Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Mister Agenda]

I do appreciate your reply. I think I have a tedious way of asking simple questions that sometimes turns people off. I do find your answer fascinating and want to hear more.

Maybe that's it. Law of Charity says I should not assume malice when awkward style is sufficient explanation, and here you're giving the kind of feedback I was talking about. Thank you.

In answer to your question, I'd say I'm not convinced, yet. I'm unsure of the premise that it is possible for God to create a person in such a way that she would never choose what is morally wrong. It's actually an ancient question answered by an early Christian by the name of Iraenius.. His answer to the question went something like this:

1. God's purpose is that we will love one another and love him

2. Love requires freedom to freely choose to love or not love

3. If God made us so we were incapable of choosing to hate, we would be incapable of freely choosing to love or not love

Does God have to make us incapable of choosing hate to only make people who freely choose to love? Couldn't God make everyone with free will, use omniscience to know in advance which ones won't choose love freely, and simply not make those people?

4. To prevent us from freely choosing to love would be unloving and unwise

To allow us to be born into circumstances that prevent us from freely choosing love would be unloving and unwise. Yet there are children who are raped to death before they make it to five. It seems if there is someone in charge, they are completely fine with people never having a chance to freely choose love.

5. If God were unloving, he would not be omnibenevolent, and if he were unwise, he would not be omniscient

6. If God were not omnibenevolent, nor omniscient, he would cease to be God

If God is omniscient, he may not be able to be omnibenevolent. An omniscient being is incapable of doing anything but we it already knows it will do. Omniscience doesn't allow for multiple scenarios, there can be only one. Since mere humans can easily imagine scenarios where we would have a better chance to freely choose love without being robots, this suggests some sort of constraint on an omnibenevolent deity.

7. It is impossible for God to cease to be who he is

Yet another exception on God's omnipotence, and mere assertion as well.

Therefore,

A. God cannot possibly still be God and at the same time, make us incapable of doing what is morally wrong

God cannot possibly be the God of theodicy and still stack the deck against us. It doesn't make us robots if bad parents fail to have children or no one is born with the brain impairments associated with sociopathy or no one develops brain tumors that drive formerly decent people to murderous violence or is born into the 'wrong' religion. And the God of theodicy wouldn't come up with a hell to torment those who don't make the cut for eternity. Seriously, 'I don't stop crazies from cutting messages in a little girl's back and then urinating in the wounds, but I will threaten you with an eternal whupping after you're dead.'?

I'm thinking Iraenius is right. Making us like puppets on strings, or robots incapable of choice would make not only make hate impossible; it would also make love impossible. Can an existence void of love be the most perfect God could possibly create?

Iraneius is wrong. I get why free will might be important to God, but love is an emotion, and absolutely he could make us to feel it all day long our whole lives. If God wants us to love and be loved, easy peasy for an omnipotent being. What Iraneous seems to imply that God REALLY wants is for beings without much of a clue to choose to love him, for no good reason (he doesn't do anything for them, he treats nonbelievers the same, he allows haters to flourish, he doesn't even let them know for sure he exists). He's like someone who cries 'I want you to love me for ME, not for what I do for you!' A little demanding, possibly creepy, but understandable. BUT, hell. And incredible suffering for multitudes while we're alive, much of it NOT due to human action but due to the environment which God supposedly made for us.

If you want to keep your God belief and your intellectual integrity, I recommend you follow Drich's example and cut one of the legs of theodicy down to a level consistent with the reality we observe. He chose omnibenevolence, but I recommend omnipotence and omniscience: an omnibenevolent god who is only very wise and very powerful and is doing the best he can in a vast universe that is necessarily imperfect seems much more worthy of adoration (to me) than one who is all-knowing and all-powerful but treats us like residents in an ant farm--even if that is a relatively valid comparison.

Theoretically, we may be able to create universes ourselves one day. I have an ethical reservation about doing so: if it is possible for life to develop in a cosmos we create, then wouldn't WE be responsible for the enormous suffering life entails?

Fair enough. Would you say I believe in definition (1) of atheism, but you believe in definition (2)? I'm thinking definition (2) is more broad and definition (1) is narrower, and perhaps speaks of a specific kind of atheism. Neither definition is necessarily wrong, it's just that not all atheists who are (2) are necessarily also (1). Do you agree?


a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

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

Yes, most atheists use 2. as it is more inclusive without also including agnostic theists, which would be confusing...and kudoes for getting that disbelief is a synonym for not believing. You'd think the '1.' atheists and the '2.' atheists would get into 'true atheist' arguments, but although the first (strong or gnostic) atheists might consider us (weak or agnostic athiests) wimpy or something, we pretty much all agree we're all atheists.

Also fair. My thought was that you are thinking my use of the Socratic Method means I've already made up my mind that the things people are saying to me is untrue. Sounds like I've misunderstood you. Again, I apologize.

No worries. Communication is hard without voice or body language.

A discussion using the Socratic Method is exactly that, though both people might ask questions, of course. I'm certainly open to answering any questions you have for me.

The Socratic method is very tricky. I'm not sure that anyone but Socrates can pull it off.

Thanks for being open to questions, maybe we can get on a better foot.

Yes, I tend to have that effect on people. Socrates said he had the same effect on people as well:

At least you don't seem to be using it for trickery: some people ask a lot of questions in an attempt to set someone up for a 'gotcha' and I am not seeing that with you.

Would you like (at least for awhile) to be the one to ask questions, and have me be the one to answer them?

As long as you try to answer questions when I do ask them, I am happy. I realize that you are one person responding to many, and will take that into account. You don't have to anwer everybody, but if you have to pick and choose, I really respect someone who takes on the substantive ones over snipes and potshots, even though those are tempting.