One of the most frustrating things about reading many theistic arguments is their need to take things in isolation and hold it up as evidence that their god has properties “X”,”Y” or “Z”. Apart from the fact they are ignoring all that evidence that contradicts their claim, they make the mistake of assuming such qualities can only come from a deity.
The loving god that many Christians believe in is one particular example that leaves me wondering why the Christians cant see the problem. They usually quote things like rainbows, flowers, medicine and your favourite food as evidence that god is a loving one. I then feel compelled to point out flood, carnivorous plants, disease and poisonous organisms. Much in the same way that Darwin wrote: “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”
The loving god that many Christians believe in is one particular example that leaves me wondering why the Christians cant see the problem. They usually quote things like rainbows, flowers, medicine and your favourite food as evidence that god is a loving one. I then feel compelled to point out flood, carnivorous plants, disease and poisonous organisms. Much in the same way that Darwin wrote: “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”
At the end of the day, for something to survive, something else has to suffer – be it a parasite eating the living flesh of its host, or me eating a cheeseburger. The bottom line is that something must die for me to live. It is this fact that Christians overlook in their arguments.
Stephen Law exemplified this brilliantly in a recent post about the fine-tuning argument where he made a comparison with a concentration camp. He wrote:” Alister’s [McGrath] position, it seems to me, is like that of someone who wanders into a concentration camp, notes the stoves designed to provide meals and warmth and the mattresses designed for sleeping on, and concludes that not only was this camp designed by an intelligence with some interest in sustaining human life, it actually “points towards” a wonderfully loving and benevolent designer.”
We would never assume that a place where there is so much evil as there is in a concentration camp was evidence of a designer who had the captives best interest at heart. Why then do Christians feel that a planet where people can and do build concentration camps is evidence that there is a loving god?
At best, all that can be claimed is that the universe points to a god who is indifferent about human suffering. Christians then get in all sorts of knots trying to explain away this “evil”. Arguments then make assumptions about god’s nature and motives. These can not be backed up by observable facts – which was what the Christian was trying to do when he showed you a fluffy basket of puppies – ignoring the fact that there is a sack of kittens at the bottom of a canal somewhere.
Suffering is best explained by competitive survival between individuals and species.
At best, all that can be claimed is that the universe points to a god who is indifferent about human suffering. Christians then get in all sorts of knots trying to explain away this “evil”. Arguments then make assumptions about god’s nature and motives. These can not be backed up by observable facts – which was what the Christian was trying to do when he showed you a fluffy basket of puppies – ignoring the fact that there is a sack of kittens at the bottom of a canal somewhere.
Suffering is best explained by competitive survival between individuals and species.
36 comments:
Excellent point Billy, I think that really hits home a lot of things I have been seeing all the time I have been annoying religious people with my questions.
I love the concentration camp metaphor, that is excellent, thoroughly sums up the creationist argument - all they WANT to see is beauty and goodness so they project this on to their God and off they go.
The whole "sinner before you were born" thing I keep hitting all theists with, doesn't bat an eyelid, doesn't cause a dent - because hey, God loves me and as much as he wants me to be really really happy but since I don't want to love the psychopath he has no other choice but to send me to eternal pain. Gosh, it really must get the tears flowing and the heart strings breaking it really must!
I still think Stockholm Syndrome is a good explanation of all this, it covers so much.
Reminds me of George Carlin
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you."
Hi Billy,
Great post
they usually quote things like rainbows
Which God only created to say sorry about flooding the whole bloody planet :-)
I also like the concentration camp analogy
Lee
PS
I am 'trying' to help out a fellow blogger who is debating/discussing a religious friend - for some crazy reason they think I know biology.
I clearly do not...
Can I pass on any hard questions your way?
At the moment I think I am doing OK, the theist asked for "time-out" and a couple of months thinking time.
However, when the theist comes back with quotes from Behe-he-he - I want to be ready :-)
If you want to laugh at my knowledge - the blog post was here
http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-evolution-repeatable.html
Not sure yet where the theist is coming from - but I am trying to be nice and friendly.
No problem Lee, you can also let me know when he starts posting again.
What would the consequences of there being no rainbows before the flood be again? Surely you have to radically change the properties of light and this would have knock on effects
I left a comment which has dissapeared. Is the blog moderated?
Thanks Billy,
What would the consequences of there being no rainbows before the flood be again?
Simply put – the whole of physics would be completely different (about to go to work).
The behaviour of light with matter is probably ‘our’ best understood physics (QED) – to have light not to create rainbows you have to change everything we know about matter. (Gravity isn’t that well understood, but chances are this will also be affected in someway – but science cannot show this yet)
Well, of course – God could do all this, but you think he would have mentioned it.
I left a comment which has dissapeared. Is the blog moderated?
I didn’t think it was – I saw my comments straight away.
When ever I comment on a Christian blog, I always keep a copy in word for reposting
Lee
Thanks lee, so much for consistency with YECs who use the fine tuning argument.
I copied it, but my browser crahed and I lost it. I pointed out his errors regarding Gould and hit him with different codon usage in convergent antifreeze genes too
Hi Billy,
so much for consistency with YECs who use the fine tuning argument.
Its funny isn’t it – the universe is ‘so fine tuned’ then God changes the whole of physics just to provide a rainbow. It’s crazy what some people believe (just many do not realise it)
The YEC should never use the fine tuning argument – come to think it of, neither should any theist.
I pointed out his errors regarding Gould and hit him with different codon usage in convergent antifreeze genes too
I would love to see this Luke go ‘head to head’ with a biologist, but if I can say things that will take him 2-months to think about, you would just blow his mind.
From what little I read of Luke’s blog – I think he quotes from the likes of Behe without understanding what is being said. I just try and keep it simple (as you may have noticed on his blog)
If he gets back to me, I will ‘raise the alarm’ here – if nothing else, you can have a good laugh at my knowledge.
Lee
Having established a false premise, you then go ahead and believe it.
First Darwin, proposed evolution, then predicts the fossil record will one day validate his theory, which it hasn't, but Billy still believes the theory.
Since the theory has not been proven what does remain standing is the creationist version of events - death and suffering entered the world not at Creation, which God declared to be good, but after man rebelled.
The universe we live in now is subject to the curse and the environment we see on earth is post-Flood. There wasn't even rain prior to the Flood, let alone death and suffering.
Hi Suppresst,
Is your comment for real?
Do you really believe that Gen1 provides a better account reality than what science provides?
Why do you believe that, what evidence do you have to support it?
Lee
insert 'of' where it should go.
Word Verification: rocki
Suppresst
First Darwin, proposed evolution, then predicts the fossil record will one day validate his theory, which it hasn't, but Billy still believes the theory.
Want a bet? See here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq
-transitional.html
Do you truely believe there is no transitional fossils? Perhaps you coukle explalin the reduction in horse toes in sucessive rock bands - you cant use standard creationist denial of dating methods here.
Since the theory has not been proven what does remain standing is the creationist version of events - death and suffering entered the world not at Creation, which God declared to be good, but after man rebelled.
Here we have a series of false dichotomies and non sequitirs. Perhaps you could give us your definition of proof before we go any further. Perhaps you could tell us what in your mind would prove evolution is true. There are plenty of things that would prove it false - dinosaurs in the same rocks as humans for example. However, despite your claim, nothing has actually been found that shows evolution is false.
Now you have a real problem - show man rebelled and this caused death. Perhaps you could explain parasitoids if creation was good - or liver flukes or malaria. How do you think swine flu suddenly appeared?
The oldest fossil bearing rocks contain loads of dead things, but none of them human.
The universe we live in now is subject to the curse and the environment we see on earth is post-Flood. There wasn't even rain prior to the Flood, let alone death and suffering.
And your evidence is.....?
If you do reply, please do so in your own words. It becomes very boring when creationists post stuff from AIG. It often highlights the fact they don't even know the basics about evoution, and all they are here to do is deny deny deny.
PS, there are fossil "rain drops" in rocks older than man. If there was no rain, thee could be no rivers - therefore, no fresh water fish. Waterfalls also cause spray, which creates rainbows - I'll leave the physical problems of that to Lee
Hi Billy,
Waterfalls also cause spray, which creates rainbows - I'll leave the physical problems of that to Lee
Isn't it clear what the Bible has to say on this subject?
And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.
Genesis 9:12-15 (New International Version)
Before the flood, no rainbows (at least 'cloud rainbows')
Therefore, before the flood and after there is a completely different set of physics going on (on reading the Genesis account - it isn't clear precisly how the physics changes).
Water didn't evaporate before the flood to form clouds, rainfall and rivers (erm... fresh water, good point Billy - I wonder what they drank before the flood? Oh yeah... wine, Noah was a right piss ant according to the bible - Genesis 9:21).
So did water have a different refractive index and so didn’t form rainbows… or water didn’t evaporate, or perhaps the colour of the sky wasn’t blue back in those days (since this is dependent on the properties of light interacting with matter)
Funny, all this important miraculous stuff does not get a mention in the bible
Suppresst, any ideas why?
Where he go?
