2 questions...

[Kenny]

Science is open to all possibilities in the Natural Physical Existence when objective verifiable evidence may be falsified by in the form of theories and hypothesis. It is thankfully independent of theological/philosophical hypothesis and 'beliefs' that cannot be falsified by objective scientific methods independent of the belief and non-belief in God(s). That is science without bias nor agenda.

I believe in God, but I do not selectively manipulate science to justify a religious agenda as you do.

biased agenda

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Two questions I can't answer:

1. The origin of pain, suffering, evil. It can't be from God because God is all good.
2. The mechanism by which intelligent design controls evolution. I can't think of one that is satisfying. Two possibilities: (1) God is a micro-manager at the quantum mechanics and molecular level, and (2) molecules are smart and can ask the designer what is needed so they can manipulate quantum mechanics randomness to affect the required changes.

From your later comments, you seem like a genuine seeker rather than another insufferable atheist apologist so I'll see if my explanation makes any sense.

1. Who told you that God is all-good? I never got that sense studying religion. Life is pain and suffering because of the world we live in. In fact, for an answer to your question, if you want the Judeo-Christian version, you have only to read to the third chapter. Life is suffering because of the way we see the world, dividing it into "good" and "evil." But all things are about taking the bad with the good. Second, suffering exists to teach us and help us grow. Third, human beings choose to allow evil in the first place. What would your life be like if nothing was difficult? Probably incredibly boring. And boredom is a state closely linked to depression. But if you want a stock answer, here one is:

This is called the problem of theodicy. The assumptions usually made in the problem statement are, with a little variance:

1. God is almighty and all-knowing
2. God does not want evil in the world
3. God is good

The problem goes on to state the fact that there is evil in the world, and claims a contradiction between the assumptions and this observation.

I see really no problem here. If just (1) was true, God could certainly do anything. If (1) and (2) were true, there certainly would be no evil in the world. But if (3) were true, God would do only things that are good, regardless of whether He could.

Now we have (1), (2) and (3). God could do anything, but since He is good he will not do just anything. There's no contradiction. God could remove all evil, but that would not be good.

Up to that point it's all just logic. The reason that removing evil would not be good is more a matter of speculation. I suspect it has to do with free will: people are allowed to choose between good and evil, and removing the choice would be worse than the evil that ensues. This is just my speculation. God surely has His reasons.

Goodness doesn't always mean doing what is the most convenient to me. Quoting C.S. Lewis in A Grief Observed,

What do people mean when they say, "I am not afraid of God because I know He is good"? Have they never even been to a dentist?

2. Read up on teleology. The assertion goes that things are kind of designed to what they will become. That is, a seed has the genes in it to make a tree, and not just any tree, that specific tree it wants to become. Did you notice? I said, the tree it wants to become. Living things make choices. Some species die out because they don't want to change. Some adapt to a situation. Some adapt to such an extent that they split off into a new grouping. This is also an extension of free will in part 1. If humans can make decisions, or animals, or plants, then it follows that their group can make massive decisions as a species. And some of these can do strange things.

 

[JoshuaTree]

An intuitive idea which I hadn't considered. Solves all the problems (except the problem of evil) so I may have to adopt it after thinking about it more.

Total radical determinism; but by God, not by physics. I like it.

So the randomness of the quantum mechanics wavefunction collapse is not random at all, but just looks random because God makes it look random. Weirdly satisfying.

By design man lacks the faith to realize he is perfect and God is in control, call this design original sin if you like. This design allows man to experience the frustration of sin, death, and the power of the devil within a perfect creation, call this design free will if you like. What better way for an all powerful God to expresd his love than to awaken us to the perfection of his plan through the gift of faith? No harm, no foul on God's part as evil never really was.

 

[Cary Cook]

Hard to refute, but it seems wrong somehow. I think there is an objective standard, something like Kant's categorical imperative. But not everyone will accept my view as their view. So there is an objective standard which is subjectively accepted by each person. Weird.

Yes, if there is no objective standard, morality is a matter of individual preference as you note.

I know of only 2 possibilities for an objective standard for morality:
1. a Supreme Being
2. the total ratio of happiness to unhappiness in the universe

The 2nd is the one atheists could use, but haven't yet figured out. Defining happiness as that emotion (or factor affecting emotion) that causes one to prefer living over not living, then there is an objectively true ratio of happiness to unhappiness in the universe. Any behavior that causes more happiness is moral. Any behavior that causes more unhappiness is immoral.

The issue of the intent of the behavior vs. the results of the behavior
is separate, and doesn't affect morality itself.

But even though there is an objective standard, it is not necessarily subjectively accepted by each person. We live in a world where people disagree on the existence and nature of the standard.

 

[shunyadragon]

biased agenda

I will take this as a failure to respond which further confirms my previous posts.

Science is science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know of only 2 possibilities for an objective standard for morality:
1. a Supreme Being
2. the total ratio of happiness to unhappiness in the universe

The 2nd is the one atheists could use, but haven't yet figured out. Defining happiness as that emotion (or factor affecting emotion) that causes one to prefer living over not living, then there is an objectively true ratio of happiness to unhappiness in the universe. Any behavior that causes more happiness is moral. Any behavior that causes more unhappiness is immoral.

