My approach
When I initially thought about this post, I wanted to list the major points that I felt were Jim’s strongest from the book along with my reaction(s) to them. After further consideration, I decided to diverge from my initial approach. I will be breaking this down into what I see (from a 21st century American’s eyes) as some of the major different perspectives from which we can address these questions about God, pain, suffering, and the like.
I realize that I can’t catch all the fish with the nets I am casting (my generalizations and stereotypes encapsulated by each section below), but I am going under some assumptions based on experience and exposure to the below world views that will help convey different ways I see that one can approach these questions. I also realize that in areas it may seem incomplete or oversimplified, either due to the fact that this is a blog entry and I can only do so much or perhaps because I simply am not well versed in it. One can and may indeed float between the different sections of thought I discuss below, because this can be a very complex undergoing of exploration for the human mind. One cannot simply avoid the full spectrum of observances and perspectives if they wish to take this on in its entirety, which by no means do I subscribe I am fully doing here.
Let’s proceed.
Perspective One: There is definitely no God | God is possible, but by no means probable | God can’t be discovered, confirmed, or denied
This perspective doesn’t just include atheists, agnostics, non-deists, and the like. As previously alluded to, adherents to a specific religion and others may find themselves at least partially involved in this camp, whether led here by science, experience, history, or perhaps just a hunch or personal decision without really knowing why. Any one (or a combination) of these reasons, leading oneself to a certain camp of thought, could be descriptive of any person across any perspective. We all have our reasons (or lack thereof) for our position.
Generally, I think of the following for this camp:
- Shaped by modern culture, progress, and science.
- The human mind arrives at perspectives based on the current understanding of our world through the natural sciences (and its implications), experience, and history which illuminate our past, present, and future.
- Logic, reason, and skepticism are highly regarded, respected, and sought after as tools to better understand the reality of our increasingly complex and changing world.
Most of my experience with this camp has been primarily intellectually based: those that hold this position based on a set of steps taken intellectually that have guided them to their current understanding of the cosmos. In fact, many in this camp are former adherents to religion, especially those that grew up in the church here in America. A good percentage here actually know the Christian doctrines and scriptures better than many Christians themselves do, since many took a long hard look at their religion, resulting in the gradual and eventual renouncement of it.
The question of “Should We Fire God?” almost seems irrelevant or pointless, just like asking “Should We Fire Santa?” or “Should We Fire Tooth Fairies?” If one believes there is little to no reason to believe a deity, that some may call God, exists then why ask this hypothetical question? Perhaps it’s not even a good question to ask if there indeed was a God. If one goes so far as to entertain the idea that a god(s), or God, may indeed exist, then there should be things we can conclude about him based on the natural world around us, right?
What tools would one use to determine or conjecture what God might be like? We live in a time of much moral progress. In general, human beings in the emerging first world countries treat each other much more civil and moral than they did decades, centuries, and millennia ago. If our actions (or lack thereof) can be cataloged as either moral or immoral, then this is one tool we can attempt to measure God against since he should be a higher moral being, correct? Or at least able to stand against the same moral ruler?
If you see your friend tied to a chair being tortured, could you neglect that? If you just didn’t care and walked away or simply just watched, then you would be neglectful and labeled as evil if you had the power to stop it. If the man doing the torturing had henchmen that were numerous, strong, and wielded powerful weapons, then you likely would not be strong enough to go up against them. Your efforts would fail and in fact you would die trying. You would be labeled either heroic or idiotic for your attempt to protect your friend. Perhaps someone kidnapped your friend and you simply don’t know about the torturing. You can’t be held responsible or even try to protect your friend if you don’t know about it.
Neglectful – evil
Powerless – not at fault
Lacking Knowledge – not at fault
This is the same story as mentioned in the first post of this series which seems to lead (or confirm with) many to conclude that God simply is not there or if he is, then he would be characterized by the likes of Dawkins' description in the first post. If he was there, then the world would be much different, in terms of biology, pain and suffering, etc. This is the expectation. In regards to pain, suffering, and evil it only seems logical to conclude then that God either doesn’t care (neglectful), isn’t powerful enough (not omnipotent), or doesn’t know about it (not omniscient), mostly painting God as actively evil, or at least immoral (if there’s a difference). There is no chance for God really to be good in these scenarios since any real perceived action on God’s behalf simply is not there. Good things and bad things happen to both good and bad people alike with a blind indifference to their morality.
There may be those out there that give God allowances for more leighway in their interpretation and perception of him gathered from the world around them, but I think the content here fairly accurately depicts the common stance I hear from those characterized by this camp.
Perspective Two: I think there may be a God | I’m not sure
Deists, agnostics, etc.
Many of the same things above could be used to describe this section as well. The main reason for including this section is to acknowledge the perspective that the hypothesis of God’s existence is at least 50% or higher for many, though they may not subscribe to a particular version of God(s) from Holy text. There really are so many different views of gods/God that I feel like I am throwing and grasping at straws trying to contain them in these nice little neat categories. But for the sake of some structure, I will leave this section mainly as a place holder that can borrow from the other sections as well as from its own.
I ended up needing to break this post here so that I can attempt to keep the post shorter. In Part 3b, I will explore Perspective Three: Holy Scriptures and religion.
Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment