Showing posts with label theodicy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theodicy. Show all posts

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Rick Warren's Broken Moral Compass

Rick Warren is a Christian pastor and the bestselling author of the book 'The Purpose Driven Life', which had reportedly sold more than 30 million copies back in 2007.

Consider Warren's view of the Christian Bible, given by this quote from 'Day 24' of 'The Purpose Driven Life', entitled 'Transformed by Truth' --


      I must accept its authority.   The Bible must become the authoritative standard for my life: the compass I rely on for direction, the counsel I listen to for making wise decisions, and the benchmark I use for evaluating everything.   The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life.



Now consider Warren's view of what it means to 'surrender to God', given by this quote from 'Day 10' of 'The Purpose Driven Life', entitled 'The Heart of Worship' (italics added) --


      What it means to surrender.  Surrendering to God is not passive resignation, fatalism, or an excuse for laziness.  It is not accepting the status quo.  It may mean the exact opposite: sacrificing your life or suffering in order to change what needs to be changed.  God often calls surrendered people to do battle on his behalf.  Surrendering is not for cowards or doormats.  Likewise, it does not mean giving up rational thinking.  God would not waste the mind he gave you!  God does not want robots to serve him.  Surrendering is not repressing your personality.  God wants to use your unique personality.  Rather than its being diminished, surrendering enhances it.
...

      Surrendering is best demonstrated in obedience.  You say “yes, Lord” to whatever he asks of you.  To say “no, Lord” is to speak a contradiction.  You can’t call Jesus your Lord when you refuse to obey him.  After a night of failed fishing, Simon modeled surrender when Jesus told him to try again: “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything.  But because you say so, I will let down the nets.”  Surrendered people obey God’s word, even if it doesn’t make sense.



Good luck to those who think it is possible to reconcile being rational with obeying that which does not make sense — or to reconcile maintaining one's own personality with being obedient.

Of course, the contradictions in the quotes above from Warren's book 'The Purpose Driven Life' are obvious.  But that way of writing is on a par with the Bible, since so much of the Christian Bible cannot be reconciled with rational thought.  Indeed, if you wish to actually follow the Bible, you must be willing to obey that which does not make sense, just as Warren wrote — but you then cannot also claim to be rational.  That is, doing that which does not makes sense, as Warren wrote, is the essence of being irrational.

In a previous post I wrote about the massive, well known problem of evil for religious believers, and why there have been so many works on theodicy as a result.  That post includes a sample of revolting passages from the Christian Bible —
     http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2015/06/theodicy.html

Listed below are more revolting passages from the Christian Bible, which should also make any rational person wonder what exactly Rick Warren means when he says: 'The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life.' --

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Exodus 21:2 - 4   (you can own Hebrew slaves for six years — and possibly the slave's children forever)
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Leviticus 1:1 - 17   (perform animal sacrifices)
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

[... etc.]

Leviticus 20:9   (death for cursing your parents)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Leviticus 20:10   (death for adultery)
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:11 - 12   (death for sex with family members)
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13   (death for homosexuality)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Numbers 15:32 - 36   (death for gathering sticks on the sabbath)
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Deuteronomy 20:12 - 17   (genocide)
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Matthew 5:17 - 18   (all the Old Testament is valid, and will be fulfilled)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Colossians 3:22   (slaves should obey their masters)
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.



So much for the compass that Rick Warren relies on for direction.

The video below shows Chelsea Clinton questioning Rick Warren on same-sex marriage in December of 2012.  The interview covers well trodden ground (as Warren points out), but Chelsea's avoidance of naming the problem with religious belief is much more fascinating than the topic of same-sex marriage itself, or that a devout Christian like Rick Warren comes down on that issuse on the side of the Bible, just as one would expect.

Here is how Chelsea stated the basic premise of her interview with Warren in her opening statements —
"For some people, they don't understand why that sense of compassion doesn't extend to equal marriage."
Well, if you have read the Bible, it isn't hard to understand why Christians oppose same-sex marriage.

Leviticus 20:13 is one of the clearest statements contained in the Christian Bible, and it states that homosexuals 'shall surely be put to death'
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Many might give praise to Chelsea for her questioning of Warren in this interview, as if she displayed some kind of courage in challenging him, but Chelsea's behavior here is just another typical display of politically correct cowardice.  Why?  Because she avoided the harder, extremely unpopular question, which is: 'Your belief system is based on a book that contains a long list of revolting, violent, and shockingly irrational passages, so why would you want anyone to follow it?'

