Why is there evil and suffering?

[Thats my opinion]

The basic philosophical question is “why is there something and not nothing?”
The basic theological question is, “why is there evil, and how is God implicated?”
The dilemma goes like this:
If God is good he would will to stop evil.
If God is powerful he would be able to stop evil.
Evil exist, and therefore God is either not good or not powerful.

Theologians and many others have struggled unsuccessfully with that issue for centuries.
Some of the inadequate or partial answers:
Human ignorance.
Human sin.
Human freewill—as God stepped back
The fall of Adam. (“I have sinned,” said Adam originally.)
Human failure to prevent suffering (allowing people to starve by a failure to share food).
God is testing us to make us stronger.
God is the author of evil as well as good.
There is no evil outside our inaccurate perception.
All things will eventually turn out for good.
We continually violate God natural laws.

And there are others

The difficulty with all these answers lies in the notion that God is a big, powerful person who lives somewhere in the sky and controls what goes on here like a puppeteer who manipulates the strings of his dolls. We even refer to God as “he.” Perhaps God is not a super man, a grand King or a benevolent parent. What if God is that energy which enlivens all that is, which lures creation on, and is the creative power, which simply enlivens all creation? This does not suggest a pantheism in which God is the creation itself, but a panentheism in which God is within all creation as its source of energy. Thus God suffers with us—as a fellow sufferer. In Christian theology, that is the meaning of the cross. God therefore not only wills to overcome suffering and evil, but also is at work within everything to refine all of life. Thus all things are in a continual state of evolution, and the energy behind evolution is the evidence of God with us.

Modern theology is rapidly getting rid of this sky wizard notion of God, and increasingly seeing God as Doing and not Being. God is best understood as a verb, not a noun. Religion becomes, therefore, our human participation in all the creative processes of life, not a belief in someone up there.

If we are to have an intelligent conversation about science, we had better come to terms with the amazing new insights of modern scientists. If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about religion we had better come to terms with the amazing new insights of modern theologians. If the only thing I know about science comes from the dark ages, my ignorance would immediately be obvious.

[mr_hat]

1. Love the phrase

"God is a verb rather than a noun." That sums it up for me.

[roguevalley]

17. agreed. life sucks because we have free will. it can bebetter if we

Want it.

[DreamGypsy]

2. God is what we invoke at the limits of our knowledge...

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2012, 01:41 AM - Edit history (1)

The video below is Neil deGrasse Tyson's talk at Beyond Belief 2006. The theme is intended as a counter to intelligent design, but I think there are much deeper lessons in what he discusses. He shows how scientists and cultures fail when they reach a cliff of knowledge.

The presentation is a bit more rambling than Neil usually is (at least from my limited experience) - as though he arrived late and hadn't quite prepared thoroughly - and he does make one rather startling word error (which he corrects) that some people could find offensive


The whole video is about 38 minutes.

[mysuzuki2]

3. Because god is quite the bastard.

[Fix The Stupid]

4. Hmmm.

What's this supposed to mean?

"If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about religion we had better come to terms with the amazing new insights of modern theologians"

What insights?

And if there is information coming from theologians, what do they base this info on? What are they using as research?

And if the answer to that question contains the word "bible" anywhere in it, well... that's a problem. A person loses all credibility if they are using the bible as anything more than a collection of old myths and stories.

Thanks

[patrice]

5. I like this very much! Look at the universe; how can ANY words encompass that event? It IS its own

thing AND it is also ours to the extent that we live as honestly as possible as events, our own relatively unique:shared known:not-known events, too.

Buckminster Fuller pointed to this for me/you, when he said, "I seem to be a verb." All anyone needs of what is referred to as "sacredness" can be found in that doing.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. In th past GOD filled in the empty places in knowledge of the universe...

with a narrative of myth.

As human knowledge filled the holes those places where God brought such comfort have disappeared. We know that the world is ancient. There is no scientific argument that counters an ancient earth.

We know that lightning is caused when masses of air rub together until the energy exceeds the capacitance of the atmosphere that the sparks over the resistance in the atmosphere. We know that thunder is caused by lightning. We can not make a theological argument that God, angels, Thor, or Bael Hammon are the cause.

We have considerable evidence that Planets condense from stellar clouds with the stars the orbit. They are not revealed by the parting of waters or vomited up by cosmic turtles.

With mathematics, we can even glimpse creation of a universe from nothing.

There are fewer and fewer places where God fits.

But because we as a species evolved with God and religion, many need the comfort of God and deny science so they can keep those places in the framework of their experience for God to fill. For those people, science may explain but never comforts, and needing comfort rather than explanations, they deny science and hold to myth.

[Thats my opinion]

7. Today's theology does not deny science, but celebrates it.

Religious fundamentalism does not--and those whose only understanding of theology is the same as fundamentalists are just stuck with their prejudices. A closed mind will never appreciate fresh insights.

[Oregonian]

9. It's not that the mind is closed

It's that the "insights" you speak of spark squarely from the anus of the "theologians", who base their insights on little more than sitting on a rock and thinking.

Studying any subject is about persipration, not inspiration. Look through a telescope, count the dwarf stars, galaxies and black holes, or look under a microscope, document the cellular mitosis, then come back and talk to us about "insights".

[Thats my opinion]

20. In any of the DU forums or groups,

it is helpful for posters, particularly if they do little but ridicule what the topic is about, to have read enough of the best modern thinking to make an intelligent response.
You would never get away with it in most of the other DU discussions.
Snark is a cheap commodity.

[rrneck]

24. Were you to produce

a coherent insight into that theology, being a theologan and all, perhaps it would be better received.

[Oregonian]

33. The problem he has

is that there is no coherent insight into theology. None. So far, anything he's come up with is a pathetic bastardization of string theory.

[rrneck]

38. Reads like new age word salad to me.

I recced the thread. At least he's not low rating the "non religious". If that's his thing I'm good with it. It's just wrong to try to force your beliefs on others, either through government or guile.

[cleanhippie]

27. "the "insights" you speak of spark squarely from the anus of the "theologians""

Until you answer the many calls in this thread to elaborate on these theological insights, what the poster said above, and I quote "the "insights" you speak of spark squarely from the anus of the "theologians", applies 100% here.

It ain't snark, it ain't "gotcha questions" (Sarah, is that you?), it's Deepak Chopra-esqe blabber that is getting exactly what it deserves.

[Oregonian]

32. There was far more snark in your post

Than mine. I made a point about the differences in the degree of difficulty in each discipline. In science, I'm sorry, but you're actually doing shit. It's work.

In theology (which, to me, shames the suffix 'ology' by existing), your "work" consists of conjuring up meaning from the same incoherent, ancient text, over and over. Or, by willfully ignoring science.

That's not study. That's not insight. And your response proves your own defensiveness over that fact. So alert my post if it gives you poopy pants.

[trotsky]

60. We can see the emperor has no clothes.

And that's what makes you so angry and hostile toward non-believers.

[cleanhippie]

30. Best. Post. Ever.

It's that the "insights" you speak of spark squarely from the anus of the "theologians", who base their insights on little more than sitting on a rock and thinking.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Dude, you single handedly CRUSHED his Deepak Chopra-esqe nonsense. Well done!

[Oregonian]

31. Thanks, brother! n/t

[cleanhippie]

34. ThatsMyOpinion usually pokes his head out and posts something like this every week or so.

His OP gets eaten alive in the first few responses, but he has most of us on ignore because we ask questions, like you did, that cannot be answered rationally. You can see for yourself that he fails to respond to most replies, and if you keep asking the difficult, and obvious, questions, you will soon find yourself being ignored too.

Come on over to the Atheist & Agnostic Group. It's a "safe-haven" group, where believers who choose to participate must leave their superstitions and factless-based nonsense at the door.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1230

[Oregonian]

35. I have posted there some

Seems a bit dead, is the only issue. But yes, I will spend time there in the future, for sure.

[cleanhippie]

36. You wanna see dead? Have a look at the Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith group.

It is so dead, Jesus himself couldn't resurrect it.

[Oregonian]

37. Ha ha, well played

And I just noticed that the posting was picking up in A&A, so I will hit it up. Thanks for the props on the post again!

[rexcat]

55. As usual your post...

is only about snark. Must be a familial thing and your post has no real value just like this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=48496

but this one looks like it was hidden. Too bad for you.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Chalk one up for you kitten!

So refreshing to know you don't engage in snark. So precious

[rexcat]

57. It will take a lot more...

for you to annoy me. Too bad you don't contribute more to the this thread.

Yes, I can engage in snark when it is appropriate but you seem to be antagonistic to those who have been blocked by someone special to you. I would be more than glad to have an adult conversation with you but you need to show some more maturity than what you are currently displaying.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Precious, you need to learn the difference between blocking and ignoring.

If you decide to present yourself as a "mature" individual, I'll be happy to have an adult conversation with you. I do confess to being antagonistic to some of your meaner friends. However, my antagonism is born of my own interaction with them. I don't put you and Trottles in that category. I find you both quite adorable in a funny kind of way. My antagonism is directed toward the bullies you tend to scamper around with.

You ask the OP Who wastes their time worrying about such shit?
Well, apparently, a lot of folk worrying about such shit. Some become doctors and nurses, others set up soup kitchens. Many care about these things and many of those are motivated by their role model, a guy called Jesus. The stories most hold onto are those where Jesus cared for the poor, the sick and the destitute. Those I speak to, consider Jesus a symbol of our own potential to be a good neighbor. They don't talk about being "saved" or "heaven and hell" and other fundie rubbish.

[rexcat]

59. I would consider "precious" as a derogatory remark...

as in "The Lord of the Rings." I don't see us having any fruitful conversations when you are being so derogatory. Your antagonism is directed at all of us. What you say in this post and how you say it are inconsistent.

I don't know which OP you are referring to

You ask the OP Who wastes their time worrying about such shit?

. Please be a little more specific. As far as Jesus goes, I don't need a bronze age mythical person to be my model. I worked 10 years in AIDS volunteer work until it became too stressful because too many friends were dying from the disease. I also was on the front lines in the early 80's in the pediatric infection disease arena as a supervisor of microbiology and saw the first pediatric AIDS patients admitted to the children's hospital I worked at. Those kids are all dead now. I volunteer in many ways in the community I live in. I do it out of altruism and the good feeling I get from doing it, not because of some "role" model. I encourage my children to do the same and I lead by example, or try to. I also keep my atheism very low keyed because of some of the work I do in the school district we live in because even the "liberal" christians in the community I live in are highly bigoted toward atheists.

Sorry but cbayer did block me completely. After the last blow up between us I looked at my transparency page and there is a DUer with a star who blocked me; coincidence, I don't think so. The block occurred immediately after she said "she was done with me." and that block is still there. I tried to have a cordial relationship on line with her but there were some posts of hers that I thought were over the top and she took my posts personally. At times I can be too straight forward and the last situation got blown out of proportion by both of us. Of course I don't think she sees it that way.

