Theists...

[Yerda]

...who accept evolutionary biology, how do you respond to Steven Pinker?

What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows.

The quote directly refers to ID. My point would be, however, that in the similar vein as the problem of evil, how do you reconcile a benevolent creator and a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters?

Does God take nothing to do with evolutionary change?

 

[sandandfoam]

Why do bad things happen to good people ? I think Rabbi Simmons perspective captures it
(Taken from here Why Bad Things Happen to Good People - Judaism )

GROUND RULE #3 - ETERNITY

The question of "why do bad things happen to good people" has a lot to do with how we look at existence. The way we usually perceive things is like this: A "good life" means that I make a comfortable living, I enjoy good health, and then I die peacefully at age 80. That's a good life. Anything else is "bad."

In a limited sense, that's true. But if we have a soul and there is such a thing as eternity, then that changes the picture entirely. Eighty years in the face of eternity is not such a big deal.

From Judaism's perspective, our eternal soul is as real as our thumb. This is the world of doing, and the "world to come" is where we experience the eternal reality of whatever we've become. Do you think after being responsible for the torture and deaths of millions of people, that Hitler could really "end it all" by just swallowing some poison? No. Ultimate justice is found in another dimension.

But the concept goes much deeper. From an eternal view, if the ultimate pleasure we're going after is transcendence - the eternal relationship with the Almighty Himself, then who would be luckier: Someone who lives an easy life with little connection to God, or someone who is born handicapped, and despite the challenges, develops a connection with God. Who would be "luckier" in terms of eternal existence? All I'm trying to point out is that the rules of life start to look different from the point of view of eternity, as opposed to just the 70 or 80 years we have on earth.

 

[rojse]

...who accept evolutionary biology, how do you respond to Steven Pinker?

What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows.

The quote directly refers to ID. My point would be, however, that in the similar vein as the problem of evil, how do you reconcile a benevolent creator and a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters?

Does God take nothing to do with evolutionary change?

The old argument about anything like this that has no benefit is that it is a product of the fall.

 

[logician]

How about the obvious, life's a crapshoot, there is no god pulling the strings.

 

[agent_smith]

How about the obvious, life's a crapshoot, there is no god pulling the strings.

It's amazing how saying "Because God is imaginary" makes a LOT more sense, in a LOT less words, then all the theistic essays about how God needs to torture people as it's all part of his divine plan.

One day the world will wake up and reject imaginary friends :sleep:

 

[rojse]

It's amazing how saying "Because God is imaginary" makes a LOT more sense, in a LOT less words, then all the theistic essays about how God needs to torture people as it's all part of his divine plan.

One day the world will wake up and reject imaginary friends :sleep:

Possibly, but in the meantime, those people will say that parasites and diseases with no discernable benefit are the product of the fall of man.

 

[sandandfoam]

Possibly, but in the meantime, those people will say that parasites and diseases with no discernable benefit are the product of the fall of man.

Really? I believe in God and I think the story of the fall of man is just that,a story.

 

[PureX]

...who accept evolutionary biology, how do you respond to Steven Pinker?

What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows.

The quote directly refers to ID. My point would be, however, that in the similar vein as the problem of evil, how do you reconcile a benevolent creator and a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters?

Does God take nothing to do with evolutionary change?

If one makes the foolish assumption that the only possible interest and purpose of a creator-god is to serve the well-being of mankind, these would be legitimate questions/complaints. But logically, a creator-god would more likely be interested in the well being of all that exists, not just the well-being of we humans. So that the existence and the well-being of the predator would be as important as the existence and well-being of it's pray.

As I look at the universe around me, I see a system that allows more for the greatest diversity of forms, than for safety and security of just a special few. And if, as many theists believe, our particular form of being is only temporary, and that we embody other more eternal forms later on, then it makes complete sense that the creator would focus on variety rather than longevity, in this realm.

God is the god of all, not just the god of we humans. Creation does not exist to serve us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How about the obvious, life's a crapshoot, there is no god pulling the strings.

A crapshoot is a creative enterprise.

 

[crystalonyx]

If one makes the foolish assumption that the only possible interest and purpose of a creator-god is to serve the well-being of mankind, these would be legitimate questions/complaints. But logically, a creator-god would more likely be interested in the well being of all that exists, not just the well-being of we humans. So that the existence and the well-being of the predator would be as important as the existence and well-being of it's pray.

As I look at the universe around me, I see a system that allows more for the greatest diversity of forms, than for safety and security of just a special few. And if, as many theists believe, our particular form of being is only temporary, and that we embody other more eternal forms later on, then it makes complete sense that the creator would focus on variety rather than longevity, in this realm.

God is the god of all, not just the god of we humans. Creation does not exist to serve us.

Actually, you only have to look around the earth to come to this conclusion, at least you don't have a selfish homo-sapiens centered view of religion.

 

[PureX]

Actually, you only have to look around the earth to come to this conclusion, at least you don't have a selfish homo-sapiens centered view of religion.

One of the problems with religions is that they tend to anthropomorphize "God" instead of allowing God to remain a great mystery. They turn God into a human-like personality which in turn begs a lot of otherwise silly questions. And the main problem with atheism, then, is that it has nothing to contribute except as an opposition to such anthropomorphic conceptions of "God". So the debate between these two never really address the nature or existence of "God" so much as they argue about the anthropomorphic religious imagery. At least that's been my observation.

