tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post3820348733209233443..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Why God Allows Pain, my answer to DraperJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5093192594803586972017-01-05T20:51:08.832-08:002017-01-05T20:51:08.832-08:00Jason Thibodeau said...
"It's not. i don&...<br /> Jason Thibodeau said...<br />"It's not. i don't buy the neuroscience determinism craze. I agree with Jean-Paul Sartre we are compelled to be free. I see quotes all the time by major thinkers and researchers dealing with the issue of free will who say science is nowhere near disproving free will."<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that, contrary to observation and our own experiences, human choices are not constrained in the ways that I described? Are you saying that human choices are not constrained at all?<br /><br /><br /><b>contained is not a negation of free will.One could be a compatiobalist for example.Or it could be that none of those constraints are actually negating the will.</b><br /><br />Note that I did not defend determinism, nor am I convinced that it is true. But my claim that human choices are constrained is true regardless of the truth of determinism.<br /><br /><b>yes but we can still make moral decisions,</b><br /><br />8:23 AM <br />Post a CommentJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21011458982216591492017-01-05T20:47:22.175-08:002017-01-05T20:47:22.175-08:00Eric Sotnak said...
"the problem is I keep be...Eric Sotnak said...<br />"the problem is I keep beating the beasts when i call upon the protector and beat them against overwhelming odds."<br /><br />This claim is subject to empirical verification. All we need to do is to compare the rate at which those who call upon the protector survive compared to those who don't. If those who do survive at a statistically significant higher rate, then we have evidence for the existence of the protector. Similarly, it seems if those who call out to God to be spared from pain and suffering and illness experience those at a statistically significant lower rate than those who don't we have empirical evidence for a caring God. But there is the problem. The best studies we have show not only that the rain falleth upon both the just and the unjust, but that the just are no drier than the unjust.<br />5:52 AM <br /><br /><b>I don't think it works that way, You are assuming God has to work like on.off switch instead of having his own ideas about things, Secondly, that's just gainsaying the whole soteriologoical Drama, the point o that was That God can't just fix stuff every time there's a problem.So there have to be certain zones you have ot be in the zone so to speak.,But the variables are too complex to fix a quantitative analysis,<br /><br />so the answer is I dont' claim proof.I claim warrant, The examples my life and others --such as Lourdes--indicates there is a reality there can't be denied,It can't be used as proof and I didn't advance it as proof.</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8975857156446887902017-01-05T08:23:10.901-08:002017-01-05T08:23:10.901-08:00"It's not. i don't buy the neuroscien...<b>"It's not. i don't buy the neuroscience determinism craze. I agree with Jean-Paul Sartre we are compelled to be free. I see quotes all the time by major thinkers and researchers dealing with the issue of free will who say science is nowhere near disproving free will."</b><br /><br />I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that, contrary to observation and our own experiences, human choices are not constrained in the ways that I described? Are you saying that human choices are not constrained at all?<br /><br />Note that I did not defend determinism, nor am I convinced that it is true. But my claim that human choices are constrained is true regardless of the truth of determinism.<br /><br />Jason Thibodeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04031407028220844179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51028397325308019822017-01-05T05:52:19.051-08:002017-01-05T05:52:19.051-08:00"the problem is I keep beating the beasts whe..."the problem is I keep beating the beasts when i call upon the protector and beat them against overwhelming odds."<br /><br />This claim is subject to empirical verification. All we need to do is to compare the rate at which those who call upon the protector survive compared to those who don't. If those who do survive at a statistically significant higher rate, then we have evidence for the existence of the protector. Similarly, it seems if those who call out to God to be spared from pain and suffering and illness experience those at a statistically significant lower rate than those who don't we have empirical evidence for a caring God. But there is the problem. The best studies we have show not only that the rain falleth upon both the just and the unjust, but that the just are no drier than the unjust.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46314640582533869342017-01-05T01:02:48.420-08:002017-01-05T01:02:48.420-08:00So here is the challenge to your view: If free cho...So here is the challenge to your view: If free choice is so important to God, then why are our choices so unfree and constrained?<br /><br /><b>It's not. i don't buy the neuroscience determinism craze. I agree with Jean-Paul Sartre we are compelled to be free. I see quotes all the time by major thinkers and researchers dealing with the issue of free will who say science is nowhere near disproving free will.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10071160760020428182017-01-05T00:42:48.304-08:002017-01-05T00:42:48.304-08:00But I think Draper’s argument hinges on a very pow...But I think Draper’s argument hinges on a very powerful intuition that is not easily overcome: that if you were to predict how the world would look under theism and under HI, the reality seems a better fit to HI than to theism.<br /><br /><b>there is a problem with going by appearance (you said Draper has an intuition that's not appurtenance, apprentices can be deceiving. A Bible verse says: "we walk by faith and not by sight." I would argue that the mystic's intuition about God's reality and goodness is more trustworthy than Drapers because it's empirically linked to transformative effects and fits the epistemic criteria of judgement we live by.</b><br /><br />Suppose you were going to walk through a dangerous forest. One hypothesis is that you are on your own, and the other is that an all-powerful protector will be watching over you. But you find yourself fighting off wild animals with no sign of the protector. As your throat is being torn out by a predator, do you think to yourself, “I guess there was no protector” or do you think “I guess the protector wanted to help me develop my courage by conquering this forest on my own. I’m sorry I failed him.”<br /><br /><b>the problem is I keep beating the beasts when i call upon the protector and beat them against overwhelming odds.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40569895320358013112017-01-05T00:34:01.307-08:002017-01-05T00:34:01.307-08:00Jason if I understand your view I think atheism wo...<b>Jason if I understand your view I think atheism would be true either in W1 or W2 but i don't consider Greek God's to be God.In my view God must be necessary not contingent thus can't have parents or an origin,I don't accept comic book heroes as worthy of worship, even though I collect gold-bronze age comics,</b><br /><br />I think that the vagueness of the term 'God' requires that when we are engaged in systematic intellectual pursuit we need to be very careful and to specify what we are talking about. The God that I don't believe in is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent person. There is no such being. But, having acknowledged this, I can also acknowledge that I don't know whether other types of similar beings (beings that people sometimes use the word 'god' to talk about) exist. I strongly suspect that Draper agrees with this.<br /><br /><b>I an usually pretty quick to specify that my view are greatly influenced by those of Paul Tillich.There are extremely clear and specific ideas o God in both theology and phil R, Whitehead, Tillich, Hartshorne, one need only become familiar with theology.</b><br /><br />One further point: in order to evaluate an argument like Draper's, we have to be clear about what his target is. His target is the almighty person (i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator). What we should be asking is whether Draper's argument successfully shows that there is an epistemic problem for people who believe in an almighty person. Even if his argument does not show that Tillich's god does not exist, it is still an important and successful argument since it justifies atheism (understood as the belief that there is no almighty person).<br /><br /><b>You also have some major problems with the concept of 'all mighty": that has unclearity, One probable is it's not the meaning of omnipotence according to the Greek etm usually ranslated that way. does almighty nean being able to do anything including non sense?or does it mean being able to do more than anyone else,?</b><br /><br />Atheism is a very simple and not very interesting claim: it is the claim that there is no almighty person. It is pretty obviously a true claim and should not require much defense. But it is consistent with the existence of supernatural beings and, more interestingly, with some kind of ultimate reality a proper relationship with which constitutes the greatest good for human beings. I think that the proper role for philosophy of religion is to explore these other possibilities, not simply to engage in counter apologetics.<br /><br /><b>the claim is interesting because it's so problematic, i don't think almighty cuts it. One could be almighty perhaps and have presents and be contingent, that's not really the concept i associate with God it'is not what Christian theology is getting at,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-62266648024795542602017-01-05T00:19:09.559-08:002017-01-05T00:19:09.559-08:00"if there is an indifferent God that's st..."if there is an indifferent God that's still God and thus atheism is false."<br /><br />Joe,<br />I think that this is an important error. I certainly understand your point and I have a great deal of sympathy for it, but nonetheless I think it is wrong. 'Theism' and 'God' constantly threaten to be moving targets (and thus so does 'atheism'). Because the world is a complex place, our concepts and categories need to be up to that complexity. <br /><br />Suppose we define 'atheism' as follows:<br /><br />Atheism: the claim that there is no God.<br /><br /><b>Hey Jason, thanks for your comments man, welcome to the blog. But you are comparijng theism to ahteisnm, I am saying one need not be a theist to believe in God, I am moreof a pan-EN-theist. Some pan-en-theists believe God is impersonal,. I believe that God is personal but in a higher sense on a higher level. Of those who believe God is impersonal, I think they are as much God believers. they bleieve there is a God but "he" is just not personal.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33636299721542615082017-01-03T15:03:09.568-08:002017-01-03T15:03:09.568-08:00“despite the seeming evidence to the contrary in P...“despite the seeming evidence to the contrary in Pain and suffering”<br /><br />I notice that this acknowledges about half of the evidential argument from evil: it acknowledges that evil (or pain and suffering) constitutes at least prima facie evidence against the existence of a caring God. So the remaining question is whether there are good reasons to reject theistic claims that such evidence is, in fact, defeated.<br /><br />But I think Draper’s argument hinges on a very powerful intuition that is not easily overcome: that if you were to predict how the world would look under theism and under HI, the reality seems a better fit to HI than to theism.<br /><br />Suppose you were going to walk through a dangerous forest. One hypothesis is that you are on your own, and the other is that an all-powerful protector will be watching over you. But you find yourself fighting off wild animals with no sign of the protector. As your throat is being torn out by a predator, do you think to yourself, “I guess there was no protector” or do you think “I guess the protector wanted to help me develop my courage by conquering this forest on my own. I’m sorry I failed him.”Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56893957942297448922017-01-03T10:27:04.286-08:002017-01-03T10:27:04.286-08:00"(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that ch..."(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated). "<br /><br />If free choice is so important, then why is it that, in this world, our choices are so unfree and constrained?<br /><br />Any evaluation of your argument requires that we consider whether humans have the kind of free will that your theodicy requires. I don't think that we do. Human choices are a product (or, to put the point in a slightly weaker form, strongly influenced by) our beliefs, desires, and inclinations. None of these things are typically under conscious control. We do not normally choose our beliefs, we don't typically choose our desires, and only extremely rarely do we choose our inclinations.<br /><br />A human child is born with a collection of desires, inclinations, and with capacities to acquire new desires, inclinations and beliefs. In short, human children are born into this world with a nature. And we have absolutely no control over the nature we are born with. Given the power that inclinations and desires have over our choices, I think that it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that human children make unconstrained choices. But the choices that children make when they are children influence the kind of adults they become. Thus, to a large extent, the choices of an adult human are constrained by the (unfree) choices that the adult made when she was a child.<br /><br />Here is just one example: no American child chooses to believe that an appropriate and good life involves getting an education, finding a job, finding an appropriate life-partner, and having a family. Nobody chooses to believe that this is the kind of life we should live; we just find ourselves with this belief. The vast majority of Americans pursue this kind of life. Why? To put it simply, we are indoctrinated by our parents, our family, our friends, and our culture to believe that this is the kind of life worth pursuing. But indoctrination is a process whereby a person's choices are externally constrained. Given the nature of a human being, being indoctrinated into a culture entails that certain possibilities never occur to us. A choice that occurs after a process of indoctrination is thus not an unconstrained choice, it is not truly free.<br /><br />And, of course, it is impossible for a child (anyone under 25 years old) to have the requisite experiences that could form the basis of an informed choice about what kind of life is worth pursuing. Given our limitations, we both cannot help but be indoctrinated and, even if we had the capacity to make a truly unconstrained choice, we would lack the requisite knowledge upon which to make such a choice.<br /><br />Many people find that, once they have made their "choices", for example, to pursue the American Dream, that what they end up with (even when they have a good job, a house, and a loving family) is not satisfying. Many people regret their former choices and wish that those former choices were not so constrained (by their false beliefs, misplaced desires, unhealthy inclinations, etc.). It seems appropriate, therefore, to acknowledge the kind of constrained choices that humans are capable of is a rather mixed bad. Most of us believe that we would be better off with a greater degree of freedom.<br /><br />So here is the challenge to your view: If free choice is so important to God, then why are our choices so unfree and constrained?Jason Thibodeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04031407028220844179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-74856374669346008642017-01-03T09:41:36.097-08:002017-01-03T09:41:36.097-08:00"if there is an indifferent God that's st..."if there is an indifferent God that's still God and thus atheism is false."<br /><br />Joe,<br />I think that this is an important error. I certainly understand your point and I have a great deal of sympathy for it, but nonetheless I think it is wrong. 'Theism' and 'God' constantly threaten to be moving targets (and thus so does 'atheism'). Because the world is a complex place, our concepts and categories need to be up to that complexity. <br /><br />Suppose we define 'atheism' as follows:<br /><br /><b>Atheism</b>: the claim that there is no God.<br /><br />What does this amount to? Imagine the following world: <br /><br />W1: a world in which there is no creator, no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person, but in which beings such as Thor (of Marvel comics) and Kal El exist.<br /><br />Is atheism true in W1? I would say that it is, but your view suggests that atheism is false in W2. Why? Because arguably Thor and Kal El are gods. They certainly would have been recognized as such by the ancient Greeks. They are very powerful, can control the forces of nature, live indefinitely, cannot be killed (at least not in the normal way), etc. (I even understand that Kal El will soon be rising from the dead). <br /><br />Of course no atheist is going to claim that she knows that there are no gods in this sense (or, if she does claim this, she is wrong). <br /><br />Now consider,<br /><br />W2: a world in which there is no creator of the universe, no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person, and no gods in the Ancient Greek sense, and no gods in the superhero sense. There is a ground of all being, which is a non-conscious and morally neutral force.<br /><br />Is atheism true in W2? Well, perhaps not if we understand 'God' to refer to the ground of all being. But I don't think that atheists take themselves to be denying the possibility that there is a ground of all being.<br /><br />I think that the vagueness of the term 'God' requires that when we are engaged in systematic intellectual pursuit we need to be very careful and to specify what we are talking about. The God that I don't believe in is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent person. There is no such being. But, having acknowledged this, I can also acknowledge that I don't know whether other types of similar beings (beings that people sometimes use the word 'god' to talk about) exist. I strongly suspect that Draper agrees with this.<br /><br />One further point: in order to evaluate an argument like Draper's, we have to be clear about what his target is. His target is the almighty person (i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator). What we should be asking is whether Draper's argument successfully shows that there is an epistemic problem for people who believe in an almighty person. Even if his argument does not show that Tillich's god does not exist, it is still an important and successful argument since it justifies atheism (understood as the belief that there is no almighty person).<br /><br />Atheism is a very simple and not very interesting claim: it is the claim that there is no almighty person. It is pretty obviously a true claim and should not require much defense. But it is consistent with the existence of supernatural beings and, more interestingly, with some kind of ultimate reality a proper relationship with which constitutes the greatest good for human beings. I think that the proper role for philosophy of religion is to explore these other possibilities, not simply to engage in counter apologetics.Jason Thibodeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04031407028220844179noreply@blogger.com