[Thats my opinion]

63. I celebrate what you have done with your life. nt

[rexcat]

65. I am not looking for accolades...

but the purpose of the post was to inform TS that people are more complex then he gives credit and to express that I am tired of his putdowns.

I am at an stage in my life where I can sit back and reflect my successes and tribulations but I have probably dwelled on the negatives more than the positives. That is just the nature of this beast.

[cleanhippie]

90. Do you celebrate the fact that he did those things sans religion?

[cleanhippie]

73. He doesn't give a shit, rexcat. His passive-aggressiveness is like the stripe on a skunks back.

Its just how he is.

[rexcat]

74. Agreed...

I made my point and he did not respond. That says it all.

Obnoxious could also be used. He sure is not meeting the community standards for DU in any sense. In the recent past I have seen one post by him that was thoughtful. All the others have been beyond the snark.

It was nice to see the jury system work recently with TS. I thought it was a crap shoot when I alerted his post to me but the jury system actually worked.

[cleanhippie]

89. And a jury felt the same way, as his post got hidden above.

As the saying goes," the sun even shines on a dogs ass once in a while. "

[rexcat]

96. I can say I did not alert that one...

seems someone is getting his just dues.

on edit: glad to see your post was not hidden. Looks like the jury actually read the entire thread except one.

[ohiosmith]

80. This post was alerted on. The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand.

At Wed Oct 3, 2012, 12:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

He doesn't give a shit, rexcat. His passive-aggressiveness is like the stripe on a skunks back.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=49347

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

There is no content here. Just another personal attack on a fellow DUer.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 3, 2012, 12:40 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Mild, mild, mild commentary in comparison to other unhidden posts on this site and in this forum. No hide from me.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The alerter should check upstream to see who started this pissing match (post hidden by jury). Leave it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Just not worth the trouble for this pissing match...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cleanhippie]

86. Thanks, looks like a jury agreed that his passive-aggressive posts are not worthy of DU.

Thanks for the notification.

[GeorgeGist]

44. Einstein had insights ...

[AlbertCat]

47. Einstein had insights ...

Indeed....

Which he did not hold as "true" until proven by empirical evidence.

For instance, his General Relativity theory predicted that because of the curvature of space/time by the gravity of the sun, it should do certain things to the orbit of Mercury.

From Wiki:

Mercury deviates from the precession predicted from these Newtonian effects. This anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was first recognized in 1859 as a problem in celestial mechanics, by Urbain Le Verrier. His re-analysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun's disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton's theory by 38" (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43&quot .[2] A number of ad hoc and ultimately unsuccessful solutions were proposed, but they tended to introduce more problems. In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of spacetime. Einstein showed that general relativity[1] agrees closely with the observed amount of perihelion shift. This was a powerful factor motivating the adoption of general relativity.

So it was not just some thought experiment done in an ivory tower. Has it not jived with some observation, Einstein would have (as Lawrence Krauss puts it) "thrown out General Relativity like yesterday's newspaper."

[humblebum]

70. Yes, it really is that the mind is closed.

To paraphrase: If one cannot see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or physically feel or touch it, then it doesn't exist - about as narrow-minded as one can possibly be.

And using such as the basis for mindless blathering bigotry only solidifies your place in the annals of malcontent chronic complainers. You do no favors for atheists.

[whathehell]

129. Thank you.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[skepticscott]

15. Sheesh, could you possibly be any more arrogant and self-centered?

"Today's theology"? WTF is that, other than what you and your clique of ivory tower academics have ginned up to try not to look silly while still clinging to something you have to call "god". Do they teach this claptrap as the core of theology at Catholic seminaries...or Lutheran...or Baptist? Are all of those mainstream, non-fundamentalist theologians closed-minded and hopelessly out of touch with what "god" really is, as compared to you and those in the know?

[humblebum]

71. Yes, he could be a radical atheist. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

134. Which theology? Baptist Theology? Dominionist Theology?

There is no one theology. Each church his its own flavor.

[patrice]

131. The narrative myths that fit things together were the function of the pluraltheistic religions, with

the development of the 3 great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, the explanatory myth is SUPPOSED to take a back seat to faith (e.g. the Book of Job), but, at least amongst the Christians I know, blasphemy, i.e. equation between my understanding and the mind of God, has become habitual, e.g. I know there is a God, because I know God and, thus, the narrative explanations of all things (even if that's only, "It's a test.&quot . However, the explanations now are not about what fits a particular hole(s), but that all holes are fillable, so the holes themselves don't matter, because "God has a plan."

[Oregonian]

8. So.....atheism?

"Religion becomes, therefore, our human participation in all the creative processes of life, not a belief in someone up there."

Semantics, then. You're talking about secular humanism.

[trotsky]

10. "Modern theology is rapidly getting rid of this sky wizard notion of God"

Modern theology is thus demonstrating how hopelessly out of touch it is with religion as practiced by the VAST majority of believers.

Scientists following Dark Ages thinking are few and far between. That's why your ignorance would be obvious were you to start basing claims on its principles. And why it's a terribly weak and ridiculous analogy for your pleas to ignore religion *as it is.*

An intelligent conversation about religion cannot begin with an outright dismissal (if not denial) of modern religious practice and belief.

[rrneck]

25. He just admitted he is an atheist.

If all you have to do to change the nature of something is change your narrative about it, it's fiction.

[patrice]

82. True, because changing your narrative/perspective does not necessarily change the nature of the

thing. It only changes perspective, which may or may not make perspective more valid and reliable. The thing, whatever it is, is whatever it is, no matter how one looks at it, whatever, more or less valid, angle. Additionally, some angles/narratives are more obtuse than others (and still other narratives are extrapolations from those skewed perspectives), so, especially if you're factoring out all of the other angles (or, at best, those which don't fit with the one that has been chosen), the narrative might as well be a fiction, for all of the relevance that perspective might have to any validity.

