(part 2)
Please understand that people who shake their fists at heaven are not really atheists. And I never claimed that there were no bitter atheists. There are no atheists who are bitter at God.
You seem to be shifting the focus from the issues to me. You know that I am an atheist, that we disagree about the existence of your God, and that this is a religious debate forum. I mean you no offense by disagreeing with you.
Nope, just disagreeing with you - no shifting of focus going on.
I hope not, but is my attitude really the issue here? Let's pull back from the ad hominems. I've been called a lot of things by people in religious debates, so I've developed a pretty thick skin (and maybe even a thick skull). If I am arrogant, then that is my problem. Even arrogant people can be right.
Yet another experience that we have in common!
I have acknowledged repeatedly that your religion works for you, yet you keep repeating it as if I did not believe it. I really do. The issue under discussion is theodicy, not whether your religious belief is a good or a bad thing.
Reading my comments in context, I would hope that you can see that whenever I relate something to a personal experience, it is to clarify a point, or illustrate how something applies in my life - it has nothing to do with me thinking you don't believe me.
Somehow the discussion keeps shifting to other topics--for example, whether your religious belief has helped you personally cope with tragedy.
'Tis the nature of the forum - threads wander a bit sometimes, and I've been responding to so many people on this thread, and so many different perspectives and challenges, that it's a bit hard to keep purely "on topic." That being said, it's not entirely off topic considering the subject matter, to throw in the fact that religious beliefs help many people, myself included, through tragedies.
(And, for the record, lest you've forgotten already, I do believe that religion can have that effect for people who believe. It is of no help to people who lack belief, nor does it explain why we are permitted to suffer needlessly.)
Haven't forgotten. Kinda hard to completely stay on topic though, isn't it?
OK. Do you think you have an understanding of God's plan for the husband and father described in the OP? Can you describe what you think it is? Not everyone recovers from tragedy the way you have. What about them?
Now - how would I know what God's plan for the husband/father in the OP is? I don't know the man at all. I would never claim to know what God's personal plan is for another individual. When I comfort someone who is going through a crisis, I would NEVER tell them "This is God's plan for your life - just accept it." What I DO do, however, at the appropriate time (not at the funeral or in the emergency room when they've just been told their loved one is gone), is share my own experience. This sparks conversation, interaction, and they will usually open up. I don't ever preach to them - I simply share my own perspective and my own strength with them. I let them connect the dots - and either accept, reject, or continue to question.
As for those who don't recover as well - I can't and don't judge them. I don't know every wrinkle of their psyche, or every wound they've experienced which may impact their state of mind and emotion today. All I can do is be there for them, and pray that their suffering is lessened, and be open to being a tool to help them suffer less.
I do not believe in evolution because of "faith in Dawkins". I believed in it before I ever read anything by him, and you probably did to. I do not expect you to like his attacks on religion, but that was not what I was asking you to read. His last chapter in The Greatest Show on Earth did a better job than I've ever read before of explaining the nature of suffering in all species, not just people. He is a virtuoso when it comes to explaining biology.
This may be true, but his absolutely blatant disrespect and his combative, sarcastic style underscores his writings so heavily that I have very little use for him.
Kind of like, say, Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. Some of what they say may have some validity, but their style and biases are so off-setting that I simply don't CARE if they speak some truth - I'm not going to put myself through listening to them to get to a few juicy tidbits.
You had mentioned "genocide, cancer, disfigurements, unspeakable human cruelty" and asked me how they made sense. All of that is part of the indifference of nature to suffering in living beings, and why it ought to be expected. I recommended Dawkins because he was quite eloquent about the nature of cruelty and what role it plays in nature. It really wasn't one of his religion-bashing topics. What he said about it could make sense to people of faith.
I accept that nature is "red of tooth and claw." If I am ever in the mood to stick splinters under my fingernails, maybe I'll pick up Dawkins and read him instead. But if that's his point, I can probably avoid putting myself through that.
Please bear with me, Copernicus - I'm being a little facetious, not combative. I hope I don't come across as brushing your recommendations aside. Dawkins truly does make my skin crawl though.
BTW, you totally misunderstood what I meant when I said I hadn't accused you of "not caring". Of course, I know that you care about suffering, but you have found a way to deal with your anger and frustration at God for the things that you do not understand. I cannot imagine how I could do that if I did believe in a being such as the Christian God. It is the kind of thing that drives some people away from religion. Those that remain must develop a way to cope with the "God's Problem", as Bart Ehrmann has put it.
What you call dealing with "the God Problem," is, I think, what others call faith. You don't have it, you don't believe it, you don't accept it as an option. I can understand that mindset - I truly can. I don't think of it as foolish, or inferior. In some ways, it would feel liberating. I can see that side of your POV.
I've considered it, but I don't accept it. I do have faith. I simply do. I consider it a blessing, actually. It's not that it's never been shaken, but it's stronger than ever at this point in my life - BECAUSE of some of my hardships, not in spite of them.
I know that I cannot convince you, or others, of the validity of faith. That's the very crux of the debate surrounding theodicy.
From The Catholic Encylopedia:
"Theodicy, therefore, may be defined as the science which treats of God through the exercise of reason alone. It is a science because it systematically arranges the content of our knowledge about God and demonstrates, in the strict sense of the word, each of its propositions.
But it appeals to nature as its only source of proof, whereas theology sets forth our knowledge of God as drawn from the sources of supernatural revelation."
This is the impasse at which we find ourselves, and why this debate cannot be resolved, though each side firmly believes their own evidence.
So - no, in the context of theodicy, I will never be able to give an explanation which satisfies, and those who prescribe to theodicy know that.
All I can do, from my state of emotional strength and health, is relate my experiences and what has worked for me. My "proof" is in my testimony. Others will either accept or reject it, but what matters is that I've shared it. After that, it's their own decision - my work is done.
Peace.