Warren is justified in becoming somewhat frustrated, when he responds to Chelsea's pleading questions at one point by saying —
"What do they expect a Christian pastor to answer: 'I don't believe the Bible anymore' ?"
Chelsea does her best to dance around the issue with this response (Bill and Hillary should be proud) —
"No, but I think you can say that the Bible has one place in life, and the State has a different place in life."
Chelsea does not make her religious beliefs known in the interview, but one thing is clear — there is no way that she is going to criticize the source of Warren's beliefs, the Christian Bible.  Instead of asking Warren why anyone should support a religion that views homosexuality as an abomination, Chelsea questions him as if he alone is somehow responsible for the widespread opposition to gay marriage.

Chelsea implies that the Bible should be rejected, without actually naming the issue.  And notice that Warren has already redefined the Bible with his dramatically softened interpretation —
'... well, Jesus accepts all of us, he accepts a gay person, he accepts a straight person, he accepts all of us unconditionally ...'
This statement from Warren stands in direct contradiction to Leviticus 20:13, as well as many other Biblical passeges.

The statement from Leviticus 20:13 that something two consenting adults do with one another is an abomination, for which they 'shall surely be put to death', is as far from unconditional acceptance as one can get.

Given that people have always cherry-picked the Bible to suit themselves, and to give themselves the illusion that they are spiritual, or moral (or whatever), while they do not comply with the bulk of what the Bible actually says, it is to be expected that Christianity will continue to become more and more unintelligible.  To a great extent, religious belief in general already is unintelligible, in that the vast majority of supposed religious believers have very little knowledge of what the founding religious texts actually say (pretending it does not matter), while they simultaneously claim to be living by the morals of those texts.

Warren deserves criticism for defending a blatantly irrational book with his claim that it must be 'the first and last word in my life', but religious liberals (as Chelsea Clinton seems to be) deserve just as much criticism for their cowardly and hypocritical attempts to also pretend that the Bible has value, while simultaneously criticizing any attempts to even barely follow it.

Rick Warren and Chelsea Clinton have more in common than they realize — the same broken moral compass.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Theodicy

Here is a short sample of passages from the Christian Bible —

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Exodus 21:20 - 21   (you can beat your slaves, provided they survive for a day following the beating)
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Leviticus 24:11 - 14   (death by stoning for blasphemy)
And the Israealitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed.   And they brought him unto Moses: ...

And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let ALL the CONGREGATION STONE him.

Leviticus 24:16   (reiterating, death by stoning for blasphemy)
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be PUT TO DEATH, and all the congregation shall certainly STONE HIM: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be PUT TO DEATH.

Deuteronomy 7:1 - 2   (genocide)
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and UTTERLY DESTROY them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, NOR shew mercy unto them:

Deuteronomy 7:16   (more genocide)
And thou shalt CONSUME ALL THE PEOPLE which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have NO PITY upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

Deuteronomy 22:13 - 21   (death by stoning for wives who are not virgins prior to marriage)
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the DAMSEL'S VIRGINITY unto the elders of the city in the gate:

And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.   And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

But if this thing be TRUE, and the TOKENS of VIRGINITY be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall STONE HER with stones THAT SHE DIE: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Mark 4:10 - 12   (the Bible is deliberately confusing to maximize the number of 'unforgiven')
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Luke 19:27   (kill unbelievers)
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY THEM before me.

Ephesians 6:5   (slaves should obey their masters)
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

1 Timothy 6:1 - 2   (slaves should honor their masters)
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.



Such passages (among many others) prompted Thomas Paine to write 'The Age of Reason' in 1794, as a challenge to the legitimacy of the Christian Bible.  Here is a brief summary of Paine's view of the Bible —

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.202369/page/n33/mode/2up

      Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God.   It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
      We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible.   In the anonymous publications, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.
      — Thomas Paine, 'The Age of Reason'


Because so much of the Bible is so blatantly at odds with any even simple conception of justice and decency, and because pointless death and destruction are a feature of human existence, statements regarding theodicy are commonplace among religious believers.