All of that is okay for rationalism, because rationalism does that within the context of its own epistemology and never claimed anything else and it identifies itself by what it does/its own processes, so what is included and what is excluded IS the point.

None of that is okay for religion, because religion says that it isn't doing that. Religion says it is doing the opposite of that, i.e. identifying absolute truths ir-respective of anything like perspective or context and yet each religion claims its own perspective/narrative as the ultimate truth. One of the main reasons that religion clings to what are very likely errors has more to do with organ -ization (i.e. a specific functional construct) than it has to do with what may or may not be truth.

[rrneck]

88. Yep.

If God only exists within a narrative, then God doesn't exist any more, or less, than Gandalf. If someone believes in a fiction, which is fine, they believe the object of their faith does not actually exist in reality.

It's a tough epistemological spot to be in to find out your reality is just a narrative, and changing the narrative means your reason for doing so doesn't exist. The harder you try to believe in a God like that, the more you declare your atheism.

[cleanhippie]

91. I think you guys are on to something here. TMO is essentially "coming out"

Even if he doesn't realize it. Perhaps that is why he can be so condescending and dismissive toward non-believers; that is the cognitive dissonance created between his conflicting beliefs (or non-belief as it may be).

Good stuff!

[patrice]

92. Well said. Very well said!

People forget where the cross came from and what a pure icon it is of the human condition and the suffering it produces.

If they weren't so superstitious they'd respect things like the Tarot more, as one of the oldest books there is, and listen to the Fool, and the Hanged Man, and others.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

28. That has got to be one of the silliest statements ever

An intelligent conversation about religion cannot begin with an outright dismissal (if not denial) of modern religious practice and belief.

That seems to be saying that one can only discuss religion if one denies religion. It also says "believers are stupid".

[trotsky]

40. You are wrong.

I said a discussion of religion CANNOT begin with a dismissal of how religion is practiced.

I said nothing about whether one had to "deny" religion, nor that "believers are stupid."

The only person who has called anyone stupid is YOU, when you personally attacked me. Your behavior is inappropriate and hurtful, and it completely negates anything substantive you have to say/

[cleanhippie]

42. I think you have misread his statement. Please read it again.

An intelligent conversation about religion cannot begin with an outright dismissal (if not denial) of modern religious practice and belief.

This statement says nothing about what you claim it does. I think you have gotten this wrong.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

103. You're right, I misread it. My apologies

[rrneck]

11. I don't disagree.

But for Christianity to hope to survive, much less thrive, I expect it is going to have to come up with a narrative that does more than riff on the discoveries of modern science. Changing the nature of God from an anthropomorphized spirit to an anthropomorphized energy field couched in the terminology of science can't hope to compete with more compelling narratives.

Christian rock doesn't rock.

[Thats my opinion]

21. Of course.

One does not change the nature of God, but only seeks go understand it.
You have put your finger on what is currently happening throughout theology.

[rrneck]

22. Theology isn't changing anything but the narrative.

Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

They're rewriting the script for a contemporary audience, but it's still a derivative piece of work.

[dimbear]

12. God is best understood as a verb, not a noun. What's the past tense? n/t

[skepticscott]

14. Gad!

With Gadzooks being the past progressive.

[dimbear]

16. I like it.

[skepticscott]

13. Theologians don't have "insights"

At least not as far as true knowledge and understanding go. Never have, never will. The only "insights" they have are into what will make religious nonsense seem reasonable and palatable to the particular people they want to appeal to. "Modern" theology is not a matter of gaining a deeper and more exact understanding of something that actually exists, but of constantly morphing the invented version of "god" into whatever form "modern" theologians believe will render claims of his/her/its existence most resistant to critical examination.

[trotsky]

18. Nail on the head. n/t

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

29. Thus speaks someone who does not understand theology

I think that skepticscott can reasonably be called unreasonable on the subject of religion. I was taken to task for calling someone else a bigot, so I shall not (even though he is one).

[skepticscott]

51. Is there an argument in there anywhere?

Any facts? Anything to counter what i said? Anything to demonstrate the accumulation of true knowledge and understanding that Xstian theology has produced over almost 2000 years? Or is it just the same, tired "Theology is too deep and complex for non-theologians to grasp" sort of BS that we've heard so many times instead?

Come on...show us the "reason" that underlies theology. Tell us what theologians understand better now than they did 50 or 100 years ago as a result of these "insights". If you can. Seems like all you can do is fling poo.

[QuantumOfPeace]

53. Science doesn't give us all the understanding we have

...so it does seem that there is room for theology.

[skepticscott]

62. The fact that science can't answer ALL questions

does not automatically mean that theology is remotely capable of filling in the gaps in a useful way, now does it? "Room for" is a lot different than "worth a damn".

[QuantumOfPeace]

66. I doubt your skepticism

In fact, it could turn out that theology will have a widely beneficial impact as we come up on "science" that will allow us to destroy ourselves in new ways.

Besides, people haven't changed much.

[skepticscott]

68. As mentioned, Christian theology has had

almost 2000 years to show what it can do. Why don't you give us a list of what it has to show for all that time? "Could turn out" does not mean "will ever be worth a damn"

[QuantumOfPeace]

69. Shows you how to be a righteous dude, among other things?

I mean, I'm not sure what you are expecting anyone to say.

No one serious thinks that all religion today in the modern world is opposed to all science.

