- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m also sick of hearing people say, “God never gives you more than you can handle.”
I know people who have been driven batshit insane by what God has given them.
Cults and organised religion - name a surprisingly compatible combo.
That is exactly true. Life is only about 3 things: food, reproduction and dealing with boredom. Humans add so many colours to that, that it looks like we do more than those 3 things so that’s where you might see free will.
I like to think of why people suffer or God allows it like this. Even if you don’t think there is a plan, 70 years on earth vs an infinity of bliss is a good deal.
Reminds me of the Epicurean Paradox:
You could replace “God” with “Parents” to the same effect.
But arguing that a parent is evil because they see a child committing an error, know it is an error, and decline to intercede doesn’t rationally follow. If you helicopter over your kids and intercede every time they make mistakes, they never develop into independent and mature adults. You also induce a lot of anxiety, as you’re constantly interposing yourself between the child’s desires and actions without the ability to convey the wisdom of your decisions. So the kid sees you as the harmful force, rather than the thing you’re seeking to avert.
So what’s a Parent/God to do? Do you puppet your child, never letting them stray farther than the length of a string? Do you lock your child in a padded ceil and hand-feed them every day? Do you hardwire their programming, so they can’t deviate from your design, acting exclusively on a divine instinct?
Is that really what we consider “Goodness”?
There is also the Calculation Problem to consider. A God-like intelligence might be able to observe far more than a human without being perfectly omniscient. Similarly, they might be able to calculate probabilities more quickly and accurately without being perfectly prescient. If a Parent/God knows most of the things but is not omniscient, does that mean they are unworthy of your attention or the reception of wisdom? At the same time, is it the duty of a Parent/God to restrict the actions of the others in their domain to the things they can calculate in advance? This brings us back to the idea of the Child Prisoner or Brainwashed Child. You’re safe at the expense of any kind of growth or personal liberty. God treats you like a farmer treats a veal calf - perfectly unspoiled through inaction.
And finally, there is the problem of Entropy. A God who can foresee everything and recognizes that Evil is inevitable. Is such a God responsible for this Evil simply because it can perceive it? Is such a God responsible for this Evil simply because it cannot prevent it? Is this flaw in God’s power a reason to reject it as a source of virtue?
Consider Odin hanging from Yggdrasil, his eye plucked out in pursuit of a way to prevent Ragnorak. He is not all-powerful. He is not-all knowing. He is routinely makes mistakes and even acts out of anger, lust, or petty vengeance. He is fundamentally flawed as dieties come. And yet his primary goal and function - to prevent the end of the world - seems noble enough to justifiably cultivate a religious following.
Parents cannot prevent evil and are not all powerful.
Parents aren’t all powerful. But the Abrahamic god is (according to their faith) all powerful. So it could stop any war, any disease, any pain, … but does not. Either it’s not all powerful or not good. Choose. Or, as I think, doesn’t exist.
Parents aren’t all powerful.
From the perspective of a newborn, they might as well be. Everything you need to be happy, healthy, and comfortable is actively managed by the parent. You don’t understand anything about your condition or your history or your source of care. All you know is the id-based impulses to complain when you don’t feel good and the soothing release of your feeding, playing, and sleeping cycles.
So it could stop any war, any disease, any pain, … but does not.
What would that look like, from a practical perspective? Imagine trying to explain to a baby that you’re going to stick a needle into its skin in order to prevent it from suffering a disease, when it has no conception of disease. All you know is the pain of the needle. Must you conclude, from that pain, that your nurse is fundamentally evil for inflicting this upon you? And that, by extension, your parents are evil for bringing you to this nurse?
“If parents were truly worthy of my attention, they would have found a better method of vaccinating me than this needle!” is the sort of thing you get to say as a child, precisely because you do not understand the underlying nature of the world you live in. All you know is the scolding language of a parent cajoling you into this immediate superficial pain.
Should humankind be incapable of performing wars? What does that look like? Should humankind be incapable of contracting disease? What does that look like? Should humankind be incapable of experiencing pain, even? Is that what you really want? An eternal numbness of being? Is godly perfection just being a particularly resilient tree?
