything good.
2. God is NOT omnibenevolent. While it is true that God is incredibly gracious to us, God does not everywhere and always give grace/mercy.
3. Frequently, God gives justice rather than mercy. Our fallen human perspective sees God's justice (most of the time) as "unfair."
4. God is never UNjust, giving us worse than we deserve.
5. God frequently gives NONjustice in the form of grace/mercy, i.e., good things that we don't deserve.
6. The ways things normally work (i.e., so-called "good" people reaping good rewards) lulls us into a sense of forgetfulness and causes us to presume upon the grace of God.
@anonymous:
The Bible absolutely DOES condemn homosexuality.
Look up:
Leviticus 18:22
1 Cor. 6:9 (which refers to both partners in male homosexuality)
1 Tim. 1:10
Romans 1:24-32
The story of Sodom is merely one example of it. You are right, however, that it was not MERELY their homosexuality that was the cause of God's anger against the city. Including Lot and his family, God could not find 5 righteous people in the city. I'm sure they weren't ALL homosexuals. (Plus, apparently there was an element of bi-sexuality since Lot offered his daughters instead of the 2 angels.)
You are further right that God views "straight" sexual immorality with hatred as well.
Neither point, that Sodom had more sin than simply homosexuality, nor that God will judge straight sexual immorality, in any way takes away from the fact that God calls homosexuality an abomination.
Let's not overdo it and swerve into Gay-bashing (also a sin), but let's not be so welcoming that we are afraid to call sin what it is.
Hope this helps!
You disproving his argument doesn't prove your's.
Just saying :P
I'm not seeking to disprove his argument with my post. What I am seeking to do is to show that the 2 possibilities listed are not the ONLY 2 possibilities. This is similar to the age-old arguments against God:
1. God is good.
2. God is all-powerful.
If 1 and 2 were true, then evil wouldn't exist, because a good who could stop all evil would do so; therefore, God - or at least the Christian God - doesn't exist). The problem is that this conclusion puts the concluder (is that a word?) in the place of God and allows him/her to decide exactly how God should/would act.
My arguement is merely to point out that more conclusions exist than the 2 that are seemingly available in the mind of Brain.
I could go on to talk about WHY I believe my viewpoint is correct, but that wasn't my intention with my previous post.
Hope this helps!
Patrick,
I think you've missed the point Brain was trying to make.
Here is how i see his point:
If the bible is the inerrant word of God, and it says whatever we ask will be done, and that we can do the same miracles Jesus did and more, and we cant heal amputees, then we can conclude that the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong, then it cant be the word of God (because God is infallible) and we probably shouldn't believe anything it says. We have proof this book contains at least some statements that ARE FALSE, but where is the proof that anything in it IS TRUE?
No one can prove or disprove the existence of an invisible eternal creator, or santa clause, or the tooth fairy, and this is why I think a lot of people are attacking Brain... because he makes a leap of faith and claims these things are imaginary when really they simply can't be proven.
For example:
The tooth fairy is real. But she wont collect your tooth because she doesn't like being tested... even tho it is written in many childrens books (which were divinely inspired) that she is supposed to collect teeth. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. The tooth fairy is real.
What did we prove with our tooth offering?
Post a Comment