Is there some alternative history that you want someone to present?

Anyone could do it, who thinks critically.

Let's see.

All of these, technically, were the product of The Enlightenment, of "non theology", let's say.

The most devastating wars in history
1. WWI
2. WWII

The creation of the atomic weapons.

Soon, non-theology will find new ways for us to destroy ourselves in more subtle ways. Of course, we may all drown by then, because non-theology has brought us an Enlightenment global warming...

[skepticscott]

94. Well, I was expecting someone to say something intelligent

But I'm used to disappointment. And I thought my question was clear. What true knowledge and understanding has Christian theology produced? I can understand that your inability to offer any real answers is humiliating for you, but buck up and accept the truth. You won't last long on this board being an intellectual pinata...trust me.

As far as the tired old chestnut about wars and weapons and global warming being caused by science, it's a rather elementary notion that scientific discoveries are merely tools, and like all tools, they can be used wisely or unwisely, destructively or constructively. Decisions about how they are used are not made by science, but by politics and morals. In fact, it is religion, not science, that claims to impart the wisdom and morality that it has always maintained that atheism and rationalism lack. So if you want to blame wars on anything, point the finger at the failure of religion to live up to its part of the bargain, for failing to instill peace and goodwill into humanity, and causing its own full measure of hatred and divisiveness instead.

You were aware of those rather elementary notions, weren't you?

[QuantumOfPeace]

97. You do know that science and ethics are different disciplines, right?

And we can say things about how to be and how to act that aren't science related, but which we would nevertheless not consider delusional?

As for the rest, there is no "old chestnut".

It is a potential counterargument that non-theology has produced horrible conflict as well as "scientific" weapons that can destroy us. In other words, you cannot have it both ways, claiming that "true knowledge" related to non-theology is all good. It isn't. In fact, it is even conceivable that "theological"-only approaches would not have plunged us into these conflicts and shunned even the discovery of these weapons (I doubt it, but still, it is a counterargument!) and could, yet, forestall our destruction by the new ways that we dare develop.

As for your monumental snark, it is a shame that non-theology encourages and spurs you to it.

Another good reason to rationally reject atheism. I think it is #23 or #32 on the list of reasons to rationally reject atheistic philosophies and approaches.

[skepticscott]

98. The entire point is

that science and ethics are different disciplines, and that, as a result the knowledge gained by science and how that knowledge is used are ALSO different matters. Do you even grasp that?

And yes, it is an old chestnut, because it's a fundamentally flawed argument that keeps getting repeated by people like you, as if it's meaningful. And when you say that I claimed that "true knowledge" related to non-theology is all good, you're lying. I said no such thing. I said that science provides demonstrable knowledge and understanding and theology doesn't. When someone (i.e. you) has to lie and attribute things to me that I haven't said in order to try to win points in an argument, I know they have nothing intelligent or substantial to say.

If you have any notion that "theological"-only approaches would avoid conflict, try researching the 30 Years War, and a few other conflicts around that time to see how vapid that is. And no, it's your monumental ignorance and intellectual dishonesty that encourages scorn and dismissal.

The only rational reason to reject atheism would be convincing evidence of the existence of a god. Feel free to provide that, please. Along with your examples of the knowledge and understanding that theology has bestowed on humanity (your abysmal failure to provide same having not gone unnoticed). Rejecting a position because you're miffed at the attitude of someone who holds it, rather than because of the lack of facts supporting it, is the height of irrationality. Another rather elementary notion which seems to have escaped you.

Keep this up and all your candy will be spilled soon.

[QuantumOfPeace]

102. Atheism is not a conclusion, it is a preference

It seems plain we can say things about how to be and how to act that aren't science related, but which we would nevertheless not consider delusional.

On review, I found nothing "fundamentally flawed" from "people like me", as you put it.

what was said:

It is a potential counterargument that non-theology has produced horrible conflict as well as "scientific" weapons that can destroy us. In other words, one cannot have it both ways, claiming that "true knowledge" related to non-theology is all good. It isn't. In fact, it is even conceivable that "theological"-only approaches would not have plunged us into these conflicts and shunned even the discovery of these weapons (I doubt it, but still, it is a counterargument!) and could, yet, forestall our destruction by the new ways that we dare develop.

I'll add to that paragraph only that you can't logically choose to wish that perspective away. You can try to say other factors outweigh it (like the 30 years war), but that's about it. In the end, you choose to believe/accept/follow (whatev) "non theology" and others do not.

Theistic belief represents an entire system of ethics and values, a way of life. Anyone can choose the truth of that over atheistic approaches to the same. With good reason. Including your monumental snark, for instance, as I noted.

[skepticscott]

106. Atheism reflects a preference

for having sufficient evidence before accepting things as true. "Faith" (backed by theological spin) reflects a preference for believing things without evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence. If you have a deep psychological and emotional need for the latter, you're more than welcome to it.

The rest of your post is just the same regurgitated pap, with no substance (still).

[cleanhippie]

138. Atheism is the rejection of theism.

Atheism would not even exist if it were not for the assertion of theism.

[cleanhippie]

137. Sam Harris makes an excellent case in The Moral Landscape that counters you.

Have a read.

[Leontius]

19. Matthew 7:6

While I disagree with parts of what you're saying I do hope it can be heard above the squeals and grunts.

