1

Continuing my thought from the prior thread: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1112

Cannot Satan be tool---willing or unwilling---that God uses to bring us to him through our suffering? God would not commit evil, but rather would allow evil to exist as an independent agent in order to draw humanity closer to Him.

I'm running this tangent into the ground, but it makes intuitive sense at least to me. A loving God would prefer no suffering, but accepts and allows it because (a) he didn't create automatons; and (b) even from grave evil, good can arise.

2

Hobgoblin,
I was considering this topic this last summer. Here's a series I wrote on it:
http://www.coffeeswirls.com/archives/category/spiritual-growth/how-can-these-things-be-allowed/

It is six parts, and my blog shows the parts in reverse order.

3

I am a Christian who holds onto belief in spite of difficulty believing. The profound wisdom and testimony of Jesus Christ is my route to believing in a Creator, in God. But when I read posts like this one, I struggle with the same problem; it seems like so much speculation. Who and what could Satan be, that God would allow him to interfere in our world?. And if all of our considerations about heavens are the result of our intuitive constructions (made up to fit the pattern), of what value are they? The idea of evil being the choices contrary to God's will and design makes sense, but especially when it is applied to great natural disasters, it feels like pure speculation that may be just as inaccurate as blaming primitive gods.

4

Joe writes

"The modern world, concerned more about naturalistic explanations than truth, rules out the existence of Satan as an absurdity -- and then finds itself unable to comprehend natural evil."

What "natural evil" are you referring to that the modern world is unable to comprehend?

"Like Will Bloom, the modern age assumes to be able to know what can be real and what should be relegated to the realm of superstition. The line of demarcation is clear: physical reality is all that exists and the supernatural has no means of supervening upon it."

No, the line of demarcation is that supernatural explanations are useless if we want to understand physical reality. Assuming that a tsunami killing 150 thousand people is a "natural evil," what good does it do for children and babies living on the coast to tell them that it was "Satan's" fault? Rather, modern humans have taken advantage of the tools of science to identify the fault, a feature of our moving continents, which caused the earthquake which caused the tsunami which killed the people who were living right on the coast and didn't have an effective warning system in place.

Science will help prevent future tsunamis from killing those people.

Or, you could remain there and pray to the deities of your choice to be protected from "Satan".

Which would you choose Joe? Praying to your deity or heeding the advice of scientists?

5

Science will help prevent future tsunamis from killing those people.

Or, you could remain there and pray to the deities of your choice to be protected from "Satan".

Which would you choose Joe? Praying to your deity or heeding the advice of scientists?

Why aren't BOTH allowed?

6

Darn tags. My question still stands, though.

7

Where exactly does Jesus blame Satan for natural evil? I don't get that impression from Luke 13, for example.

8

We are to adhere to scientism, rejecting explanations based not on their correspondence to truth but to their ability to provide purely naturalistic explanations. Ironically, while the existence of natural evil is often used as a proof against the existence of God, it is rarely acknowledged as evidence of the existence of Satan.

There is another irony here. Some people would tell us "It's okay for you to believe in God as long as you also believe that events happened the way 'science' says they did. After all, religion is religion and science is science. And the natural world is clearly in the realm of scinece."

But many of them are the first to pipe up when a disaster hits with "See, why didn't your benevolent God step in and save all those people. God must not exist." But why should He step in? Religion and the natural world supposedly have nothing to do with one another.

9

Mr. Ed asks

"But many of them are the first to pipe up when a disaster hits with "See, why didn't your benevolent God step in and save all those people. God must not exist."

Ah, yes, it's those "some people" again. "Some people" can be really annoying sometimes! And even when there are no specific examples of any credible person making such an argument seriously in an attempt to prove that deities don't exist, we can assume that "some people" nevertheless must have said it. Gol dern those "some people"!!!

10

"Why aren't BOTH allowed?"

Good point, Shana. That is option 3. So, which do you choose, and why?

And do you pray to your preferred deity(s) that a tsunami won't wipe away your village? If not, why not?

11

"Some people" can be really annoying sometimes!

You said it, brother!

12

Larry, on another board I frequent "some people" lost no time in mocking Christians over the tsunami.

Joe, Boyd is a proponent of open theology, so it's not surprising that he would have that view. I disagree. Nothing happens that is outside of God's knowledge or control. Satan can do nothing other than that which he is permitted. He cannot stretch his leash. (See Job for details.)

13

Corrie Joe, Boyd is a proponent of open theology, so it's not surprising that he would have that view. I disagree. Nothing happens that is outside of God's knowledge or control. Satan can do nothing other than that which he is permitted. He cannot stretch his leash.

I think you are misunderstanding Boyd’s point. Boyd doesn’t deny that God is in control. Like you (and me) he believe that God permitted Satan a degree of influence that Satan had the free will to abuse. Boyd's views on open theology really don’t come into play on this aspect of it.

14

It seems to me that to actually argue this, we'd have to decide on an agreed upon definition of evil. I'm not sure that evil is even a word that Larry L. would accept into his vocabulary in relation to this topic. It implies that something moral can be attached to the tsunami. One geophysical event transpired which set off a chain reaction, the resulting death then is the result of 100,000 other independent decisions or non decisions on why people were on the beach that day, why steps weren't taken to develop warning systems, etc. etc. etc.

Is the question being asked really should God have interfered in the physical laws set in place to prevent the initial catalyst of the disaster? (since he did not, some might be assuming he either doesn't exist, or he is evil). This seems an impossible question (should He have stopped it?) to answer. We have no way of knowing now whether this event has staved off something else that would kill 1 or 2 Million.

I think it's fair enough to say it's valid to apply any science that will help, and pray on behalf of all else that is not understood---even by Larry L. I pray for my health, but I have life insurance too, understanding the eventual temporal aspect of the physical.

15

estherdelia,

But when I read posts like this one, I struggle with the same problem; it seems like so much speculation. Who and what could Satan be, that God would allow him to interfere in our world?. And if all of our considerations about heavens are the result of our intuitive constructions (made up to fit the pattern), of what value are they?

Perhaps you might find this helpful. It's from Francis Schaeffer's The God Who is There:

It is plain, therefore, that from the viewpoint of the Scriptures themselves there is a unity over the whole field of knowledge. God has spoken, in a linguistic propositional form, truth concerning Himself and truth concerning man, history and the universe.
Here is an adequate basis for the unity of knowledge. The unity encompasses both the upstairs ["spiritual truth"] and the downstairs [physical reality]. This is the answer to the discussion of the unity between nature and grace and modern man’s question of knowledge above and below the line of anthropology. The unity is there because God has spoken truth into all areas of our knowledge.
At the same time, one must avoid the opposite mistake of saying that because God has communicated truly concerning science, all scientific study is wasted. This is a false deduction. To say that God communicates truly does not mean that God communicates exhaustively. Even in our human relationships we never have exhaustive communication, though what we do have may be true. Thus, as far as our position in the universe is concerned, though the infinite God has said true things concerning the whole of what He has made, our knowledge is not thereby meant to be static. Created in His image, we are rational and, as such, we are able to, and intended to, explore and discover further truth concerning creation.
God says, in effect, “Learn of the truth that I have made in the external world. “ Finite man in the external universe, being finite, has no sufficient reference point if he begins absolutely and autonomously from himself; thus, he needs certain knowledge. God gives us this in the Scriptures. With this in mind the scientist can understand, in their ultimate relationships, the truths that he is looking at. Thus scientific study in itself can be to the glory of God, for here man is functioning properly in the universe in which God has placed him. He is telling us what is truly there, and he is adding to the store of knowledge of his fellowmen.

16

Corrie

"Larry, on another board I frequent "some people" lost no time in mocking Christians over the tsunami."

I don't doubt it. But that is not the same as making a serious argument that the fact of the tsunami proves that somebody's God does not exist, unless of course one's God was the existing topography of the faultline before the earthquake. Even if I would be inclined to believe that particular deity took a major hit!

Rob B. writes

"We have no way of knowing now whether this event has staved off something else that would kill 1 or 2 Million."

Indeed.

17

Joe,

The problem is that Boyd suggests in SAPE that *all* natural disasters are owing to the work of Satan. Such a proposal suggests a pretty significant connection to open theism. In fact, I'd argue that for Boyd, open theism drives such a proposal, since he does not want to have God as the ultimate cause behind acts of evil. How does Boyd *know* that this is not a divine judgment?

Respectfullly,

Justin

18

For what it's worth: At OpinionJournal.com last week, David Hart argued that “No Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God’s inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God’s good ends” (David B. Hart, “Tremors of Doubt,” WSJ, December 31, 2004).

For a response, see the last section of John Piper's sermon here:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/05/010205.html

I know this view is unpopular, but is it not biblically inescapable?

JT

19

When such common-sense phenomena are excluded from consideration, it should not be surprising to find that the idea of Satan is considered merely an “outrageous and fantastic” story told by primitive people. Our chronological snobbery -- the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited -- prevents us from even considering the possibility that the will of a malevolent non-human personality could affect the natural world. We are to adhere to scientism, rejecting explanations based not on their correspondence to truth but to their ability to provide purely naturalistic explanations. Ironically, while the existence of natural evil is often used as a proof against the existence of God, it is rarely acknowledged as evidence of the existence of Satan.

Give the man the "Eurocentric" prize - or at least the "selectively Eurocentric - Exorcist Edition" prize.

Oddly enough, - or maybe not- the existence of a Satan is not explictly a core belief- never made it into any of the major creeds- of any of the apostolic traditions of Christianity.

Now Mara is an embodiment of evil in Buddhism, but this probably wouldn't satisfy you, despite the fact that the tradition of Mara goes back before the Jews got their devil from the Zoroastrians...

20

Now Mara is an embodiment of evil in Buddhism, but this probably wouldn't satisfy you, despite the fact that the tradition of Mara goes back before the Jews got their devil from the Zoroastrians...

Or the Zoroastrians got theirs from the Jews. Why is it assumed the contrary?

21

Mr. Ed:

Because there is no Jewish record of the devil prior to the Persian exile, and Zoroaster goes back further.

BTW, I was off by 200 years or so re: Mara, but they're still quite different.

22

Because there is no Jewish record of the devil prior to the Persian exile, and Zoroaster goes back further.

The entity named Satan later in Scripture is certainly in the Pentateuch. He is aluded to in Genesis 3 and Numbers 22. That puts the concept in Hebrew theology as early as the 18th Century BC. He also shows up in Job, which is dated about the same time as Moses' writings. By even the latest dates Job was composed prior to the Baylonian exile.

23

"the existence of a Satan is not explictly a core belief- never made it into any of the major creeds- of any of the apostolic traditions of Christianity"

mumon,

I don't follow. Christ was tempted in the wilderness and at Gethsemane by Satan. It's part of Catholic belief (and we pride ourelves on the apostolic succession) and in the Gospels. What exactly do you mean?

And Justin, as for Hart's critique, he does not address the thought that natural evil, with or without a malevolent mover, might bring men to God. Perhaps it's his Eastern Orthodox background, but attempting to find some rationale for the acts of tragedy does not to my limited knowlege ring as heresy to Catholics. His criticism of simplistic solipsisms about "all for the good" are to my mind a strawman to the ideas I am considering or a justifiable critique to the dumbing down of theology in mass consumer society.

Whether attempting to approach God through limited human reason in the midst of a tragedy is heresy or not I think is unaddressed by Hart. And in no event could I, at least, agree that a conclusion of heresy is "biblically inescapable."

Far from a banality that makes one feel good, I think that examining a rationale that would justify such tragedy makes us ponder on the infinite mystery and awesomeness of God, and make us uncomfortably aware of our own humble faculties.

24

Justin is correct that Boyd's open theism pervades all aspects of his theology. We have to admit here that the Bible does not answer ever question that we like answered. It is clear that Satan is a person who desires to dethrone God. He acts to that end. However, the Bible presents a rich picture of how Satan's activity relates to God's sovereignty.

In I Kings 22:13-23, the prophet Michaiah told Ahab that the Lord had inquired of the host of heaven "Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" When a spirit came forward and said "I will entice him." The Lord aks him "By what means?" The spirit said "I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets." The Lord said "You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so." Then Micaiah said "Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you."

Does this passage indicate that the spirit was a free person? Does it also indicate that the spirit acted according to the initiative and authority of God?

As much as I am frustrated by unbelievers attempting to make God fit their own visions, I am almost equally distressed by believers resorting to philosophical discussions to try to help God out of a jam. God is in no jam. He says in his word that he is all powerful, all wise, and all good. If I cannot make sense of that, then I should join Job in declaring my weakness and foolishness before King Jesus.

25

"As much as I am frustrated by unbelievers attempting to make God fit their own visions, I am almost equally distressed by believers resorting to philosophical discussions to try to help God out of a jam. God is in no jam."

Aaaaammmmmmmennnnnnn, brrrooootttthhhheerrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!

26

I appreciate Mr. Lord's enthusiasm for biblical theology. But I feel led to ask, if I should not pray to God to spare distant people from war, famine, and natural disaster, why should I support the efforts of science to do the same? Honestly, if there were no God, what would be the point of doing any other-directed act that did not promise an average potential benefit that outweighed its cost?

27

Wow...this is a powerful post. Thank you.

28

Justin The problem is that Boyd suggests in SAPE that *all* natural disasters are owing to the work of Satan. Such a proposal suggests a pretty significant connection to open theism. In fact, I'd argue that for Boyd, open theism drives such a proposal, since he does not want to have God as the ultimate cause behind acts of evil.

Let me first make clear that I in no way condone open theism. I admire much of Boyd’s work but recognize that it is salted with some deep misunderstandings about God. Still, I think that he rightly brings Satan back into the conversation. Even thought the Gospels are filled with references to demons, it has become something of a taboo subject among evangelicals wanting to keep from appearing anti-intellectual.

You are right that Boyd see Satan as the ultimate source of evil. In fact, he believes that Scripture claims that Satan is ultimately the source of all evil. Like you and I, though, he recognizes that Satan is limited to what God will allow. I may be wrong but I think he is right about that point.

How does Boyd *know* that this is not a divine judgment?

I’m not sure why it would have to be an either/or choice. Couldn’t God’s judgment be mediated by allowing Satan more room to maneuver?

Warren However, the Bible presents a rich picture of how Satan's activity relates to God's sovereignty.

I agree.

God is in no jam. He says in his word that he is all powerful, all wise, and all good.

Again, I agree. That is why I find it curious that Christians would have a hard time thinking that Satan's activity on earth is incompatible with God’s sovereignty.

29

Warren said

"I appreciate Mr. Lord's enthusiasm for biblical theology."

You misunderstood me.

"But I feel led to ask, if I should not pray to God to spare distant people from war, famine, and natural disaster, why should I support the efforts of science to do the same?"

Assuming that you should not pray to God (your hypo, not mine) is irrelevant to the second clause. You should support the efforts of science to do so because there is no evidence that anonymous third party prayer has any effect whatsoever on the outcome of any observed process. If you think it is a good thing to help your fellow humans in need, then you should support scientifically sound efforts to help your fellow humans in need because science is known to work. See, for example, difference between death in recent earthquake in Bam versus recent earthquake in Bay Area.

"if there were no God, what would be the point of doing any other-directed act that did not promise an average potential benefit that outweighed its cost"

I wouldn't know how to begin calculating the "average potential benefit" of most of my "acts"? Or the "costs"? But as a human being I learned pretty early on that it's a good idea to treat others as I would prefer to be treated. You know, to love my neighbor. Straightforward stuff. Even Jesus had that part right.

I just love to see the way people smile and say thank you when I help them. And it makes me feel good inside to know that they feel good inside. Isn't that your experience?

On the other hand, I don't like to see people crying in pain and starvation and having their limbs blown off and watching their little sister bleed to death from bomb shrapnel. Do you support such actions carried out on your behalf, regardless of when the "average potential benefit" outweighs the cost or only when the "average potential benefit" outweighs the cost? Or do you have some reason to believe that your deity desires children to have their faces blown off from time to time from bomb shrapnel dropped in his name for reasons that have nothing to do with cost/benefit analyses of the sort you proposed? Can you articulate when such atrocities please your diety?

To reiterate: my actions that are consistent with your deities teachings have nothing whatsoever to do with any rewards offered by your deity for good behavior during my lifetime. They merely prove that from time to time your deity merely acknowledged that love and kindness are preferable to murder and destruction. What insight!

30

Guys, it is a little odd to take seriously that so many of you truly believe that an evil god is wandering around the universe intent on screwing up the good god's plans. I/we do try to make that quantum leap into the ludicrous.
Speaking for many atheists, we're not real tied up over theological consternation over why the good god would alloow the bad god to roam thusly. That's kinda like wondering why the Coyote never catches on to the idea that he's never going to catch the Road Runner ...

Look, I'm generally tickled when children take fairy tales seriously. But it's not nearly so charming in an adult. But we're/I'm really, really concerned about is that you're making decisions for us based on this nonsense. I'm sorry of this sounds harsh, but for crying out loud, get a flippin grip. F-ing grow up folks. You're not kids or primitive savages.

31

Mr Ed:

The concept of Satan as "adversary," only appears after similar concepts appeared in Zoroastrianism. The snake and Numbers references are "ex poste facto" references- that is, they are interpreted to fit after the fact of the Persian captivity.

hobgoblin:

Why doesn't it appear in the Apostles' or Nicene creeds?

32

Here's Crowley's take on the relationships of the Horned One, God and Mankind:

http://www.chaosmagic.com/archives/misc/buddhist-influence-on-ale.shtml

He begins his attempt at answering the metaphysical question of creation by examining the problem of the coexistence of infinite and finite beings. He represents this coexistence as a mathematical equation:

x = G + S + M (x - the purpose of the universe, G - God, S - Satan, M - humankind)

Therefore, one could easily express M as the resultant of G, S, and -x. If, however, God is infinite then the other factors cannot possibly affect it and thus Satan, humankind, and the purpose of the universe drop out of the picture. The very definition of God as infinite denies the existence and importance of humankind implicitly. If we instead define God as finite then we have obliterated the usual Christian reasons for worship and there would be no reason for worshipping G over S since either could be considered supreme. As a result of this problem, Crowley decides to define God as a finite being. This, of course, is an idea that is very compatible with Buddhism which does not see the Gods as infinite, or as being the ultimate creators of the universe.

33

I'm not sure how the tsunami could be considered evil. God designed the continental structure of the world to be in regular motion. This movement will cause death and destruction from time to time, simply by their very nature.

I suppose he could have designed the continents to move in such a way that they never disturb anyone. But he didn't. So, if this event was Evil (with a capital, sinister E), then it was Evil at God's hands and Evil would be at the heart of God's design.

34

OK ...that was pretty over reactive on my part. Normally you guys beliefs don't strike me that way, and sometimes I think I've gotten used to it all. But we see so little written on the evil gods. It just kind of jumped out of me.
But I'll make an effort and study the belief with the same ethnological impartiality I'd use on to study any other culture's spiritual system.

OK, you have this entity we'll call the Satan. It started out if I recall the basics as a supernatural creature who was favored by the head deity, we'll call that one God, but tried to otherthrow God, failed, and was cast out of God's region, placed into his own region where the Satan currently rules. The Satan can interact with humans, pose as a human or anything else, do all kinds of magic, etc, and likes to trick us into all kinds of things. Right so far?

Is the Satan capable of winning

How could you distinguish with confidence between the Satan and the God if the Satan is capable of tricking you? Is there a question set it's not allowed to respond to with trickery or some kind of process? How could you be sure the Satan isn't the one talking to you when you think you're hearing the God? How could you know the God was the entity manifested as the Christ, as opposed to the Satan just pulling a clever bait and switch?

What does the Satan get out of tricking humans and what kind of tricks pay off the most or the least for it? IOW, what's the point, and why would the Satan bother?

35

I just love to see the way people smile and say thank you when I help them. And it makes me feel good inside to know that they feel good inside. Isn't that your experience?

On the other hand, I don't like to see people crying in pain and starvation and having their limbs blown off and watching their little sister bleed to death from bomb shrapnel.

It is really getting off the subject, but I think what Warren was getting at is on what are ethics grounded if God doesn't exist.

Ethical egoism (it is best or good to do what makes me feel good) has a number of problems that such as the subjectivity of what makes one feel good. One might revel in seeing others writhe in pain. etc.

36

Please, others directly respond to this also. I'm just throwing stuff out. I realize I'm not justifying this stuff.

Is the Satan capable of winning

According to the theologies, no.

How could you distinguish with confidence between the Satan and the God if the Satan is capable of tricking you?

That is a minor theme in the Bible. Yes, he is a poseur, and he decieves with words primarily. Strong familiarity with God's laws is a very sure way of telling Satan's tricks.

Is there a question set it's not allowed to respond to with trickery or some kind of process?
I haven't directly dialoged with a demon, let alone Satan, that I know of. However, it might be helpful to view Satan as a person just as humans are persons. We aren't limited in what we can say, neither is Satan.

How could you be sure the Satan isn't the one talking to you when you think you're hearing the God?

Back to knowing God's laws. Also, when speaking with God you come to know his voice like you know your wife's voice. Doesn't mean that Satan may not be able to imitate God's voice.

How could you know the God was the entity manifested as the Christ, as opposed to the Satan just pulling a clever bait and switch?

It is arguable that way more good than evil has come of it. If it was the Deceiver, he really screwed the pooch.

What does the Satan get out of tricking humans and what kind of tricks pay off the most or the least for it? IOW, what's the point, and why would the Satan bother?

Pride.... he is relegated to be Prince of the Air (the whole universe), and as such has a great deal of power to exercize so much so that it is his dominion. Humans are part of that dominion, and as beings with the breathe of God (self aware, willful soul) must be dominated, subordinated, and most of all not be allowed to threaten or expose his pride.

37

JOE: "You are right that Boyd see Satan as the ultimate source of evil. In fact, he believes that Scripture claims that Satan is ultimately the source of all evil. Like you and I, though, he recognizes that Satan is limited to what God will allow. I may be wrong but I think he is right about that point. . . . Couldn’t God’s judgment be mediated by allowing Satan more room to maneuver?"

JUSTIN: I agree that God's judgment can be mediated via permission for Satan to act. My objection to Boyd's formulation--and I recognize that it may not be identical to your own--is twofold: (1) Boyd writes, "In short, Satan and his legions are directly or indirectly behind all forms of 'natural' evil" (SAPE, 318). I see no biblical warrant for this conclusion, since many Scriptures attribute the cause to God without mentioning Satan or even the concept of permission; (2)Boyd regards the idea of looking for a "purpose of God" in the midst of evil events to be a "piously confused way of thinking" (Letters from a Skeptic, 46-47). Boyd's conception of God's involvement with evil does not seem to be one of granting permission for Satan's leash to be lengthened for each instance of natural evil; rather, there is a general permission in the sense that God made (what Boyd calls) a "covenant of non-coercision" with his creation. Hence, to look to God and to ask why this evil event happened and not another is just to be confused.

To wrap up, then, we seem to agree that God can use Satan as a secondary cause for divine judgment. I think that Boyd is right to stress that Satan is often involved; wrong to suggest that Satan is necessarily always involved; and wrong to refuse to see that God has good and wise and loving purposes behind whatsoever comes to pass.

38

I'm not a big fan of Barth, and this "Nothingness" seems sketchy to me. Sounds like a confused admixture of the "void" or "abyss" of German idealism and the "privation" theory of evil appropriated by the Latin Fathers from neo-platonism. I think we need a more robust view of the relational nature of evil.