'Theodicy' is generally defined as a defense of the benevolence and omnipotence of God, given the existence of evil.  Supposedly, G.W. Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' back in the early 1700's, in his work 'Essays of theodicy on the goodness of God, the freedom of man and the origin of evil'.

The problem of evil is typically stated something like this —
If God is not aware of the existence of evil, then God is not omniscient.
If God is aware of the existence of evil, but cannot stop it, then God is not omnipotent.
If God is aware of the existence of evil and able to stop it, but chooses not to, then God is not benevolent.
The essays Leibniz wrote on theodicy are essentially a long winded collection of fallacies — mainly begging the question, and the argument from ignorance.  Ultimately, Leibniz simply assumes something called 'God' is perfect, and that no human critic can ever have the knowledge required to make valid judgments regarding the nature of existence — of course, this is also obviously self-contradictory, since if it is impossible for man to have the knowledge required to call a God's work evil, then it also impossible for man to have the knowledge required to call a God's work good.

That is, if man does not have the knowledge required to judge a God's work as evil, on what basis can any human being call a God's work good?   Compared to what?   Leibniz assumes all negative evaluations of God must be invalid from ignorance, and so nothing can be called evil, and he then proceeds to make his own evaluation, as if he alone is somehow in possession of the required knowledge.

Here is just one example from 'Essays of theodicy on the goodness of God, the freedom of man and the origin of evil'  where Leibniz uses this approach --

https://ia601400.us.archive.org/29/items/theodicy17147gut/17147-h/17147-h.htm
https://ia601400.us.archive.org/29/items/theodicy17147gut/17147-h/17147-h.htm#page248
...
194. Yet philosophers and theologians dare to support dogmatically such a belief; and I have many times wondered that gifted and pious persons should have been capable of setting bounds to the goodness and the perfection of God.   For to assert that he knows what is best, that he can do it and that he does it not, is to avow that it rested with his will only to make the world better than it is; but that is what one calls lacking goodness.   It is acting against that axiom already quoted: Minus bonum habet rationem mali.   If some adduce experience to prove that God could have done better, they set themselves up as ridiculous critics of his works.  To such will be given the answer given to all those who criticize God's course of action, and who from this same assumption, that is, the alleged defects of the world, would infer that there is an evil God, or at least a God neutral between good and evil.  And if we hold the same opinion as King Alfonso, we shall, I say, receive this answer: You have known the world only since the day before yesterday, you see scarce farther than your nose, and you carp at the world.   Wait until you know more of the world and consider therein especially the parts which present a complete whole (as do organic bodies); and you will find there a contrivance and a beauty transcending all imagination.   Let us thence draw conclusions as to the wisdom and the goodness of the author of things, even in things that we know not.   We find in the universe some things which are not pleasing to us; but let us be aware that it is not made for us alone.   It is nevertheless made for us if we are wise: it will serve us if we use it for our service; we shall be happy in it if we wish to be.
...


After every natural disaster, similar rationalizations can be found in print or online, which attempt to reconcile the notion of a benevolent God with pointless widespread suffering.

It is obvious why — such pointless suffering is devastating to the notion of a benevolent God.  Any sane person, who fully comprehends the implications of the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient creator, should find it incredibly disturbing to actually be confronted with hard evidence that such a being exists — since the inescapable conclusion from such a being actually existing is that the universe is malevolent.

That is, if an omnipotent being actually created the universe, then the death and destruction that are a normal part of human existence were created deliberately, by design.   This conclusion follows by necessity from the common claim that 'God' is 'all-powerful' and 'designed'  the universe.   To the degree that this is true, murder, rape, torture, genocide, plagues, natural disasters, etc., are all deliberately chosen outcomes of the designer.

Some religious believers attempt to escape this obviously devastating conclusion by claiming that even though God designed and created the universe and man, the universe is like a 'clockwork' and man has 'free will', and so God does not control, and, therefore, is not responsible for specific individual events.

But adding this indirection does nothing to escape the conclusion that the universe is malevolent, if it were designed — since God could have just as easily designed both the 'clockwork'  universe and man's 'free will'  to eliminate the suffering that is so commonplace.