[Thats my opinion]

64. The question often arises as to where one can find the seat of this theology,.

as if it came from a half dozen people sitting in their ivory towers.
Let me offer a few examples:

you can find it in the seminaries at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, The University of Chicago, Union Seminary in New York (the school of Cornell West who is back teaching there now, Cambridge, Oxford and a large collection of ecumenical schools throughout the world.In addition you can fine its in seminaries of the United Methodist Church, The United Church of Christ, The Disciples of Christ, The Unitarians and schools operated by other denominations. In addition there are the 300 members of the Jesus Seminar (now called he Weststar Institute) including the Catholic, Dom Gregory Crossin, The Institute of Biblical research, The American Academy of Religion, The Center for Process Study (including 12 Universities in China).

I'm tired. Need I go on? If you want to see the literature, just Google "Process Theology."

Is this what goes on among fundamentalists or in most congregations? Not yet. But one of the most exciting thing in all the world is to see a fresh idea the mass of people have not yet accepted or understood.

One would think that these notions would be applauded by non-religionists. Me thinks there are those who don't want to acknowledge what is going on in the religious world because they get a thrill out of slamming fundamentalism, instead of celebrating what is coming to birth. It's called intellectual curiosity

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Do those all deny the resurrection, then?

It seems to me that the resurrection remains pretty important, as a reality rather than a myth, to the UMC, for instance. The idea of God as 'benevolent parent' is important to them.

[Thats my opinion]

79. The resurrection is still very important.

But perhaps there is more to it than a dead corpse getting out of the grave. It may have to do with the hope in the final victory of life over death.

In both the Biblical and post-Biblical witness it never means the same thing to any of the reporters. There are four different accounts in the gospels, and a very different one in Paul.
The important witness to the resurrection, however, is the emergence of a people committed to the story of Jesus and his ministry. This is the living body of Christ, nor a resuscitated corpse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. The story they were committed to was the resurrection

and it does seem to take things in a completely different direction from "all things are in a continual state of evolution". Life cannot have a "final victory" over death; evolution requires death.

I think your idea that "God is best understood as a verb, not a noun" is incompatible with "God suffers with us—as a fellow sufferer" (with God as a "source of energy&quot . One moment, you have God as action; one moment God is a thing, but impersonal; one moment it is a thing that can suffer. This is incoherent.

[trotsky]

85. Just slap a capital M on Mystery and call it done. n/t

[skepticscott]

99. I think we need a capital Y at the end too

It has to be a MysterY, right? Or can it just be a MyStErY?

[Thats my opinion]

110. You raised a couple of very good issues.

1-While the followers of Jesus and those who came with and after them, were committed to the resurrection, there was never any agreement as to what it meant. All the gospel stories are different. While the stories were all different, they were all testimonies that Jesus was with them in power and meaning. In the face of all that was thrown at them, they persisted in hope. It was this lust for life and meaning that became the hope of the resurrection, not the physical presence of Jesus. Today it is the vital presence of Christ, not the reality of the physical body of Jesus, which is celebrated in the Christian eucharist every day. If Jesus physically came out of the tomb, he was gone in ten days--according to the tradition. But if the witness of what he taught is real, he is still in the midst of those who are Christians as well at those who cling to his teachings even if they don't acknowledge where these ethical imperatives came from.

2- Suffering in an action. God as a fellow suffering is probably an inaccurate way to put it. Suffering is part of the energy of life. It is this force of all that is, which we call God, that is part of who we are, and which struggles with us. If everything related to everything else, and God is within everything, then as we struggles the very heart of the universe struggles with us. It is this energy which lures us on.

[Angry Dragon]

112. Was Paul even there??

[Thats my opinion]

114. No, Paul never met or saw Jesus.

Everything he wrote--that we have--was done before the gospels were written and circulated.

All he had was an oral tradition. He, in fact, says hardly anything about Jesus' life, teachings or ministry

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Doing what exactly?

Your essay boils down to god as "doing" rather than "being". Ok. Doing what?

"The energy behind evolution is the evidence of god".

Hmmmm. What exactly is this "energy behind evolution"? How is this "energy" evidence of god?

[rrneck]

26. I didn't know you were an atheist.

See #25.

[mr blur]

41. Word salad. No thanks, I've eaten.

[prefunk]

43. I would love to have an intelligent conversation about religion. Can you kindly explain what the

amazing new insights of modern theologians are? Sounds fascinating. Thanks.

[Thats my opinion]

49. Put aside your prejudices, and try reading the original post nt

[prefunk]

93. Try not being so condescending, please. I did read the OP, and found it ambiguous.

What exactly ARE the new insights? Is it just that fact that you say god is more "doing"? I'm just not understanding what you mean. Will you kindly clarify your meaning, please?

[skepticscott]

100. That like asking the pope

not to be so Catholic. He will not clarify or answer simple and direct questions. He'll evade and dodge, and then run and hide, or put you on ignore for making "personal attacks" or "bullying" him.

[Thats my opinion]

109. Perhaps these are not new insights, but the recapulation of what we have known for a long time.

The ancients looked at the world they knew and realized that there was energy in everything.
They tried to personify this mysterious force, and their gods were powerful persons seen in nature, in objects and in natural occurrences. This was the only sort of reductionism they could perceive. Nevertheless, underneath it all, wrapped in a mystery they could only objectify was the energy they saw in everything. The best way they knew to talk about it was to say that all was God. That is called pantheism. (God is the sum total of nature)

But perhaps God is not the sum total of nature, but the force within all of nature which drives it--the doing, not the being. We find it in the drive we call evolution. We see it in the discoveries of modern physics which tell us that everything is related to everything else. We see it in the perpetual motion of everything. We see in in the universal lust for life. It is always within us and beyond us. It gives purpose to all living things. It keeps the universe in motion. It is evident in all those institutions and persons that seek to make the world a better place.