Tagging some of the same points about modernism and its scientistic faith, Joe--and, yes, shamelessly promoting in an attempt to further the conversation over at my place--I've written a rather long broadside on postmodernism, modernism, and Christianity at Comment Me No Comments. Would love to hear your reactions.

39

Brandon: TY for responding. I don't hear much about the evil god/deity's in the Abrahamic cosmogonies, so this is interesting for me.

Also, when speaking with God you come to know his voice like you know your wife's voice. Doesn't mean that Satan may not be able to imitate God's voice.

That sounds contradictory though. I mean if the Satan can imitate "God's voice" how would you distinguish that voice from Gods? Besides, what if you'd never heard God's voice at all but it was the Satan's all along from the first time you thought it was God's? More on this bait an switch possibility below.

It is arguable that way more good than evil has come of it. If it was the Deceiver, he really screwed the pooch.

Well, you're forgetting one possibility: there's no way to compare and contrast between the two levels of 'good' in the event practitioners have been decieved into worshipping the Satan, thinking it's God all this time. If that was indeed the Satan, if it has been the Satan the whole time, practioners would never have the example of God's legitimate manifestation or the resultant good that could come of it for comparison to what you currently call 'good'. It might be that that good is a hundred fold better than what you currently call 'good'. How would you know otherwise?

BTW-I'm not trying to trip you up here so I can immaturely claim "Aha! Gotcha!", you have to keep in in that no matter how fervently you believe this mythology, the extremely high probability is that it's merely ancient superstition passed down and ultimately written up in ANE cultures. So I don't expect you or anyone else to be able to explain it with any kind of meaningful consistency and that's I don't percieve that as your 'fault' or reflecting any lack of knoweldge on yourpart. It's obvioulsy not going to make any kind of rational sense. We are afterall talking about superstitions dreamed up by bronze aged ANE Cultures. But I'm just curious how far out the legends have gone in anticipating discrepancies and providing a mythical structure to address them. As in this case of substitution, how would a practioner of this religion resolve the potential inability to accurately determine the Satan and it's actions from the God[s]?

40

Mentioned earlier in this thread, I recommend reading David Hart's Tremors of Doubt from The Wall Street Journal.

It seems to me that there are two issues of primary portent relating to the tremendous presence of natural evil:

• The Eternal Perspective - I know this is trite in religious circles, but if, at the end of the day, we are utterly convinced that this "vale of tears" is only that - a vale - a passageway - a foggy mist before the bright dawn - then isn't there some basis for the view that evil in all its hideous forms may exist in this point in time-space as a necessary accomodation for free will - even if I don't fully understand the mechanics? Doesn't this eternal perspective provide "space" for God to create justice and reason in the midst of unspeakable tragedy?
• The Salvific Nature of Suffering - As Pope John Paul II writes in his tremendous encyclical Salvifici Dolores, there is a redemptive nature to all suffering - regardless of its origin, moral or natural. In other words, every occurence of human suffering opens wide a wound through which the grace of God may pour. Look at our world now in the response to this great natural evil - or look back to the response of the world in the aftermath of the moral evil of September 11th - God's grace was poured out in these events. As Pope John Paul reasons, such suffering provides the sufferer the opportunity to extend grace to those who would serve - providing an opportunity for service and submission to God's will in their service. And such suffering provides the server with the opportunity to experience grace through service.
  

41

On the issue of the atheistic response to such a disaster, there seems little hope (or even obligation) for the unbeliever to make sense of any of this.

Isn't it correct to say that for the materialist, there is no sense to be made of anything - evil and good are not real, but mere constructs fabricated in the hyperdeveloped nervous systems of one subset of hominids? For the atheist, there is no evil - nor good - because there is no morality, no justice, no reason, no right or wrong.

It's just chemical determinism and physics.

And isn't it question-begging to use the presence or occurrence of evil as an argument against God from the atheistic perspective - since, to the atheist, claims of the existence of evil have no rational basis (indeed, rationality itself has no basis for the atheist, but that's another topic...)?

Like it or not, rationally, the question of God's existence as it relates to the presence of physical tragedy in time-space is entirely the province of the believer and the question really is not does the presence or occurrence of evil say something about whether or not God exists, since that is already decided when we raise the question of evil in the first place, but, rather, what kind of God is it?

And on that question, note this from Philip Yancey:

"[I]n an elegant analogy, John V. Taylor likens the Incarnation to a scene in Shakespeare's Henry V.

"On the eve of battle against an overwhelming enemy, King Henry dons a disguise and moves incognito among the common soldiers in the field. He overhears one swear that the king will have to pay on judgment day when the hacked and broken bodies rise up and accuse him of having bought victory with their lives. Henry knows all too well the burden that lies on his shoulders, a burden that he now transfers to his army.

" 'Yet he still believes it will prove worthwhile and, as morning breaks, he rallies his small force to believe in it with him. So he instills into them his own hope, his faith in the value of the enterprise

...God does know more intimately than any the price his creatures have been paying for his huge adventure of making this universe of accident and freedom and pain as the only environment in which love could one day emerge to receive."

- As quoted by Philip Yancey in Reaching For The Invisible God

42

But as a human being I learned pretty early on that it's a good idea to treat others as I would prefer to be treated. You know, to love my neighbor. Straightforward stuff. Even Jesus had that part right.

Larry--From an atheistic perspective, why is loving your neighbor any more right than killing your neighbor and taking all his stuff? A good part (if not most) of the world can't wait to start killing anybody who isn't a member of their tribe. You may be able to make a utilitarian argument that they would be better off not killing each other, but that really doesn't get into right or wrong, more of a better/worse case.

43

I have no problem with the existence of an evil supernatural being (or for matter, many of them) but I think think where some confusion comes in is when Satan is seen as being the sole, or even primary source of evil. Christianity never teaches this of course; in fact, the blame for most evil is given right where it belongs, in the hearts of men.

It is also the result of a world that is corrupted; i.e., a planet whose workings are often antagonistic to the creatures for which is was primarily created. I think this is seen in the fact that humans were so unaware of the pending disaster, while animals seemed to flee in appropriate response. We are, for the most part, at odds with nature, something not lost on Romans when it says creation is subject is subjected to "futlity" an enslaved to "corruption".

Add to that ordinary every day human evils that helped make this a disaster of monumental porportions; poverty, ignorance, laziness, greed; and there are more than enough ills to preclude, though not exclude, supernatural causes.

That Satan is enjoying all of it, and doing what He can to turn it into another casus belli, of that I have no doubt.

44

Jeff Richardson---terrific post; thanks for that.

45

Larry,
How would you respond to someone if they continued to slander and mock your mother or your father? Someone that made every effort to cut you deep with their words? And strike at your heart?
I only ask these questions because you claim to do good things and care about treating others as you want to be treated.
For hope's sake, I'll assume you don't know this, but mocking my mother or father or joking about my own kids even, isn't as bad as mocking Christ my Lord and my Saviour and your Judge. There is no greater offence to Christians. And I know that my brothers and sisters in Christ feel the same. (I hope)

In light of this, why must you try to hurt people this much? I thought you want to treat others the way you want to be treated? This is the worst kind of verbal treatment you can give to a true Christian. If I wanted to do the same to you I couldn't because there is no one in your life that you value more than I value Jesus Christ.

I don't mean to instigate or humiliate. These are heart-felt questions that I'm troubled by.

Sincerely,

46

mumon,

Believing in Satan isn't a matter of doctrinaire dogma, but general belief of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Lots of things aren't mentioned in the creeds. Christ's own baptism is the most fundamental of these (though the creeds mention the sacrament), as we are baptised in imitation of Christ.

The Apostle's creed references Christ going down to Hell before His resurrection. While there is no mention of Satan, the reason that Christ went to Hell was to conquer him (crush Satan's head as alluded to in Genesis).