Either it’s not all powerful or not good.
One can be both exceptionally powerful and exceptionally good without needing to draw a distinction between the two. One can be beyond comprehension, as well. But the argument that a single person experiencing a single moment of discomfort disproves a benevolent deity seems to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
Church dilemma - knowing the will of God vs affirming that God’s ways are inscrutable, According to convenience
If you read the Bible with a purely objective mind and come away thinking God is the good guy in the story, I have some serious questions about your morality and ethics.
Username checks out?
Libs: The religious concept of “free will” is fundamental to our ideology because it justifies prisons, wars, exploitation, colonialism, etc. Historically it’s all the same thing.
I don’t think many Christians would actually argue for that first point tbh. It’s not something Biblically portrayed as one of God’s gifts. Free will is portrayed as something that was given conditionally, but taking from the tree of knowledge and specifically eating the fruit of knowledge is known as man’s first sin in the Bible.
I think it’s a bit of a metaphor for a parent wanting to shield their child from the harshness of reality, but as the sheltered child grows older they often want to know more about the outside world and in doing so become exposed to the cruelty. This was my own experience with religion growing up. A teacher of mine one day sat us down and pleaded the above with our class, as many of us grew to see through the veil of how reality looked.
In retrospect I think some things about the world make sense to not be told about, depending on one’s age. However, I think other things should never be hidden, have been hidden, or done in other cases.
Side note: I think the idea of God’s plan is for people to hold love for one another. Lots of people lose sight of what they are called to do and how they are to act though. They’re called to love their neighbor as their self, called to love their enemy, and called to forgive others for their transgressions. I personally think people are called to do good works in conjunction with holding faith, as people are called to act righteously in this life.
I don’t think many Christians would actually argue for that first point tbh.
Then truthfully, I don’t think you’ve had this conversation with many christians. Every single one immediately defaults to that point when confronted with the horrors god would be responsible for if god is in control.
the horrors god would be responsible for if god is in control
You’re forgetting the counterfactual. Namely, that we live in The Best Of All Possible Worlds and what you describe as horror is actually the nicest things can conceivably get. The standard Christian argument is that, without God, existence would be significantly worse. Also (depending on your flavor of Christianity) the mortal life is a proving ground not a final destination. Life is a trial one experiences before being eligible to enter the Kingdom Of Heaven, where God is fully in control.
The horrors are a consequence of Free Will mixed with the corruptive influences of evil spirits sent out to tempt mortals to sin. And they are transient, while the Christian Reward is supposed to be eternal. You see this best in the Story of Job, during which he suffers a litany of torments but holds firm to his faith. This faith is ultimately rewarded, not just through the restoration of his material pleasures, but through the promise of an eternal blissful afterlife.
I’m not saying that people don’t have free will or that it’s not talked about in the Bible, but free will is not something presented as a gift, yet alone God’s greatest gift to humanity as the meme says.
From my perspective, once God set the universe in motion he has mostly taken a step back from direct action. I would say life is a test of sorts for us, to see if we can make earth resemble the good of heaven, on a humanity wide scale. But it’s also an individual test for each person’s willingness to use their obtained knowledge to still be good unto others. We are all the children of God, from my own perspective we are learning to become like God, who is the Bible is shown as loving and kind.
You have the freedom to choose God or face an eternity of unimaginable suffering.
No good god would make an unlasting punishment. if you have forever, then even Hitler, Dahmer would have enough time for a finite punishment. Even the worst people in the world don’t deserve a unlasting punishment.
I always wondered about that. When would enough be enough.
It could take hundreds or thousands of years but no one person deserves unending punishment for finite sins.
Did god not have the power to give us free will without also giving us evil?
-
Had the power but opted not to: god is himself some part evil
-
Didn’t have the power, did the best he could with the tools he had: god is not omnipotent.
Pick one.
Maybe god itself doesn’t have free will and is only acting according to a proscribed set of fundamental laws.