For comparison, consider this example: If someone were to build a machine gun, and rig it up in a normally crowded public place with the trigger controlled by a barometer, such that the gun would fire in random directions whenever the barometric pressure was above or below certain values, no reasonable person would consider that person 'not responsible'  for the deaths that ensued, because the machine gun is a clockwork and no one controls the weather.   That individual created the conditions which ultimately made death an inevitability, and so they are responsible for any deaths caused by their clockwork, even given that they did not pick specific victims.   And so if God is responsible for creation, then God is responsible for the nature of all existence, including the outcomes determined by that nature — since it is God's design.

But the responsibility of God is even greater, given the commonly held view that God is 'all-knowing' (omniscient) — which means that God selects all outcomes.   If this were not the case, God could not be called omniscient, since the future must be determined for it to be known in advance.

This is where it really gets nasty.  Consider the disease 'acute lymphoblastic leukemia', which is most common in childhood, and is supposedly the second most common form of cancer in infants under the age of 12 months.  If you are fully convinced that there is an omnipotent and omniscient God, then the following conclusion is inescapable: God not only selected, but created particular children specifically for torture.

For more details on God's propensity for killing children, see Gregory S. Paul's study entitled 'Theodicy’s Problem: A Statistical Look at the Holocaust of the Children and the Implications of Natural Evil for the Free Will and Best of All Possible Worlds Hypotheses'.   Paul estimates that only a small fraction of female pregnancies lead to a mature adult —

http://www.gspauldino.com/Philosophy&Theology.pdf
https://gspaulscienceofnon-religion.com/gsptecharticles.html
...
Microbial diseases are easily the leading cause of death among children.   Malaria has probably killed more youngsters than any other single cause, perhaps 20 billion (Finkel 2007).   Other top infectious diseases include smallpox, typhoid, plaque, scarlet fever, yellow fever, cholera, influenza, rubella, tetanus, and rabies.   The situation is so acute that a microbial war is being waged upon immature humans (Barnes 2005; Demeny and McNicoll 2003).   Because their immune systems are immature, infants and children are exceptionally susceptible to being infected and killed; only the elderly are comparably defenseless.   In general, diseases kill their victims—who usually remain conscious during much of the symptomatic period and death process—over an extended period of time ranging from days to years, and with extreme levels of discomfort ranging up to the highest levels of agony.   Fear of death often adds to the mental distress.   For 99.9 percent of history, adults have lacked the basic knowledge base to take steps—some relatively uncomplicated, such as sanitation, including water sterilization—to protect their offspring.   Serious birth defects, some physical deformities, others less obvious, such as cystic fibrosis, afflict about one in sixteen children; they are often so severe that they lead to early death.   Over all, childhood diseases have undoubtedly killed tens of billions.
...

Summary of Statistical Results
If a creator exists, then it has chosen to fashion a habitat that has maximized the level of suffering and death among young humans that are due to factors beyond the control of humans over most of their history.   As a consequence, only a small fraction of conceptions have reached the age of majority.   The number of unborn and children who have died due to natural causes is literally thousands of times larger than those killed by the actions of human dictators.   There is no convincing evidence that a creator has favored any particular population, Christian or otherwise, over others during human history in terms of their natural levels of mortality.   Requesting aid from the creator has not been effective despite the tremendous scale of the attempt.
...


It would be perversely fascinating to hear anyone who would rationalize God's supposed benevolence like Leibniz, explain how a dying infant could possibly be part of some larger good.

It is impossible to avoid this obvious consequence of the commonly held belief in God — if God is omnipotent, God is responsible for the existence of all disease, and if God is omniscient, God has determined who will be infected, who will suffer the most, and who will be cured — if any.   Keep this in mind the next time you are suffering for any reason — since an omnipotent God must control all suffering, that God has deliberately singled you out.

Religious believers can't have it both ways.   The commonplace description of 'God' is self-contradictory, just as the phrases 'a square circle' and 'a married bachelor' are self-contradictory — it is impossible for any of these things to actually exist, since they have mutually exclusive contradictory characteristics.   If a God actually created all of existence, then that God is either somewhat ignorant or impotent — or malevolent.   To argue otherwise, one is forced to engage in sloppy sophistry in the style of Leibniz, where all human misery magically becomes inscrutable, and, by necessity, evil does not exist.

For myself, I find it comforting that there is no hard evidence to demonstrate the existence of a supreme being, precisely because if the universe were actually designed by a supreme being, then that supreme being would be a horrible monster, given that suffering is the norm.