it’s kind of hard to explain the infinite with the finite. Good thing God is going to help us tell who He is. Good thing He told us who He is.

To me, it’s a benefit to believe in God. It gives me something to look forward to. I think atheism is actually a form of pessimism. For instance, if I were talking to an atheist I’d simply tell them to think about this:

We all plan for our retirement. You (the atheist) are planning for a certain amount of years here on earth, and are working toward that goal. Whereas, I a Christian am not only planning to enjoy retirement here on earth after a lifetime of work, but I’m believing in an eternity of doing so. Now if you (the atheist) are right, and we die and there is nothing, we both get the same thing. But, if I the Christian, am right about what happens when we die, then we’ll both live eternally. The difference is I’ll be enjoying eternal paradise, free of charge, and your retirement will literally be hell.

Another twist on finite knowledge? Maybe. But it worked to get the attention of an older man who believed Christ was a myth, and provable knowledge was the only truth.

Sometimes we miss opportunities to explain Christ because we think we may be using a wrong witnessing method. My take on it is to witness however we can, within the bounds of the Bible, of course. But not make the how of it more important than the Who of it.

Dr. G:

If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I was thinking the same thing. It’s crazy where the thread went (and I read it ALL +links!), but the original blog was how much of a failure this tool is when conversing (or perhaps converting) atheists.

I agree with the “flaws” of the circle, but do not consider them problematic. In fact, they truth revealed in that the Truth may lay outside of our tiny area of knowledge/experience, forces us to have some epistemological humility. But the best thing it does, is start a conversation, where none exists before. May God be praised!

BTW, as for the rest of the comments, all the conversation reveals how far on the fringes of our human capacity these thoughts of God/no god exist, and yet how central to our core they are. From the ridiculous amount of articulation required, to the insanity practiced when obsessed. We are all capable of egregious error.

Yeah; why not use it to get some humility out of EVERYBODY?

Looks good to me.

But that’s the rub. You won’t know you’ve chosen poorly until it’s too late. Unlike science, where theories can be tested here and now, there is no test which Christians can employ to determine whether the ethics they’ve chosen are the most God-like.

Now you’re looking at a problem of epistemology: how we can know what things correspond with reality, as opposed to ontology, what things actually exist. The two discussions are not the same thing; but if you refuse to accept that ethics actually exist and are grounded in something, you certainly can’t possibly know what ethics are in detail.

You seem to assume that ethics aren’t knowable because they aren’t discovered in the same way as science. But in fact there is a deep similarity between the two, and where they differ, they differ no more than many other fields of human knowledge. With science, we believe that there’s a consistent set of rules behind all the manipulations of matter that we see; but it’s a different matter to figure out what those rules are, and among the things that help us to converge on knowledge that corresponds with reality are repeatable experiments — but as Goedel proved, there is no simple rule that will lead one to truth (no, not even the “scientific method”). Morality and ethics aren’t exactly like natural science, but there are other examples that aren’t like natural science; for example, (human) history can’t be confirmed by repeatable experiments either.

Like I said before: “This is precisely what we mean when we say that monotheism offers a grounding for ethics and morality. We do NOT mean that theism offers certitude; we mean that if you grant monotheism, ethics follows, and if you do not grant it, ethics are not available.”

I’m not proving that I know exactly what ethics actually are; I’m claiming that they exist. This is the same claim a scientist makes: he doesn’t know what the laws governing all physical interactions are, but he claims they exist. An earlier generation of scientists went further to claim that those laws would be discoverable because God was the creator and we, as image-bearers, were made to be able to find them.

We’re not discussing a particular strand of evil, but evil in general. I still don’t see how God is not responsible for evil.

I did discuss that in my last reply; here’s another approach.

If the world is a story, God is the storyteller. Shakespeare is responsible for the murders in his stories in a similar way that God is responsible for the murders and deaths in His. Did Shakespeare commit murder against his characters?

The woman believed God was telling her to kill her children, as a way to prove her faith. You may read the story yourself.

I know what she claimed to hear — I don’t know why she believed it. After the chaplain talked to her, he might decide a psychotherapist was needed; I have a good deal of suspicion that would be needed. It’s certain that no command from God was ever recorded in Scripture like the one she claims she was given.

God has commanded his followers to kill children in the past. It stands to reason he may command it again, for whatever “inscrutable” or “mysterious” reasons he has.

I want to answer this — what incident are you talking about? The one I know of offhand involves the Midianites, in Numbers 31. I’m guessing, because it’s not what you’re claiming; but certainly infants would be killed.

This sounds very much like you’re conceding that the good exists apart from God.