Somehow we seem to want simple answers to the universe's most complicated problems. Scientists know there are no simple answers. But philosophy and theology also know it. If you really want a satisfactory answer to the very good question you asked, read Karen Armstrong's A History of God.

[prefunk]

119. So if there are NOT any "amazing new insights", just what is it you are talking about?

What you are describing sounds a lot like post-modern spiritualism. Is that religion? Perhaps, but it is a far cry from the traditional gods of the scriptures and seems to dismiss all of that with a new way of defining "god."

Is there an interconnected energy and relationship between all things? Possibly, and it is a subject which bears examination. But I find this line of inquiry to be far removed from anything most people call "religion". Would you agree?

[skepticscott]

121. It is a religion

for people with a deep psychological need to call something, anything "god", and to still adhere to something that they can call "religion" (anything to avoid being branded an atheist, especially by themselves), even when they know deep down that the conceptions of "god" touted by the major religions fail. They just can't take the leap and give it up completely.

[Thats my opinion]

122. All religions only point. None of them encapsulate the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth. In his great treatise on Love (I Corinthians 13), Paul says that we all look through dimly lit mirrors. We do the best we can trying to define and reach for that which is always beyond us.
This is not post-modern spiritualism. It really sees the wisdom in many of the things modern science has revealed--and we don't call quantum mechanics, post-modern spiritualism. What science is telling is that everything is related to everything else. We for the first time realize that we live in a universe.

Of course there is relationship between energy and things. It is the energy that enliven s all things.
Things do not even exist without the energy which enlivens them. And that is the reality toward which all religion only can point.

[prefunk]

123. So what does that have to do with organized religion and it's charachters?

If god is merely the descriptive term for the energy and interconnectedness between all things, what need is there for jesus, mohammed, or any of the myriad other characters to be found in religious scripture?

[Thats my opinion]

124. They are all efforts to point to that which is beyond all of them.

The fundamental religious question revolves around the quest for meaning.
It is one thing to speculate in the abstract about that question. But religions seek to deal with it through metaphors, symbols and a thirst that takes bodily form. In Christian terms, this is the meaning of incarnation, or as the fourth gospel puts it, "And the word (the tao) became flesh and lived among us."

I guess there may be justice outside the courts,
education outside schools,
capitalism outside the stock market,
but institutions are the way we get down to the earth about these and many other things.

The danger comes when people sense that these structures are absolute.

[prefunk]

125. So lets go back to these new insights.

I'm happy that you have found meaning for yourself, but I am still perplexed at just what the new insights are. Can you elaborate on that?

And from your other posts I have deduced that you are a Christian, right? If so, how does god as energy translate into the teachings of Jesus and the Bible being a holy text inspired by god? I am just not understanding this at all. Thanks in advance for your response.

[prefunk]

139. Hello? Still there?

Have you abandoned your OP?

If not, I didn't get a response to my post the other day. Here it is again.


So lets go back to these new insights. I'm happy that you have found meaning for yourself, but I am still perplexed at just what the new insights are. Can you elaborate on that?

And from your other posts I have deduced that you are a Christian, right? If so, how does god as energy translate into the teachings of Jesus and the Bible being a holy text inspired by god? I am just not understanding this at all. Thanks in advance for your response.

[prefunk]

140. Anyone home?

Where did you go?

[skepticscott]

120. "Not new insights"?

So when you were trumpeting "the amazing new insights of modern theologians" in your OP, you were just lying out your ass? Again?

And now you're morphing your "modern theology" again, right before our eyes. It really is nothing more than whatever new age twaddle you happen to spit up at the moment, isn't it? No doubt something new tomorrow.

[prefunk]

107. Is it safe to assume that you will not be answering my call for clarification?

To me, that would seem dishonest.

[skepticscott]

108. As predicted

He either has you on full ignore for having the temerity to question or challenge his pontifications, or he's classified you as a "bully" or a "personal attacker" and is sticking his fingers in his ears, pretending not to hear you. It runs in the family.

[Thats my opinion]

113. See 109--and please be more specific about your question and I'll try to respond. nt

[GeorgeGist]

45. Nature ...

can be a Mother.

[Thats my opinion]

81. Perhaps the best metaphor for the earth is "Mother." An acient use.

While God is neither male (Father, King Lord) nor female, we must use human terms in any metaphorical analogy. So we begin the Lord's prayer" with "Our Mother and Father...."

[AlbertCat]

48. Why is there evil and suffering?

Because we label it so.

The universe doesn't care what we want.



(Who wastes their time worrying about such shit?)

[QuantumOfPeace]

50. What if thinking the world is "evil" creates more "evil"?

I like the formulation that God can be understood as a verb. I wouldn't say this is modern, though. Love-in-action is how one Christian described it. God-works-through-us is another. Servant-of-God is still another. Lay-down-your-life yet another.

Also, why is declaring/implying the world "evil", as some do when they say 'God is a sick bastard', helpful?

It seems logical that that would create a festering resentment, whether or not there is a God. And, in various circumstances, that resentment could create more evil, more people upset and angry.

[thelordofhell]

52. Fear and Greed

Evil has its roots in Fear whilst Suffering has its roots in Greed

[okasha]

54. A partial answer

is that H. sap. is descended from violent ancestral species. As was pointed out in another thread, chimpanzees exhibit some of the same "evil" behavior as human beings, including war, rape and murder. Ergo, the instinct for violence precedes the split between Homo and Pan.

I do wonder why those who most strongly promote science as a superior means of knowledge claim that if God exists, She should interfere with evolutionary processes. Also while claiming, of course, that She has nothing to do with said processes.