Lee
Noah was a right piss ant according to the bible
Not as bigg a piss head as Lot who got his daughters pregnant (and this was the one guy god thought righteous enough to save from Soddom - lets not forget he offered his daughters to a mob to be raped too - because raping men was considered more evil (Gen 19).
I'll be surprised if he is back - it looks like a typical "shit and run" post. No content, confused logic and preaching.
Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind.
Strange the almighty should need a reminder. Popping into space and time must fry his brain.
Hey Billy,
Dont know if you are aware of this, but there is a link to your Blog from, wiat for it , David Meredith of Smithton-Culloden Free Church! Hah!
Go to this:
http://calvinismmotorcycles.blogspot.com/
(Actually, I have to admit, I quite like the name of that blog!)
And scroll down until you find:
"It was a bit of an apologetics sermon. I phoned Robertson and told him that no-one was ever converted by apologetics ………. You know, he agreed."
The hyperlink is under "Robertson"
So other FC ministers read your blog!!!
Cool SG,
I had noticed on occasion that I was getting hits from the north east on that post, but didn't know who from.
Maybbe I should link it to the total arse kicking that Robertson got at the premier site.
Interestingly, that got removed, but a little fairy tells me that there are snap shots of the thread out there :-)
He even changed his death treat lie to now include the "fact" that the police made Dawkins remove this "death threat".
I tried posting on his blog, but he wouldn't let me register. There were two posters on that thread who couldn't register either. Strange that. He claims not to censor. Don't think a man of the cloth like him would possibly lie do you?
Billy,
The man lies like a cheap rug, as a mate of mine likes to say. Dont know if you've checked his site recently but it STILL claims that he is a "youthful 39"
It claimed that in 2001!!!!
If you use web.archive.org and put in his church's address, you can find the old pages (Very, very, very hand tool that for finding out what pish faith-heads have spouted in the past, from sites that have since been deleted)
I came across another interesting one as well regarding the motorcycling calvinist who is one of DARs comrades in arms.
David Meredith is one of those supposedly non-YEC types who occasionally mentions "theistic evolution" and OEC style creationism. Loves to come over as all sort of cool and hip and trendy.
Anyway, he spoke at a conference a couple of years ago at a Yorkshire Church which makes DAR look like a bleeding heart liberal.
Iain Hamilton (Cambridge Presb Church) also spke at this, so it must have been fairly high profile. IH od course left the Church of Scotland over the ordination of women..... sigh...
Anyway, check out that church web site:
www.mirfield.free-online.co.uk/
esp "What we believe" (raving fundy stuff)
and
"Links" - first link is AIG - further down is "Biblical Creation Society"
On their home page is a link to a Yorkshire Creationist outfit (worth a look and a laugh...)
Now, where was I ?
Yes, David Meredith and Iain Hamilton BOTH spoke at a church that is unashamedly YEC. By doing so, they are endorsing it, IMO
Incidentally, on the Free Church website www.freechurch.org , under Links, if you scroll down you will find AIG. (And directly underneath, a Fleas site called atheistdelusion.net which look slike it is by someone called Michael Penfold.
Guess what's next? Penfold Books is the second site listed on the fundy Yorkshire Church's list of links!!!
They're all in it together.....
:-)
SG
Ecky thump!
I'm coming more and more to the realisation that the "moderates" facillitate this lunacy. The seem to protect them under this "brothership in christ" pish where you are not supposed to criticise a fellow believer
Billy, you are exactly right. These "moderates" actually help the extremists by NOT decrying them. OK, sure, DAR may have criticised the YECs on occasion (he has - he described a meeting with a YEC as being disastrous for his church and needing a second congregational meeting to put right)
www.freechurch.org/issues/2003/jan03.htm
Yet, they still accomodate these nutters
Going back to the Q of Evil, it is almost 5 years since the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami
In that time no churchman has come up with a convincing argument whatsoever about how that all fits in with a "loving god" , natural evil and so on.
Evangies like DAR ET AL keep using the old argument about it being a result of "sin"
Even if this WAS the answer, it requires to be predicated on a literal, real Adam and Eve , and by inference a 6000 year old earth - they cant have it any other way.
Unless of course they try to argue (and I have heard this one a couple of times that "the earth is old" BUT Adam and Eve happened less than 10,000 years ago.
Having ones cake and eating it....
Fact is, these people DONT have a convincing answer. They dont for the simple reason that they CANT.
SG,
I've heard some real selective nonsense about god sending jesus to overcome the effects of creating us through evolution. What amazws me is that people think they can just pull unsubstantiated crap like this out of their arse and that explains everything.
The whole concept of sin is just confused. Christianity rests on it, but it makes no sense. If you believe in evolution, then it's impossible to satisfactorily reconcile natural selection with absolute moral laws.