I’m saying that goodness is grounded in the nature of God; it isn’t His creation. That doesn’t mean it exists apart from God, since it’s grounded in His nature. Good is not something God changes or can change. (Or so goes the theory.)

And if love and holiness are parts of God’s nature, then how could his commands be anything but love-filled and holy?

Agreed. And just, and merciful, and longsuffering, and many other things. What are you telling me?

You can reverse-engineer God’s commands to try to find the ethical basis for them, and then try to apply those ethics to your own situation; that’s an excellent way to derive ethics. God’s commands won’t tell us ethics directly; commands are by their nature moral (related to how to act in the current situation) rather than ethical (related to what things to value regardless of situation). The Psalms are full of talk about meditating on the commands of God in order to find the principles.

Perhaps, but then we merely arrive at a problem we’ve come to before. How do we know we’ve found the Good? What standard do we use?

How is that problem different from any other branch of epistemology? In order to even reach it we have to agree that Good exists objectively — in fact, we have to at least presume that it’s discoverable by humans (in order to ask how it’s discoverable). Have you really conceded that much?

Wm wrote,

Pick your denomination, and you’ve chosen your ethics… But if Christianity is not merely a human construct, if you pick the wrong one you’ve chosen poorly.

But that’s the rub. You won’t know you’ve chosen poorly until it’s too late. Unlike science, where theories can be tested here and now, there is no test which Christians can employ to determine whether the ethics they’ve chosen are the most God-like. Christians claim to be moral objectivists, but they act like moral relativists. To give one hot-button example, I see Christians both oppose and endorse gay marriage. Can you prove who is in the right?

There is no such thing as utter evil in the Christian worldview. Utter evil would be the total repudiation of God’s purpose; it would undo even creation, and thus would not exist. But if evil is a failure to live up to God’s standards, surely it’s conceivable that such failures can exist.

We’re not discussing a particular strand of evil, but evil in general. I still don’t see how God is not responsible for evil.

Why do you assume that murder is the only possible action that results in a dead human being? Does a rockslide commit murder?

I haven’t. But when a child or infant dies to due the actions or commands of God, we may right ask, why is that not murder.

I don’t know what reason she gave, so I can’t possibly respond to it.

The woman believed God was telling her to kill her children, as a way to prove her faith. You may read the story yourself.

So again, I ask, what in the Christian worldview says her actions were objectively evil? God has commanded his followers to kill children in the past. It stands to reason he may command it again, for whatever “inscrutable” or “mysterious” reasons he has.

God’s commands do not provide the logical ground for good. Love and Holiness were good before God ever commanded them, and God posesses them eternally.

This sounds very much like you’re conceding that the good exists apart from God. And if love and holiness are parts of God’s nature, then how could his commands be anything but love-filled and holy?

If Good is grounded in God, then in order to fully know Good, one must start with a knowledge of God.

Perhaps, but then we merely arrive at a problem we’ve come to before. How do we know we’ve found the Good? What standard do we use?

That’s not really the question asked. Rather, the question is “How can evil exist in the world if an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God exists?”

I think that’s a powerful question; the only way out is to call into question one of its premises. As you stated, atheists call into question God’s existence, while deists call into question His (effectual) power. I would ask what the question means by calling God all-loving; the paradox seems to hinge on that meaning that God loves all things equally and treats them all the same. But that’s not present in any reading of the Bible I know of.

The Bible says that “God is love”, but when the Bible says that “God so loved the world”, He shows it not by giving every atom everlasting life, but by providing everlasting life to whoever believes. That’s much more limited than “God loves each and every thing.”

The paradox melts away if you accept that God can love different things differently.

Now, there are still questions. For example, you asked elsewhere how God could possibly be just in killing an innocent infant. But those are different questions; not part of the paradox of love, power, and knowledge.

-Wm

But I maintain that, in effect, Christian morality is a matter of choice. Pick your denomination, and you’ve chosen your morality. Heck, even if there’s no denomination that suits you, you can create your own.

I grant your point that not all Christians or Christian denominations agree on all aspects of ethics (note that I use the term ‘ethics’ to address universal value concerns, while ‘morals’ addresses the question of how to put ethics into practice in a particular situation; see Wikipedia for a discussion of the distinction). There’s a lot of agreement, but obviously not total, and a “heretic” or “cult” could obviously get it all wrong at any time (scare quotes intentional, stick with me). So is it possible to tell the difference between the ethics of a “cult” and the ethics of the “real Christianity” without simply counting heads?

Well, that depends on whether there IS an ethics of the real Christianity. And that, in turn, depends on whether Christianity is a real thing. If Christianity is a real thing, then some denominations are further from it than others, in ethical matters as well as other matters.