My best answer would probably be that we believe in Satan, but he is not part of our faith as it pertains to redemption. Even this is a poor answer, but I would suggest that the creeds form a kernel of Christian faith without expressing the whole of it.

"Lucifer" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm

the Devil
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful. Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they are endowed with supernatural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: "By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world" (Wisdom 2:24). Yet it is remarkable that for an account of the fall of the angels we must turn to the last book of the Bible. For as such we may regard the vision in the Apocalypse, albeit the picture of the past is blended with prophecies of what shall be in the future: "And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: and they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him" (Apocalypse [Revelation] 12:7-9). To this may be added the words of St. Jude: "And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6; cf. II Peter 2:4). In the Old Testament we have a brief reference to the Fall in Job 4:18: "In his angels he found wickedness". But to this must be added the two classic texts in the prophets: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit" (Isaiah 14:12-15).

47

The way I see it, humanity doesn't need deities to blame evil on. We're plenty capable of generating that on our own. But the flip side of that is that we can also do great good. We're pretty much responsble for our own fate. If we're going to survive long erm as a species, I think it best to not count on anyone to do it for us. Think of it as a back-up plan.

48

~DS~
BTW-I'm not trying to trip you up here so I can immaturely claim "Aha! Gotcha!", you have to keep in in that no matter how fervently you believe this mythology, the extremely high probability is that it's merely ancient superstition passed down and ultimately written up in ANE cultures. So I don't expect you or anyone else to be able to explain it with any kind of meaningful consistency and that's I don't percieve that as your 'fault' or reflecting any lack of knoweldge on yourpart.

What things really come down to (in my opinion) is "In what belief system do I put my faith?" or, "What do I chose to believe as truth?". You say you're an atheist? Is that not simply a belief system?

And ~DS~ again:
That sounds contradictory though. I mean if the Satan can imitate "God's voice" how would you distinguish that voice from Gods? Besides, what if you'd never heard God's voice at all but it was the Satan's all along from the first time you thought it was God's?

If you've read the Bible, you would see one very good example of Satan being tripped up by his own tongue. Examine Satan's misuse of Old Testament scripture in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus points out the error. Why? Because he knew what God's Word was/is(and, yes, /will be). Which is what Brandon was pointing out. Know God's voice. How do we gain this knowledge? Prayer and God's Word (the Bible) are how.

And no, this does not answer the mail on the possibility of bait-and-switch (and-bait-and-switch-and-bait-and-switch-and-bait-and-switch etc...) But the real question to be answered (and I personally believe we all must answer this at some point) is either form of the question I point to above. What do you place your faith in?

Please crack open a Bible and investigate for yourself. If you have, then please examine the portions I've pointed out, as well as the Old Testament verses that Satan misuses. They point out one fine example of how to distinguish Satan from God. (And, for what it's worth, Satan is not an evil god, just a created being who wants to be on par with God.)

49

The way I see it, humanity doesn't need deities to blame evil on. We're plenty capable of generating that on our own.

How can humanity 'generate' evil if humans define 'evil'? Did Hitler think of himself as evil? Did the other Germans at that time? Why do you?

But the flip side of that is that we can also do great good. We're pretty much responsble for our own fate. If we're going to survive long erm as a species, I think it best to not count on anyone to do it for us. Think of it as a back-up plan.

Again, you are making up attributes for human behavior. What is 'good'? From a purely naturalistic viewpoint, 'good' is survival. Humans have have far surpassed most other species in their ability to adapt and survive; but the behaviors that allowed them to do that would not I think, even by your standards, be considered 'good'.

50

Jack:

How can humanity 'generate' evil if humans define 'evil'?

How can humanity generate automobiles if humans define automobiles?

. Know God's voice. How do we gain this knowledge? Prayer and God's Word (the Bible) are how.

And again, it's greed, pride, arrogance, and blasphemy to say this uncategorically, without ever conceiving the possiblity that you could be deluded. The possiblity exists, - in fact, I'd say it's a certainty for many - that this is a form of "idolatry of ideas," or "bible idolatry" which is in reality a worship of one's own ideas, perceptions and opinions about a book.

And make no mistake about it: this greed, pride, arrogance and blasphemy has consequences.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but these words need to be said.

51

Note the last quote was from TQ.

52

How can humanity generate automobiles if humans define automobiles?.

What?! How can you compare automobiles to the definition of what is morally good? Are the existence of automobiles subjective in your mind? Can anyone 'define' them? Please tell me you don't have license.

53

That sounds contradictory though. I mean if the Satan can imitate "God's voice" how would you distinguish that voice from Gods?

First, I suspect that Satan speaks in his voice most of the time. I don't think he consistently imitate's God's voice. However, there good reasons to believe we can discern Satan's voice from another's. For example, "How do I know my wife's voice" has a number of similarities with "How do I know Satan's voice". My wife's voice has a certain timbre and pace, as does Satan's. My wife talks about certain things in certain ways as does Satan. One primary dissimilarity is that her voice often comes from her body (certainly not always, such as when she sends an email) and I think Satan's voice usually comes in the form of thoughts intruding upon our thoughts. (Though he certainly isn't limited and has been recorded to take bodily form and speak snake, angel of light, etc).

Another way is that someone who is in the know, such as God, tells us that Satan is faking it. Of course we then enter the vicious circle. To break it another element may come into play.

Faith, or trust, in a voice we have good reason to believe is God's (more on this later) breaks the ad absurdum doublespeak. Just as we trust that something called light will let us see things from one moment to the next, so do we trust God. I really don't want to argue the merits of trust here; we all know that has been discussed elsewhere on this blog.

brandon - It is arguable that way more good than evil has come of it. If it was the Deceiver, he really screwed the pooch.

DS - Well, you're forgetting one possibility: there's no way to compare and contrast between the two levels of 'good' in the event practitioners have been decieved into worshipping the Satan, thinking it's God all this time. If that was indeed the Satan, if it has been the Satan the whole time, practioners would never have the example of God's legitimate manifestation or the resultant good that could come of it for comparison to what you currently call 'good'.

Would you define good? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I'm open to the possibility that said practitioners have been deceived, but I think it is unlikely. To show this I could make arguments from natural law, or historical comparisons of lives lived according to christianized virtue ethics vs utilitarianism vs ethical egoism etc. Such a path might even tie in with the topic of the original post! Examine the nature of das Nictige actualized. Then ask what seems best in life? How do the two contrast?

Or what about this approach: assume that the Satan does show his true cards and also that the God of the Christians and Jews is the good God. In the Bible and life the Satan's methods and goals produce predictable results: people who are foremost prideful and cause destruction to themselves and others. The efforts of Yahweh produce people who are selfless and full of love, giving themselves to others, and causing life to spread to themselves and others. What seems better?

By the way, when I say the Satan, while I am refering the person formerly named Lucifer I'm also more widely refering to all demons, or those dark angels under Lucifer's command. I think the Satan spends most of his personal time on leadership in this world. But demons certainly act in ways similar to him and could be said to be extensions of his will.

Finally, I think these are reasonable explanations or steps towards a complete explanation of the Satan with regards to substitution. I think we can have reasonable explanations for metaphysical things and people. I am aware you might not agree.

54

mumon:
And again, it's greed, pride, arrogance, and blasphemy to say this uncategorically, without ever conceiving the possiblity that you could be deluded. The possiblity exists, - in fact, I'd say it's a certainty for many - that this is a form of "idolatry of ideas," or "bible idolatry" which is in reality a worship of one's own ideas, perceptions and opinions about a book.

I suppose you're saying this
categorically then?

55

The Yanamano of South America for example not only believe in all kinds of supernatural critters with a pretty complex set of characteristics, they literally see those entities everyday. In their case I think it's more plausible that those visions stem from the daily use of hallocenogenic drugs!

And to just insert my contrary position: I suspect it is may be just as plausible that they actually are seeing supernatural beings, hallucinogens or not! If Yahweh and the Satan are who Christians think they are it wouldn't surprise me in the least... wicked little devils... angels.. who knows.