[trotsky]

61. If a god exists...

and it chose evolution as a way of creating life on this planet, then it is a sadistic god indeed. 5 billion years of death, pain, suffering, kill-or-be-killed, all with the hope of surviving just long enough to produce more offspring than your competitors before you die too.

BTW, if science isn't a superior means of obtaining knowledge, please provide just ONE example of a process or phenomenon that used to have a scientific explanation, but for which we've found a non-scientific explanation that works better, explains more, predicts more, whatever. Just one. Give it a try.

Or you can insult me, if you want. But I hope you choose the high road.

[QuantumOfPeace]

67. Just one? That's easy

Here: "It's best if we have a society that doesn't have rape."

q.e.d.

Evolution is not sadistic, is it? Dawkins, for instance, never says "evolution is sadistic", does he or does he use that characterization?

[trotsky]

72. Um, please read the question again.

I asked for a phenomenon for which we used to have a scientific explanation, but for which a non-scientific explanation was found to be better.

No, evolution isn't sadistic. Evolution just is. A god who purposely used evolution in order to create life could very well be said to be sadistic, however. That's what I said. Do try to address what I've said, not what you're making up.

[okasha]

76. Science is a superior means of obtaining knowledge

about the physical world. It is not an appropriate means of evaluation of some other fields, which include art, philosophy and religion. which are essentially experiential.

[trotsky]

83. So you don't have an example.

Thanks! That's what I figured.

[skepticscott]

87. Were you expecting otherwise

from this one? For all her puffery, intellectual honesty still seems to be a challenge for her. Or she just loves arguing from false premises.

[trotsky]

95. Of course not.

But I was pleasantly surprised she didn't rip into me with personal attacks as she has in the past. Maybe there's hope.

[okasha]

104. Just letting you have the low road to yourself, trots.

N/T

[trotsky]

105. There you go.

That's the kash I know.

[no_hypocrisy]

77. I'm not certain whether evil insists independently or whether it's the absence of good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Something like an energy field created by all living things?

That surrounds us and penetrates us - that binds the galaxy together?

Maybe this will help to expand on this.

[skepticscott]

101. I'm sure TMO and his gang

of ivory tower academics will incorporate midichlorians into their "modern" theology at some point. It would have as much connection to reality as anything else they expound.

[Angry Dragon]

111. From your post you are saying that most religions are bunk

Because they have not evolved

[Thats my opinion]

115. No, please read 109 nt

[Angry Dragon]

116. I now have read post #109

There is nothing in that post that supports the god in the Bible.
It seems the Pagans had a better grasp of god than most of the religions today

You talk about the problems of the universe, I find no problems within the universe.

[Thats my opinion]

117. I dislike the term "pagan." It has a pejortive ring.

I doubt if we would call ancient scientists some such name.

[Angry Dragon]

118. Christian religions used that term and heathens for many years

I do not know if there were any ancient scientists.
I believe the closest we could come would be witches and witch doctors, which terms the churches had no trouble using.

If anything the Pagans had a better understanding of the world around them than the religions of today.
I believe the Catholic Church still has a museum set up for Pagan religions.

If one was to use 'ancient religions' you would lose a lot of the hate that they got from the following religions.

You did not address the body of my post ............

[orpupilofnature57]

126. Ego

[TransitJohn]

127. There isn't evil, and suffering is an emotion brought on by ego

encapsulated in a human organism, apart from the collective conscious.

[Speck Tater]

128. How about this theory...

God created souls, and subcontracted the job of creating physical reality to the souls.
So souls created a physical reality they could incarnate into to play games and fool around.
Since evil is a property of physical reality, and since God did not create reality, but farmed out the job to us souls, as the subcontractors, the evil is all our fault.

[patrice]

132. You made me think of monads,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monads?s=t

http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/

Together with several apparently self-evident principles (such as the principle of sufficient reason, the law of contradiction, and the identity of indiscernibles), Leibniz uses his predicate-in-subject theory of truth to develop a remarkable philosophical system that provides an intricate and thorough account of reality. Ultimately, Leibniz’s universe contains only God and non-composite, immaterial, soul-like entities called “monads.” Strictly speaking, space, time, causation, material objects, among other things, are all illusions (at least as normally conceived). However, these illusions are well-founded on and explained by the true nature of the universe at its fundamental level. For example, Leibniz argues that things seem to cause one another because God ordained a pre-established harmony among everything in the universe.

.............................

Monads which, as fundamental constituents/ultimate microcosms of the universe, I guess, would be the source of all that "is", so I'm assuming, for anything to produce something else there must be an element of what we refer to as "will", would there not? But probably not of the specific sort that we know as human will, perhaps will more on the order of that which is referred to as "the Big Bang".

[Speck Tater]

135. That second link is very interesting

I started reading it, but bookmarked it for reading in the morning when I'm a little fresher.

[patrice]

136. I really only have a Philosophy 101 acquaintence with Leibniz, but his was one of the thoughts

that stuck with me from those years and I had occasion recently to learn that one of the brightest, most sophisticated, and yet well grounded of the young men in my family, a young business man, with an education in the Classics, who also specializes in robotics, finds Leibniz most convincing.

[rogrot]

130. Maybe someday, someone will bring something new to a discussion about religion, but I doubt it.

"An intelligent conversation about religion," if it's not an oxymoron, it certainly is boring. But, the great Euro-American philospher, my father, Mr. Rogrot, had it right: "You like it; you eat it."

[dimbear]

133. The preacher in Ecclesiastes had it right: there's nothing new under the sun.

It's still fun to run into old friends.