The issue of the intent of the behavior vs. the results of the behavior
is separate, and doesn't affect morality itself.

But even though there is an objective standard, it is not necessarily subjectively accepted by each person. We live in a world where people disagree on the existence and nature of the standard.

Neither of the above is adequate justification for an 'Objective Moral Standard' for which there is no evidence that it even exists.

No, atheists and the scientific perspective would not touch #2 with a ten foot pole.

Morality by definition is neither 'objective' nor 'subjective,' though it may have objective and subjective attributes.

 

[Kenny]

I will take this as a failure to respond which further confirms my previous posts.

Science is science.

Done that, tried that but your bias seems to be a border wall.

 

[Cary Cook]

Neither of the above is adequate justification for an 'Objective Moral Standard' for which there is no evidence that it even exists.

No, atheists and the scientific perspective would not touch #2 with a ten foot pole.

Morality by definition is neither 'objective' nor 'subjective,' though it may have objective and subjective attributes.

Hah! Possibly some Christian will challenge you to propose an alternative. But it's not worth my time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Done that, tried that but your bias seems to be a border wall.

You have done nothing of the sort!

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Hah! Possibly some Christian will challenge you to propose an alternative. But it's not worth my time.

Confusing, the Christian would propose #1 A Supreme Being as the 'Source,' but they would also fail to provide an adequate explanation and specific description and definition as to what is the Objective Moral Standard.

What is the 'Objective Moral Standard'?

Still waiting for any Theist Christian or otherwise to provide a specific description and definition for this 'Objective Moral Standard.'

Still waiting . . .

Scientists can explain and describe morals and ethics as a product of the social and cultural evolution of humanity common in one form or another consistently in all human cultures and societies. Simpler forms of morals and ethics are found in other primates and higher mammals, which provides evidence for the evolution of morals and ethics, Atheists accept this as the explanation without God. Many Theistic Evolutionists like my self see this as how God Created humans through evolution. .

 

[dfnj]

Two questions I can't answer:

1. The origin of pain, suffering, evil. It can't be from God because God is all good.
2. The mechanism by which intelligent design controls evolution. I can't think of one that is satisfying. Two possibilities: (1) God is a micro-manager at the quantum mechanics and molecular level, and (2) molecules are smart and can ask the designer what is needed so they can manipulate quantum mechanics randomness to affect the required changes.

1. I think the idea of God being evil is an anthropomorphic protection. Our creator God neither good nor evil. It is man who attributes meaning to his experiences. Our subjective judgments are not absolute truths. God is all good in the larger sense as creator of every possibility.

2. We have no idea what IT is that decides which quantum state gets realized. The word God is a representation of mysteries of existence. So God is responsible for everything that occurs in His creation. Is it good, is it bad. Creation is not ours to judge. We are just servants to our experiences of reality.

 

[tayla]

you seem like a genuine seeker rather than another insufferable atheist apologist

I am not an Atheist. I strongly believe in God, as my religion highlights.

 

[tayla]

Life is suffering because of the way we see the world, dividing it into "good" and "evil."

Somehow I doubt this explains the pain and suffering of an animal being eaten alive by a carnivore. Or a person being tortured to death. Pain actually physically hurts.

 

[tayla]

Who told you that God is all-good? I never got that sense studying religion.

As my religion shows, I am a deist, meaning, that I reject revealed religion. I use as my sources of information philosophy, psychology, and my own reason.

 

[tayla]

suffering exists to teach us and help us grow.

Being tortured to death or eaten alive doesn't help you grow.

 

[tayla]

human beings choose to allow evil in the first place.

What? When did I do this?

 

[tayla]

a seed has the genes in it to make a tree, and not just any tree, that specific tree it wants to become.

This idea would have to integrate with the incredibly intricate and complex mechanisms and structures of cellular chemical biology. Part of my objection is that the complexity means there is no way to intervene to nudge it into a particular direction.

I might be willing to accept that the soul of a tree wants to become something, and so it does. My problem with this, though, is that there is no way to prove it. In fact, in my view, there is no way to prove anything about the structure and function of the spiritual realm.

 

[tayla]

you seem like a genuine seeker

Yes, thank you for you comments. I enjoy considering other people's views to help me better understand reality.

 

[tayla]

The 2nd is the one atheists could use, but haven't yet figured out. Defining happiness as that emotion (or factor affecting emotion) that causes one to prefer living over not living, then there is an objectively true ratio of happiness to unhappiness in the universe. Any behavior that causes more happiness is moral. Any behavior that causes more unhappiness is immoral.

Ian Shiparo of Yale has an online course (called the Moral Foundations of Politics) on YouTube in which he discusses at length the pros and cons of utilitarianism. No one can figure it out and they never will.

 

[Cary Cook]

Ian Shiparo of Yale has an online course (called the Moral Foundations of Politics) on YouTube in which he discusses at length the pros and cons of utilitarianism. No one can figure it out and they never will.

Utilitarianism is another subject.
Morality can be figured out by critical thinking alone.