56

mumon:

The concept of Satan as "adversary," only appears after similar concepts appeared in Zoroastrianism. The snake and Numbers references are "ex poste facto" references- that is, they are interpreted to fit after the fact of the Persian captivity.

I don't see how you get that since the word for adversary in the Torah is 'sawtan' or 'satan' (Strong's 7853).

57

Jack

I wasn't trying to 'dodge' you. You came in on the tail end of a conversation I was having with someone else which had nothing at all to do with morality.
I was mainly being polite and in the process agreeing with you that 'good' in that case I was asking about is probably relative to how my discussion partner perceived it.

I'm a moral relativist. There really is no other possible type of morality, unless a divine entity comes down and tells us all what it is. Human intemediries don't count, because they can lie, mislead, make errors, or just be flippin crazy and hearing voices. So yeah relatively, yeah it's a piece of cake for me to define a behavior in a given context as evil. All I have to do is basically proclaim it. In actual fact i'd tend to stick with previoulsy defined beahiors in contexts already pigeon holed for me.

How can humanity 'generate' evil if humans define 'evil'? Human kills in a context A, I define that as evil. Human kills in contest B, I define that as ~evil. Done. [shrug]

Did Hitler think of himself as evil?
Unknown.

Did the other Germans at that time?
I'd guess some did and some did not. That's a pretty safe guess. There were millions of them.

Why do you?
I actually didn't. I don't really think evil in the dramatic supernatural sense is a useful term that carries any absolute value outside of cultural utility and homogeneity. However, if I were on the opposing side from Hitler, I would almost certainly conclude that he was 'evil' by most colloquial meanings of that term, relative to my side.

Again, you are making up attributes for human behavior.

Agreed. Most of those attributes were actually made up by others and I picked them without making any conscious effort initially, and then refined them throughout my life. But I understand what you mean.

Actually, if you don't allow for the exitence of an external measure of morality, then the question is meaningless.

LOL. Speak for yourself my friend, it means something to me. In terms of the alleged absolute morality, honestly I don't have a great deal of interest in philosophical ethics. It's just not my bag. However I'll take a shot.
While there could be for all I know a verifiable absolute morality 'out there' imposed by a divine agent, my own circumstances right here, right now, is unaffected by it, unless you can produce an absolute authority for morality I can independently verify through direct interview and testing.

Without direct interview and exhaustive testing, it boils down to whether or not I accept your unverified claims of morality. And that acceptance is going to be quite relative to what those claims are my friend, I assure you.

In reality we have a perfectly good and testable explanation for the relative nature of morality and where moral practices stem from. It's the culture you grow up in. This explanation predicts a high correlation between members growing up in a given culture and adopting that cultures morals, this is observed to a high degree. This explanation predicts that people raised in two cultures will adopt a multitude of morals with the emphasis on that culture they stand the most to gain in along with a sort of arbitrary grab from both cultures, except in the case where one practice is mutually exclusive with a specific practice in another. This is observed.
This explanation predicts that feral children would have a rudimentary sense of morality, or none at all. This is observed.
There's no mystery at all where we get our morals from Jack. We acquire them like we acquire language. To determine the origin of a specific practice further back in time, one would need to trace more and more remotely similar practices down through the ages as they changed, this would rapidly run up against the lack of credible written records, and disappear into prehistory, again much like language.
I was actually discussing aside from morality, and again I'm not much into ethics or philosophy in general. If you would like, I could probably find someone who is, if you want to discuss that and no one here is interested?

58

Joe

If Satan -- a non-human, morally responsible agent – actually exists, then we should not find it difficult to assume that, like humans, he has the power to choose a reality that is contrary to what God would have him choose. As Boyd points out, “Jesus never attributed genetic mutations, deformities, blindness, deafness, leprosy, blood diseases, fevers, falling towers, barren trees, life-threatening storms or death itself to God’s providence or to “natural” features of his Father’s creation. He consistently identifies them as evidence of the reign of the kingdom of darkness here on earth, a kingdom that his ministry was intended to destroy.”

Could it be that kingdom of God has destroyed so much evil that we live a paradise in comparison to what would have been? I am aware of that heaven is all around us and in that sense certainly we have the choice to live well with the power of God in a certain paradise. However, do you think that anything beyond conjecture can be known about how the world would have been had the kingdom not arisen when it did?

On the other hand, could Satan multiply "natural" devastations precisely because he is increasingly impotent when assaulting hearts of men?

59

Re:~DS~

See my earlier post.

The monistic atheist has no capability or obligation to make sense of his/her morality or rationality since, in that worldview, such things don't exist except as the random, meaningless epiphenomena of purely chemically derivative neuronal activity.

An atheist can no more give you an objective reason why 2+2=4 than why Hitler's actions were evil. There is no a priori frame of reference left to the materialist. Hence, there is no definition of good, evil, justice, truth, morality or beauty that rises above the level of the individual - and is, therefore, meaningless to anyone else.

This desperate vacuum of nihilistic philosophy is, of course, entirely wrong and easily refuted. People cling to it not for philosophical or intellectual reasons, but, generally, for moral ones.

But, under such a view, the person has no choice but to believe as he/she does, as all such belief is not rationally arrived at through reasoned discourse and Socratic method or Aristotelian logic, but merely through the chance result of external stimuli and a few pounds of chemicals undergoing a mild electrical shock. I suppose one could make themselves feel better by replacing "chance" in that previous sentence with "complex" or possibly "quantum mechanical"!

If one would agree that he/she reasons and reaches conclusions because of the independent agency of his/her consciousness based on rational processes, "poof", he/she can no longer rationally hold to the belief that "this is all there is" in light of the internal inconsistency of such views.

This, of course, is only one step along the path toward any specific sort of "god", but it is on the path, nonetheless.

Logical positivism, empiricism, naturalism and foundationalism - along with all the miscreant children of radical monistic materialism have essentially been eclipsed in philosophical circles with the odd, recalcitrant hangers-on here or there.

A more extensive discussion of the internal inconsistency of materialism can be found here.

Also note my reference on the other thread regarding unprovable beliefs to Inwagen's treatment of Clifford's Dictum which ~DS~ refers to earlier when he/she says, "unless you can produce an absolute authority for morality I can independently verify through direct interview and testing".

The upshot is that if you attempt to live by Clifford's Dictum, you are living by an unverifiable tenet of faith - you are behaving fideistically. Noetically, you are no different from teh aboriginal shaman or the Catholic priest.

Further, it seems that ~DS~ is trying to have a little fun at the expense of we believers by attempting to appear as though he/she is commenting "from the outside" or "above" those of us operating under some religious "belief system" - or "metanarrative".

But, regardless of one's acknowledgement of the fact, we're all operating under a metanarrative. Any claims to be "objective" or "unbiased" in analyzing the data is, sadly, only self-delusion: there is no "lens-less" eye to view reality with. The question is which one makes the most sense of the data. And as I discussed earlier, it isn't atheism!

60

I'm a moral relativist. There really is no other possible type of morality, unless a divine entity comes down and tells us all what it is. Human intemediries don't count, because they can lie, mislead, make errors, or just be flippin crazy and hearing voices. So yeah relatively, yeah it's a piece of cake for me to define a behavior in a given context as evil. All I have to do is basically proclaim it. In actual fact i'd tend to stick with previoulsy defined beahiors in contexts already pigeon holed for me.

Actually, you are no relativist; you have an unswerving faith in your mind to define the best of all moral behaviors. And you admit that the basis for your mind's definition of morality is the society you find yourself in (the pigeon hole); and for the most part this society believes that such morality is handed down from a Christian God. So what you really are is a second-hand Christian moralist.

How can humanity 'generate' evil if humans define 'evil'? Human kills in a context A, I define that as evil. Human kills in contest B, I define that as ~evil. Done. [shrug]

I said 'humanity' generates evil. You may 'define' something after the fact as evil, but you have made clear this is a random process defined only by whatever 'pigeon hole' you find yourself in. When discussing 'humanity' however one needs to consider over-arching rules of behavior; if each individual defines, as you have, evil according to the particular circumstances in which he finds himself in, then you cannot say "humanity" generates evil, since you have claimed 'evil' cannot be generated.