 

[fantome profane]

And the main problem with atheism, then, is that it has nothing to contribute except as an opposition to such anthropomorphic conceptions of "God".

Isn’t that enough?

 

[agent_smith]

One of the problems with religions is that they tend to anthropomorphize "God" instead of allowing God to remain a great mystery. They turn God into a human-like personality which in turn begs a lot of otherwise silly questions. And the main problem with atheism, then, is that it has nothing to contribute except as an opposition to such anthropomorphic conceptions of "God". So the debate between these two never really address the nature or existence of "God" so much as they argue about the anthropomorphic religious imagery. At least that's been my observation.

If your only argument for God is a God of the gaps ("Goddidit") or "God is mysterious; it is impossible to define him" then what is the point in even discussing it in the first place, and why the heck are children being TOLD this mysterious-being exists when there is no evidence to support it?!

 

[Willamena]

If your only argument for God is a God of the gaps ("Goddidit") or "God is mysterious; it is impossible to define him" then what is the point in even discussing it in the first place, and why the heck are children being TOLD this mysterious-being exists when there is no evidence to support it?!

The God that is the mystery doesn't fill ANY gaps, that's the thing; the imaged "God" does.

 

[agent_smith]

The God that is the mystery doesn't fill ANY gaps, that's the thing; the imaged "God" does.

Yes it does...

The "mysterious" God I am talking about here is the "exists outside of time and space, formless, omnimax, eternal... thing".
Where did the universe come from? Goddidit.
How did life start? Goddidit.
What happens when we die? We live forever, not die. Goddidit.
Why are we hear? "God is mysterious/unknown" (That's meant to be the "answer" to the question)

Goddidit fills every gap in the universe with a meaningless response, that supposedly also gives "evidence" for God's existence. How, exactly, I have no idea.

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes it does...

The "mysterious" God I am talking about here is the "exists outside of time and space, formless, omnimax, eternal... thing".
Where did the universe come from? Goddidit.
How did life start? Goddidit.
What happens when we die? We live forever, not die. Goddidit.
Why are we hear? "God is mysterious/unknown" (That's meant to be the "answer" to the question)

Goddidit fills every gap in the universe with a meaningless response, that supposedly also gives "evidence" for God's existence. How, exactly, I have no idea.

You're missing the point Willamena made.

 

[PureX]

You're missing the point Willamena made.

Yes. It seems to me that atheists are often as blind and tunnel-visioned as the theists they rail against. Once we remove the religionist's depictions of God as the 'god of the gaps', they have no argument left, and no more a way of conceptualizing the mystery than the religionists do. Neither one of them are capable of grasping, accepting, or living within the reality of a 'divine mystery', it seems to me. The religionists need the atheist's skepticism to transcend the 'god of the gaps' trap, while the atheists need the religionist's respect for the unknown and unknowable to transcend their own pointlessness.

True faith is agnostic.

 

[crystalonyx]

Yes. It seems to me that atheists are often as blind and tunnel-visioned as the theists they rail against. Once we remove the religionist's depictions of God as the 'god of the gaps', they have no argument left, and no more a way of conceptualizing the mystery than the religionists do. Neither one of them are capable of grasping, accepting, or living within the reality of a 'divine mystery', it seems to me. The religionists need the atheist's skepticism to transcend the 'god of the gaps' trap, while the atheists need the religionist's respect for the unknown and unknowable to transcend their own pointlessness.

True faith is agnostic.

There is no divine mystery, there is no reality. Life is an illusion.

 

[Willamena]

Yes it does...

The "mysterious" God I am talking about here is the "exists outside of time and space, formless, omnimax, eternal... thing".
Where did the universe come from? Goddidit.
How did life start? Goddidit.
What happens when we die? We live forever, not die. Goddidit.
Why are we hear? "God is mysterious/unknown" (That's meant to be the "answer" to the question)

Goddidit fills every gap in the universe with a meaningless response, that supposedly also gives "evidence" for God's existence. How, exactly, I have no idea.

Right; and how can a "thing out of time and space, formless, omnimax, eternal..." fill any gaps in time/space, form, reality?
The answers to all your questions are "I don't know." Now, it is entirely possible that "I don't know" be taken as an image of "God". Then it can fill gaps. But the thing outside of time/space, etc., could not.

We have to make God an "I-don't-know thing" before we can manipulate it. That thing, to us, is an idea (imaged).

The "mystery," on the other hand, refers to what's left after you take the "I-don't-know thing" out of the idea.

(Edited in a vain attempt to clarify.)

 

[Wandered Off]

My point would be, however, that in the similar vein as the problem of evil, how do you reconcile a benevolent creator and a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters?

Well the theists in the churches of my youth blamed humans. Here's an example of some that "reasoning":

When Adam sinned, however, the Lord cursed the universe. In essence there was a change, and along with that change God began to uphold the creation in a cursed state. Suffering and death entered into His creation. The whole universe now suffers from the effects of sin (Romans 8:22).

Why Does God's Creation Include Death & Suffering? - Answers in Genesis

This theory seems absurd on so many levels that I whined about it in another thread...
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...803-all-creation-cursed-sins-two-nudists.html
"It paints a demeaning and immature picture of God throwing the biggest tantrum ever to curse every future living creature for all time because of the bad judgment of two people."