Pick your denomination, and you’ve chosen your ethics… But if Christianity is not merely a human construct, if you pick the wrong one you’ve chosen poorly. Compare this to quantum theory; you can pick the school you want to follow, and right now most of them are still not known to be wrong. But because quantum theory corresponds to reality, however, some of the schools are closer to reality than others.

This is precisely what we mean when we say that monotheism offers a grounding for ethics and morality. We do NOT mean that theism offers certitude; we mean that if you grant monotheism, ethics follows, and if you do not grant it, ethics are not available.

“Not valid. Everything originates from God; but everything created is distinct from God. You’re arguing against monism (all is one), not theism (God is above all creation).”
We agree, evil originates with God. That being the case, how is anything really “evil” then, in the Christian worldview?

There is no such thing as utter evil in the Christian worldview. Utter evil would be the total repudiation of God’s purpose; it would undo even creation, and thus would not exist. But if evil is a failure to live up to God’s standards, surely it’s conceivable that such failures can exist.

Then what crime were the children and infants God killed, or commanded to be killed, guilty of, so that it wasn’t murder?

Why do you assume that murder is the only possible action that results in a dead human being? Does a rockslide commit murder?

(And yes, God has decreed that an innocent human being be killed one time — His own Son.)

Wm, if a woman kills her children based on, as she believes, a command of God, how does the Christian gainsay her?

There are many different answers. The answer the hangman must give is that God commanded him to punish her, and God’s commands to her were not given to him. The answer the prison chaplain must give would be to try to reason with her; unfortunately, I don’t know what reason she gave, so I can’t possibly respond to it.

“Since ethics are grounded in the eternal, immutable nature of God, they are not changeable.”
Perhaps, but this gives us no information whether these ethics are good, right, just, etc. They are merely declared to be so.

That’s true. We’ll have to investigate the specific details to decide THAT one; abstract philosophy won’t carry us any further.

It seems you hold to what Robert Adams termed “the modified divine command theory,” which claims that God must properly command what is loving, or consistent with that which is loving, because that is his very nature. But as Louis P. Pojman observed: “If we prefer the modified divine command theory to the divine command theory, then we must say that the divine command theory is false, and the modified divine command theory becomes equivalent to the autonomy thesis: the Good (or right) is not good (or right) simply because God commands it.

I don’t see how that supports the autonomy thesis… But perhaps I have the wrong definition (Wittgenstein’s??). But yes, if ethics and morals aren’t grounded in God’s commands but are instead grounded in God’s nature, then the command theory is false. I don’t see any need to talk about a “modified divine command theory”; I don’t need to modify a theory which operates from incorrect premises.

God’s commands do not provide the logical ground for good. Love and Holiness were good before God ever commanded them, and God posesses them eternally. God’s commands, however, provide one of the ways by which good can be seen.

Furthermore, if this is correct, then we can discover our ethical duties through reason, independent of God’s command. For what is good for his creatures is so objectively.

The fact that good is objective does not mean that it is apparent or intuitive without God’s revelation (including His command). After all, reason requires premises in order to operate. If Good is grounded in God, then in order to fully know Good, one must start with a knowledge of God. If you know some part of the Good, then you can reason the other way, to a knowledge of God.

(Well, assuming that it’s correct that God’s nature is the ground of ethics.)

-Wm

C. Barton wrote,

Another simple tack I’d like to offer is the question of evil: How can such horrors and evil exist in the world if a Just God exists?

That’s not really the question asked. Rather, the question is “How can evil exist in the world if an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God exists?”

If God does not exist, then we are resposible for the evil we do as a race, and cannot shift the blame to a deity (through inaction, I presume)…

Yes, humans are responsible for moral evil. But moral evil is not the only evil in existence. There is natural evil as well.

therefore why would we shift the blame to God when we acknowlege His existence?

Due to the qualities he allegedly possesses, i.e., all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving. Now, if you believe in a distant, neutral god, like the deists do, or no god at all, like the atheists do, then the problem disappears.

Jason wrote,

Since secular law has already established that murdering children is okay, provided that it is done in the womb by a doctor I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Perhaps then you should read Wm’s critique of your stance.

Euthyphro’s fault was to be simply a foil for Socrates’ dialog. Socrates arbitrarily defined piety as that which was loved by the gods, and then proceeded to play the various deities off against each other.

You’ve failed to understand the dilemma.

No, I’m saying that saying you have no belief in God is no proof that there is none.

It was never intended as such. But similarly, your belief in God (or belief in God, in general) is no proof that there is one either.

Here’s the death toll of atheistic regimes in the twentieth century.

Since you failed to address any of the points in my article, we’ll categorize your views on this matter as purely faith-based beliefs.