"Did Hitler think of himself as evil?"
Unknown.

Actually 'Mein Kempf" makes it pretty clear he thought himself a savior.

I'd guess some did and some did not. That's a pretty safe guess. There were millions of them.

Most did not, which is why they turned a blind eye to the slaughter of millions of humans, an event your criteria for 'evil' would have allowed as good, had you lived in Germany at the time.

I actually didn't. I don't really think evil in the dramatic supernatural sense is a useful term that carries any absolute value outside of cultural utility and homogeneity. However, if I were on the opposing side from Hitler, I would almost certainly conclude that he was 'evil' by most colloquial meanings of that term, relative to my side.

Wow. This fits perfectly with the defenses given at Nuremburg that those who killed other innocents 'just followed orders'.

"Actually, if you don't allow for the existence of an external measure of morality, then the question is meaningless..."

LOL. Speak for yourself my friend, it means something to me. In terms of the alleged absolute morality, honestly I don't have a great deal of interest in philosophical ethics. It's just not my bag. However I'll take a shot.
While there could be for all I know a verifiable absolute morality 'out there' imposed by a divine agent, my own circumstances right here, right now, is unaffected by it, unless you can produce an absolute authority for morality I can independently verify through direct interview and testing.

Morality is the easiest thing in the world to verify. The Ten Commandments for example; is life more or less pleasant in a society that holds them up as standards of morality? The golden rule indisputably makes for better human relationships. Should you find yourself the victim of violence or some tragedy, the morality of the Good Samaritan suddenly becomes glaringly obvious. This was true in the Middle East in the first century, it's just as true now.

Without direct interview and exhaustive testing, it boils down to whether or not I accept your unverified claims of morality. And that acceptance is going to be quite relative to what those claims are my friend, I assure you.

First off, you have already made it clear that you accept current general standards of morality; what 'tests' did you use to come to this conclusion? Interviews? Experiments? 'Fess up, you did that which was easiest to do, no real due diligence.

In reality we have a perfectly good and testable explanation for the relative nature of morality and where moral practices stem from. It's the culture you grow up in. This explanation predicts a high correlation between members growing up in a given culture and adopting that cultures morals, this is observed to a high degree. This explanation predicts that people raised in two cultures will adopt a multitude of morals with the emphasis on that culture they stand the most to gain in along with a sort of arbitrary grab from both cultures, except in the case where one practice is mutually exclusive with a specific practice in another. This is observed.
This explanation predicts that feral children would have a rudimentary sense of morality, or none at all. This is observed.

Actually, I think you are confusing how morals are conveyed versus where morals come from. Obviously, communicating moral beliefs (like mathematical concepts) requires the need to have them taught. It does not follow however that the truths of mathematics are the result of ones teaching, but instead have a basis in certain underlying truths are discovered over time. You may practice math a certain way based on your culture and teaching, or as a feral child know nothing of math at all, but this does not mean math is something each individual can describe for himself according to his own desires.

There's no mystery at all where we get our morals from Jack. We acquire them like we acquire language. To determine the origin of a specific practice further back in time, one would need to trace more and more remotely similar practices down through the ages as they changed, this would rapidly run up against the lack of credible written records, and disappear into prehistory, again much like language.
I was actually discussing aside from morality, and again I'm not much into ethics or philosophy in general. If you would like, I could probably find someone who is, if you want to discuss that and no one here is interested?

Actually, language has it's basis in the structure of our minds, so it is not nearly so arbitrary as you would think. While an isolated child may not communicate well, you put any group of humans together and whatever languages they speak they find commonalities.

Morals only express themselves in groups because morality really boils down to the rules for human relationships. Over time we see the failure to follow those rules leading to destruction, and the application of those rules leading to positive development. So contrary to being 'handed down' we see morality being interjected from outside sources over time, with dramatic effect.

61

An atheist can no more give you an objective reason why 2+2=4 than why Hitler's actions were evil.

Jeff old boy, I'm an athiest, I hold degrees in math and I can prove to a metaphsyical certainty that in the Set of Real Numbers, 2+2=4, starting with Peoano's postulates and working up to addition, which doesn't take long, and I'm telling you Hitler's actions were evil from the relative positon of a jew in a concentrationc camp because it meant his unjust death and he didn't like that. Your three strikes are up, and you're out. How about you try again?

Now allow me to speculate on your motives even though I've never met you and don't kniow a thing about you, to return your courtesy, You're terrified that your magic invisible sky wizard is make believe hooey; and you know what? You should afraid of that Jeff.

62

Good thoughts, Jack. Especially the distinction between origin and conveyence. Note, however, that many would simply ascribe a utilitarian origin to morals: we have the ones they have because they have evolved to be the best for sustaining human civilization. And the reason similar morals show up throughout all cultures and time in human history is because certain moral laws just work better to sustain a human civilization - no magic or transcendance required.

Note, however, that the Nazis still believed murder was wrong, they just defined Jews an inhuman so that killing them wasn't murder. And while this "final solution" may have been in the best interests of the non-Jewish German civilization, we all agree that such behaviour is immoral. Why? If this fit their civilization best, who are we to judge?

The answer is that morality as we all understand it in our non-polemic moments of honesty and lucidity, spans civilizations and cultures so that we can look into each of them and pass judgment on whether their (and necessarily, our) actions were, ultimately, moral.

This kinds of origin, as ~DS~ rightly alludes to, comes from the outside.

Now, where? That is a question rational people can disagree about, I suppose.

63

~DS~

LOL.

64

BTW, you haven't answered either question objectively.

Nice tone, though, nice.

65

~DS~: Without direct interview and exhaustive testing, it boils down to whether or not I accept your unverified claims of morality. And that acceptance is going to be quite relative to what those claims are my friend, I assure you.

You cannot prove the supernatural by natural means. And there's the rub, my morally relative friend: You can no more prove the non-existance of the supernatural than anyone else can prove it's existance by natural means. It really all boils down to your belief system.
You also state:
I'm a moral relativist. There really is no other possible type of morality, unless a divine entity comes down and tells us all what it is. Human intemediries don't count, because they can lie, mislead, make errors, or just be flippin crazy and hearing voices.
If the Bible is to be believed, then this did happen. Which would mean that there really is another possible type of morality. The fact that you weren't there to physically witness the events does not invalidate the events.
[my turn to shrug]

66

If you calm down a bit you won't miss as many keys typing.

You're terrified that your magic invisible sky wizard is make believe hooey

Did you think that independently through reason and causal logic, or was its origin solely the result of chemicals colliding in your skull?

Also, define...

...postulate
...unjust
...know
...metaphysical
...certainty

Oh, and I bet my degrees are bigger than your degrees ;-).

Don't take it so personally, ~DS~. After all, from your perspective, I had no choice to write what I wrote anyway - and I can't help but believe in my Sky Wizard (Praise be to His name forever - Yippee!), right?

As to my belief, if you're trying to make me nervous, you're going to need to bigger guns than you're shown so far...and a much more rational polemic - or at least some polemic at all.

67

It's nothing personal at all Jeff. I don't have a thing against you, you just happened to pick a very poor example of what I can and cannot prove is all.

68

Well TQ then you can't prove supernatural Divine absolute anything, including morality. If ti cane even in principle show soemthing exists, then it's a pretty safe assumpotion that it may not exist. Thus claiming it absolutely does would be reducto absurdum. I'm not the one claiming an absolute morality exists anyway, so it's no skin off my nose, but there may be some absolutists here who will take exception to your claim.

BTW Jeff, next time choose something like "You can't prove that decaptiation causes death". That actually is true and it will deliver the punch you're looking for.

69

~DS~

Still waiting.

70

ROFL! Oh man thank you. That made me chuckle.. Waiting For...? Maybe I'm not getting through to you fella. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to help you out. Now read this please and stop doing this to yourself.