That’s the point - the christian god is presented as all powerful, all knowing, and all good. The existence of evil in our universe shows that to be a lie.
Going by the Bible, it’s both. He acted with malice and proved himself to not be omnipotent many times.
Jod introduced the idea of freewill to the board.
Lucifer said “That’s a bad idea, chief. Free will would ruin them.”
Jod cast him out.
Humans fucked everything up.
Jod sent his CTO, Jesus to try and fix it. It went poorly.
Lucifer said " I told you so"
“What if you gave them free will AND ALSO gave them the knowledge of the true nature of existence, rather than relying on them figuring everything out via very obviously man-made religions?”
“Naw.”
I think it’s a misread to say it gave us evil. The garden is portrayed as being a paradise with a tree of knowledge. The man and the women, as they self-identified themselves to be, were both allowed agency to be themselves and be blessed without the burden of knowledge, so long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. Both the man and the woman independently made the conscious decision to break the rule given to them to not eat the fruit of knowledge. The actual sin was both the man and woman breaking their covenant with God, through the eating of the fruit. My take on this is that story is meant to show that God can help you and will help you, but if you choose to go against his will you have the face the consequences of that decision on your own. However, you can still seek forgiveness for your decisions and even be forgiven, but this doesn’t magically put everything back to the way things were before.
The story is more or less a cultural device to explain good and evil from the perspective of the early Israelite society. The story itself is rippled throughout the Bible in this way: God gives instructions, the people follow the instructions at first but then grow complacent, bad things happen because people stop following God’s instructions, and then one of the leaders of the tribe of Israel steps in to help get people back on the right path of following God’s instructions.
I’ll add that functionally Genesis is three serparate creation stories that were pulled into one book. Culturally, the early Israelites borrowed some of the elements of other creation stories of their time seen in other cultures such as the Babylonians. The first creation story is the seven days, the second is what we know as the story Adam and Eve, and the third was the story of the great flood.
A major problem I’ve always had with that story is the fact that it is predicated on the fact that Adam and Eve acted disobediently by eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. But what is disobedience? Is disobedience a form of evil? To disobey God would be evil if it was done with knowledge, correct? How could Adam and Eve have possibly known that what they were doing was evil if they had no knowledge of such? Why would God set the situation up to necessitate that Adam and Eve would eventually disobey his wishes if they had no knowledge of good and evil, and therefore no knowledge of how their actions would have an impact or how their actions would be considered wrong. If a 2 year old disobeys their parents it’s easy to brush off their behavior as just being ignorant, and Adam and Eve are effectively like the cosmic 2-year-old, totally incapable of understanding consequences, or righteousness, or disobedience. Fundamentally, the God that created the Garden of Eden must be evil because what he did is akin to me putting an infant in a room with a loaded bear trap and telling them not to touch it. They don’t understand the consequences, nor do they really understand what commands mean. Is it really the baby’s fault for getting caught in a bear trap if I am the one with superior agency and knowledge and I was the one that set the whole thing up in the first place? Who is really the evil one here?
God is often referred to as the Father, and if he is truly a father I would say that he fails miserably in that duty by the very fact that he put his children directly In harm’s way. Yes, it is the responsibility of the parent to put obstacles in the way of their children so that they can grow, but at the same time it is also the responsibility to protect them from grievous harm, and clearly he didn’t do this according to Genesis.
the third was the story of the great flood
And don’t forget the really fun part, where you can actually still see the three flood stories smashed into one if you look at the sentences.
I agree, since all the animals are seemingly posed as being remade on the ark and suddenly you have the first people walking the earth again after the flood.
-
Yup.
The teachings of Christianity don’t make any fucking sense. (Unless you’re willing to gaslight yourself for a lifetime.)
Too bad our entire society is based on this nonsense.
Agreed.
Now now, don’t discount free reign to also gaslight others for a lifetime as well. And judge and shame others too. It’s great for complete assholes.
I think that’s part of the appeal: the ingrained superiority Christians feel.
Not just Christians, that’s a common thing with any cult, be it for a person, a country, etc.
That’s the point of religion. Trick the brain into thinking everything is going according to plan so that it gives out the happy time drugs instead of the “you need to wake the fuck up and do something about this” drugs. The religion pushers get their cut, and everyone thinks their happy.
Exactly as Aizen planned
Well, since this is a religious discussion, I’m a Christian. It’s always God.
Job 1:6-12 very clearly shows God granting permission for Satan to test Job.
1 Kings 22:19-22 shows the “court in heaven” and God soliciting ideas from spirits for enticing Ahab to attack Ramoth Gilead, where he will die. When a good suggestion is made, God grants permission.
Exodus 10:1-2 states clearly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to not let the slaves go, so that God could display his “signs” (plagues).
Satan is a liar, and the father of lies.
Romans 9:19-21 NIV
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Wow, sounds like a cruel deity that’s definitely not worthy of worship.
Hey, at least you’re judging based on the facts of what the Bible says. God is who He is. He’s not campaigning. You disagree with Him, but at least it’s really Him.
Of course, that puts you in the same position as Job. You want to judge God. You want to put him on trial. You disagree with Him.
And if you have the opportunity to question Him directly, you’ll say the same thing Job said.
I’m judging a fictional character based on how he’s characterized by the book he appears in. There may be a higher power, but the god of the Bible certainly ain’t it.
Certainly? You have a better candidate? Baal? Molech? Satan, perhaps?
You do you; pick a side, deny the battle, anything you choose.
I’m quite seriously suggesting that the God of the Bible, and specifically the Christian God, is is the most perfect God that could be imagined, and yet wholly unexpected as He is revealed. The God of the Bible soothes no one. He ruffles everyone’s feathers. He is pure perfect and exacting. Yet there is love and mercy there.
Now, His followers have done a lot to screw up that presentation. But that’s as it always has been. In the Old Testament, in Jesus’s day, and now, the people of God - even those with direct divine revelation - have been misrepresenting Him.
Joshua 24:15 NIV
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. [Or the gods of reason, science, and unbelief?] But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
Certainly. Any candidate that doesn’t have a traceable origin as being created by people would be a good start, which all the religions of the world do.
I’m quite seriously suggesting that the God of the Bible, and specifically the Christian God, is is the most perfect God that could be imagined
Yes, that’s what people of every religion say about their god. I’m guessing your parents are Christian?
“Traceable origin…as being created by people.” You’ve set quite a high bar for yourself, but I assume you would consider your traceability as…
Yes, nominally Christian. Raised in USA, fed cornbread and gospel music, prayin’ at baseball games.
Here’s an example of traceability. If the god of the bible were real, eternal, unchanging, etc., there would be no historical record of him being just another god in a pantheon until someone decided to make him THE god. This is just one example of many and you can do this with any god in any religion - there’s nothing notably special about Yahwah aside from how popular his worship became.
I asked because it’s especially suspicious if you have been raised from birth to believe in a god, even if it wasn’t a main focus. My intention isn’t to dissuade you from believing - I couldn’t do that even if I wanted to - but just to encourage you to see Christianity objectively, looking at its history and how it compares with other religions. If you choose to have faith regardless, that’s fine, and in fact is stronger than if you never questioned it at all. I just always prefer that people make an informed decision on things.
And if you have the opportunity to question Him directly, you’ll say the same thing Job said.
That would be what, “Why are you so weirdly obsessed with Leviathan?” after Job 41?
Haha, Leviathan was certainly the “big bad” in Job. I don’t know what creature was being referred to (maybe a species of large crocodile?) but yes, he gets a lot of air time.
No, I meant Job 42:3, “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.”
I would add that not every author is writing unbiased in the Bible. We know now for instance that some books near the end of the Bible attributed to Paul may not have been written by him, but by some of the people under Paul in the early church. So adding parts about women not holding positions of authority within the Church more or less served to cement their own positions and authority for the early-Christians that were formalizing the religion.
deleted by creator
I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well. I’m personally agnostic as I don’t have the knowledge to make a decision.