If you're a YEC, then you have the problems of a) Adam and Eve rebelling before they had a concept of right and wrong and b) being a bawbag.
Robertson and his lot of truth twisters dont really get evolution. I think that was obvious from his tsunami article where he (despite subsequent claims) argues from a very YEC starting point - sin causing geological processes and death. At the same time, he tries to be trendy and adopt evolution despite being aware of it's consequences. He effectively waves away 3.5 billion years of death, suffering and natural disasters before mankind.
I could go on, but in summary, he's a fud!
Hi Billy,
What amazws me is that people think they can just pull unsubstantiated crap like this out of their arse and that explains everything.
It's called religion - they do it all the time.
Lee
Billy, I know its not really relevant here, but have you seen "Wee Fud's" latest piece o' pish:
www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk/node/183
Some of the stuff in there "wid mak ye spew"
eg: "A brokenness which we believe can only be healed when there is a return to the values, tolerance, freedom and beauty of the Word of God" Tolerance? Tolerance??!!!
And this one:
"The great atheist/secularist experiment to create a nation without Christianity has been a disaster"
(shakes head, mutters, sighs loudly, heads to the pub......)
:-)
SG
SG,
That pure gave us the dry boak.
He just keeps spouting the same refuted nonsense and all that's left to do is put some rabbid ferrets in his trousers.
I mean, has he read the bible? It makes Mein Kampf look like a bill of human rights - genocide, misogyny, slavery, cruelty, racism......
hello billy.
not often i get time to read up some interaction with dawkins, but it being the hols and all, just read this. various links, you may be interested to check out:
http://www.hgtaylor.net/dawkins.htm
happy christmas
Thanks for the link Bruce, that pink background has messed up my eyes though. I'll try and copy it onto word later and read it.
The problem with creationism is that it denies reality. There are many problems for a christian wanting to accept evolution though. I may try and blog on this over the holiday.
Have a good one
cheers billy. this guy howard t delivered some lectures i attended in glasgow at the bible college.
oh and happy birthday from a few days ago!!
Excellent post.... you already had a ton of comments so I don't have anything else to add to the mix.
BTW, I am the fellow blogger who thought Lee knew a thing about biology. What Lee doesn't realize is that over here in the states, a high school biology education consists of - Mitosis/Meiosis, the end. So basically a 13 year old in Australia can probably do as well on a biology test as any high school graduate..... unless Australia is as bad as the Bible belt.
Hi Samuel
I am the fellow blogger who thought Lee knew a thing about biology.
What a mistake to make :-)
Did your Uncle ever get back to answering my questions?
So basically a 13 year old in Australia can probably do as well on a biology test as any high school graduate..... unless Australia is as bad as the Bible belt.
I was educated in England so I would not know yet... though I hear Queensland is pretty bad and is the Aussie bible belt – down here in Victoria I think I (and more importantly my children) are safe.
If not, my children’s teachers are going to hate me
Lee
Thanks Samuel,
Lee has picked up a thing or two. He also has a good critical mind.
I've been to Harrisburgh and just blurted out that I read a good National Geographic aricle on bird evolution on the flight - you could see that my hosts were visibly shaken. Tey even gave me a copy of Darwin on trial - a real denier's book with no concern for honest enquirey
Luke has yet to respond, and I haven't really heard from him in a long time.
I'm kind of wondering what's going on - maybe his life outside of Blogger is busy.
I've wanted to reply to his new psychology posts - since that is more up my alley - but I can't even bring myself to begin, and it feels unwanted at this point.
So I'm mostly taking various apologetics videos off of his blog and writing responses to them on mine - 2 of which will be posted in January.
Hey Billy,
I read something today that reminded me of you: HAPI leaked emails. "HAPI" = "Hubbard Academy of Personal Independence" in Edinburgh.
Scientology is a religion even more toxic than the wee flea's fundamentalist gang. Thankfully, there aren't too many scilons in your neck of the woods.
Some lovely pics of Scotland in their newsletters.
Thought you might find a laugh in the faux-clan crap.
Hi Dr B,
Thankfully we have very few of these nutters - they were clearly out taking a wizz when religions were handed out. I've been told there is a stall of about 2 f thm in Glasgow on a Saturday morning. Apparently they get aggressive when challenged
Billy
No other purpose to this, other than to say "Happy New Year " mate!
Keep fighting the good fight
(yes I know that comes from the bibble
Anyway, have a cyber -dram! Cheers!
SG
Cheer SG,
Happy new year to you too, and every one else. Hope it's a good one
Post a Comment