When you changed you request that's called 'goal post moving' and in a formal debate it would mean you just forfieted a point to me. I stated I can prove to a metaphsyical certainty that in the Set of Real Numbers, 2+2=4, starting with Peoano's postulates and working up to addition, which doesn't take long, And I can do exactly that.

Maybe you're relatively new here, I don't recognize you as a old time reg anyway, but in my old age that doesn't mean much. Assuming I'm correct though and you are relatively new or post infrequently, this Blog gets a pretty good clip of traffic and they come from every kind of background. Lots of athiests, buddhists, agnostics, various demoniations of Christianity, full blown professional philosophers, and research scientists holding multiple doctorates, just to name a few I know. I'm nowhere near the most educated or smartest guy posting around these parts. If you go making grandiose formal statements, especially couched in latently hostile or smug terms, one of those very smart people out there might just pop up and take you down hard. It's happened to me plenty. It's a good idea to know what you're talking about in this hood, especially if yo're looking for a flame. Just FYI and no hard feelings. I'm actually the nicest least aggresive atheist you;re likely to see here regularly, K?

The proof is as follows, bear in mind it's been twenty years sincve I took number theory and I could probably fiddle with it a bit more, but it's more or less wrokable I think and it's pretty trivial.

Peano's Postulates:
P1 1 is in N where N= set of Natural Numbers
P2 If x is in N, then its "successor" x', read x prime, is in N.
P3 There is no x such that x' = 1
P4 If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5 If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
x in S => x' in S will hold then S = N; i.e. induction

So you have to define adding using recursion which looks like this
Def 1=> Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Now to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
And 2 is a member of N by P1, P2, and the def of 2.

Hypo theorem we want to show=> 1 + 1 = 2

For the proof, yuo take the first part of the definition of plus where a = b = 1.
and use 1 + 1 = 1' = 2=> Q.E.D.

The argument is symetric for 2'=3 =>2+1=3.

The argument is symmetric for 3'=4=>3+1=4.

Therefore 4=3'=2''=1'''=1+1+1+1

which reduces to 1'+1' and using from above 1' =2,

we have 1'''=2''=3'=4= 1+1+1+1=1'+1'=2+2=4. Q.E.D.

(That look right Mumon? I kind of blew through one half-step)

Ahem ..Now do you want to continue this Jeff, because the next turn is yours and I'd like to see the absolute authority you implied you could produce or your admission that you shot your nmouth off....OR are you willing to take some constructive advice and stop right now, and you and I can get along?

71

I may be new here, but this ain't my first rodeo.

Not only are your posts smug and arrogant, but they are logically incoherent as well.

I'm not impressed or swayed by your bravado. I've tried to give your malcontented ad hominem attacks a pass with a wink and a nod, but you're apparently pretty thick. And your ability to dust off an elementary math textbook not only misses the point, it ain't makin' me shiver in my boots, polemically.

I quite clearly left specific claims to absolute authority open-ended in the hopes of having a discussion on the topic of this thread with reasonable people. I never made one claim to the Bible, Christianity, or "my faith". I asked you to justify yours.

If you want to have this discussion, go back and read my posts and make at least one intelligent response to the basis for your claims to objective truth.

Barring that, I'm more than willing to let it rest.

I've dealt with bullies like you - of both the believing and unbelieving stripe - and you all end up at the same place: trying to scare people off before they press you into actually having to make a point or defend your beliefs. Sorry, pal. If that's how things are done in this arena, then I really am new to that game.

Perhaps in your world, logical argument is excused for those with doctoral degrees, eh?

72

OK Jeff TY, I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot,and I appreciate your response. I'm a little cranky these last few days.

Jack again, I'm a moral relativist. I'm not making any claims that I have some kind of super duper moral metric. In fact I'd say I hold a very quirky, imprecise, set of morals, ethics, practices, whatever yuo want to call them, you probably know the correct term better than I. And not only are they all those things but they act idea viruses and conflict with each other in much the same way that humans customs do universally. I'd say I picked them up in part from when I was yuong and not even paying concious attwntion, and some I've adjusted along the way conciously. That's all I mean by saying I'm a moral relativist and I don't know if that even bears a shred of resemblance to what the term moral relativist means formally,, becuase like I say, I really don't know much about it.

But it works for me and it works for a lot of people. And it's fairly staightforward where those precepts come from.

I agree with you that there could be some kind of absolute moral authroity 'out there'. It just doesn't do us any good as far as I can see in nailing down moral absolutes if we constrained by hi and miss human guessing or interpreattion ove what those may be. Sooner or later if you're stuck with only human interps, you'll get two human interps that are mutually exclusive, which is de facto relativism pretty much. So I don't see how it does any good to claim there exist a moral absolute which has that built in relativism. You say killing under condtion X is a moral eveil, someone else looks at those same circumstances, meditates, or read religius text, comes back and says it's OK. That's not an absolute.
So to realy say that we have a wrokig absolute moral code, we'd have to be able to access that authority openly and often, it just seems to me. Otherwise it's no better than relativism.

73

~DS~ I apologize for the tone of the last post, it was unnecessary.

Since I am new to this blog I poked around and found the exact point I was making being made in a previous thread where you were at least civil in your response, though after reading a few dozen posts I still found no argument you propped up that answered Joe Carter's questions (which were essentially, exactly the arguments I made in this post - that monistic atheists have no claim to rational processes and therefore no ability to extend their "truth claims" beyond the subjective.

74

Just to clarify regarding the other thread I referenced, I don't have any particular hangups on macroevolution per se - that is, if science provides a consistent argument for it, I don't have a problem with it nor do I consider it a threat to my belief in a creator. My concern is with the ultimate independence of human consciousness and the existence of Ideals - regardless of what kind of god this finally translates to.

75

That's all I mean by saying I'm a moral relativist and I don't know
if that even bears a shred of resemblance to what the term moral relativist means
formally,, because like I say, I really don't know much about it.

But it works for me and it works for a lot of people. And it's fairly straightforward
where those precepts come from.

DS, I appreciate your candor, and I won’t attempt to label your moral
philosophy (I’m not sure I could ) But I can tell you derived it from
– Christianity. I don’t mean you are some
Bible-thumping, right-wing, Jesuslander, but that you happen to live in the
Judeo-Christian west, and by your own admission, you absorbed these values.
So while you are an intellectually atheistic, you are, like most American atheists,
in the most generally sense, morally a Christian. This is a good thing, because
when atheists actually apply their morality, we end up with a Hitler, or a Stalin,
or a Mao.

I agree with you that there could be some kind of absolute moral
authroity 'out there'.

It’s not ‘out there’; as I have pointed out, for
the most part it is your morality; which means it’s
as close as your own mind.

It just doesn't do us any good as far as I can see in nailing down
moral absolutes if we constrained by hi and miss human guessing or interpretation
ove what those may be.


Isn’t all human understanding “hit or miss” initially? Does
that mean that no absolutes exist? Do competing theories of reality indicate
that reality doesn’t exist? If morals exist, and some contradict others,
then there must be those that are superior to the others.

Sooner or later if you're stuck with only human interps, you'll
get two human interps that are mutually exclusive, which is de facto relativism
pretty much. So I don't see how it does any good to claim there exist a moral
absolute which has that built in relativism.

Where is the logic in that? Perception of all existence is subject in part to
‘human interpretations’; this doesn’t mean that no perceptions
are accurate or superior.


You say killing under condition X is a moral evil, someone else
looks at those same circumstances, meditates, or read religious text, comes
back and says it's OK. That's not an absolute.

So everyone has to agree on something for an absolute to exist? Some people
can’t just be wrong?

Your argument seems to be “because there are different standards of morality,
no external moral standard can exist”

So to realy say that we have a wrokig absolute moral code, we'd
have to be able to access that authority openly and often, it just seems to
me. Otherwise it's no better than relativism.

I agree, understanding moralit