If we are all just atoms moving/reacting, surely everything we’d ever do would be predetermined by the initial reactions/vectors/forces at the big bang. I know there’s quantum randomness and stuff, but it’s possible that’s all calculable and we simply don’t have the means to calculate it. If that’s the case, IMO we still have freewill because we can’t predict the future, and it’s still worthwhile to move forward doing our best to be good people.
It’s “free will” vs determinism (or other options).
The problem is that our entire violent society is based on the pseudo-scientific, religious concept of “free will”. It’s what has justified prisons, etc. since the dawn of the christian fascism.
Scientifically the problem is that there’s not much evidence for “free will”. It’s largely an illusion of consciousness.
That’s not a dilemma for atheists because atheists aren’t the ones claiming there’s an omnipotent being guiding everything.
Also, you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. They cover different things. I’m fairly certain you’d consider yourself an atheist in regards to the sun god Ra.
I’m mostly agnostic to it almost all of it. For all I know, the ancient Egyptians were spot on.
I’m convinced it’s impossible for us to determine whether there are two gods or not.
I’m a diagnostic.
Damnit, I just finished watching Alien Romulus and that’s a dad joke worthy for the android in it.
I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well.
I’d like to hear your opinions on how you think so (truly). The way I see things, Atheism is only the answer to a single question: do you believe in any gods? If “yes,” you’re a theist or deist. If “no; I don’t know; not currently; maybe one day,” then you’re an atheist. It’s not a philosophy or a comprehensive worldview, and it can’t possibly answer deeper questions.
What you’re referring to in the latter half is Determinism and Compatibilism (Determinism + free will). Science is currently leaning pretty strongly towards Determinism, but since Compatibilism doesn’t add much more to the idea, it’s also still a candidate possibility.
It’s very likely you could calculate every chain reaction from the Big Stretch up until now and maybe even into the future. Whether we have the ability to affect or disrupt those chains might be a matter of philosophy.
God having a plan vs. everything being calculable to us is practically the same thing, no? Either way, it’s still best to act within your moral framework, religious or atheist because it’s just better to be a good person. I think me calling it a dilemma for either side is a stretch.
God having a plan vs. everything being calculable to us is practically the same thing, no?
No. A supernatural conscious agent with intent (e.g. a god) planning and orchestrating every quantum-interaction is not the same as humans documenting or even predicting extremely complex chains of physical reactions.
Either way, it’s still best to act within your moral framework, religious or atheist because it’s just better to be a good person.
Agreed. Whether Determinism is true only gives credence to philosophies like cosmic nihilism, and being a cosmic nihilist myself, it doesn’t matter that much whether my actions have purpose beyond now. It feels good to be kind, I know how it feels to be hurt, and so I try to do as much of the former and as little of the latter as possible.
That’s not how predetermination works. Just because there is an explosion does not mean that every particle has a preset location it must reach to enact a grander outcome of the combustion. Atheists don’t suffer from a need to have decisions rendered by an omnipotent being or a universe that is some stand-in for that being. There is no grand plan. The Big Bang was not some kick off for a well thought out schematic.
I never meant to imply it was. I was simply stating that with a hyper advanced understanding of chemistry it’s possible that everything in the universe could have been predicted up to this point by an infinitely well programmed/powerful computer or whatever. Because in my head, that’s theoretically possible, it’s also possible everything is predetermined, not by some grand scheme or designs, but just predetermined by random chance.
Apologies if I’m using the incorrect phrasing.
I don’t think we know enough about the universe yet to be sure that cause/effect is 100% the be all end all. It sure seems like it is from where we’re standing now though, that’s for sure.
But did you choose which atoms make up you? I think there is no free will because we’re don’t choose out of all options what atoms we get, we are just thrown into a random atom combination.
True true, but if there is genuinely quantum randomness, then the reactions those atoms go through aren’t predetermined, so the initial conditions could be on an individual basis, but not the long term.
