My Response to CARM's Response

"I’m not even sure if there is only one option available to Him that would be the best.  It may be that there are several “very good” options available to Him, none of which are “the best”.   So I don’t think that God is constrained in performing only *one* action per circumstance; rather, He is simply incapable of wrong doing as this is contrary to His nature and that He can perform any number of “good” actions according to His purposes."

This is problematic, but not necessarily insurmountable.  For simplicity sake, let's take an example where an action is going to take place in which God is involved.  God, has the power to do all that power can do, as C.S. Lewis wrote in "The Problem Of Pain".  Meaning, God could not make stone bigger than he can lift or other such actions which could not take place (as they are contradictions).  It seems to me that if God is the perfect standard of Good and all the options are different in any way, there can be no preference involved for God.  To draw an analogy, think of God as a yardstick (a standard) with 36 markers that are 1" apart (in reality the stick has a theoretically infinite number of points, but for arguments sake let's just say there are 36).  The act is like something to measure which has length that is measured exactly in inches, 1"-36".  If God measures it with the yardstick that is like God, there can only be one measurement, which is always correct, regardless of how many possibilities there are or how close they are.  Can you think of a way that it could not be?  If I measure the item a yardstick that is not the perfect standard for measurement, they may be right.  They may be closer than other people.  They may come up with different measurements at different times, in different circumstances, etc.  They may have the option of saying that it's between 22" and 30".  They may just be wrong.  But God doesn't have that ability if he is the perfect standard.  If there is more than one possibility (more than one measurement for the item) it seems to me that there cannot exist any objective good or evil, because objective good and evil must be based on a standard which is perfect (at least one, in other words if there is an objectively good standard it follows that the opposite is true and that there is an objectively evil standard even if that standard doesn't exist as a being).  Of two possible measurements, one may be closer to the standard than another, but both cannot be perfect measurements.  Can you think of a way that there could be more than one perfect measurement?  IF not God cannot perform any number of good actions, he could only do the one.  This would apply to all actions he takes, which means there would be no choice in what he does, anymore than the yardstick can argue that it can measure a 3" item as 4" because it's closer than 36" (still a pretty good measurement comparatively), it must always measure 3".  You could argue that some actions are morally neutral, but I would suggest that if that's the case then there is a problem.  That means that there are no objective standards.  I might like the taste of chocolate, you may like the taste of vanilla more, but if God can act using this type of preference it seems to me that every standard that we believe God holds is completely arbitrary (could God just prefer something which is less Good than something else?).  This is essentially selecting the first horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma ("The pious is good because God loves it").

"But if you accept the Christian worldview then killing your own child would constitute murder, and, is thus, forbidden.  I see the point that you are raising.  However, you must keep in mind that the Scripture is not clear that all infants/children who die necessarily go to Heaven.  That is a plausible position to take (I hold to it myself) but it is not explicitly taught in Scripture.   So I don’t see a person dying in childhood as a guaranteed ticket to Heaven.  It may be or it may not be.  God has seen fit not to reveal this conclusively to us. Let’s assume that it is a guaranteed ticket to Heaven.  It would still constitute murder, one of the gravest of all crimes.  I suppose that you could retort that you may be willing to pay the consequences in order to guarantee your child’s salvation.  But like I said, it would still constitute murder and it would still provide no such guarantee.  God, on the other hand, can take any person’s life-whether young or old-any time He sees fit since He is the giver of life to begin with.  Our lives are His to give and His to take at His good pleasure.  He is under no obligation to prolong any person’s life for even another day.  We intuitively recognize this when we accuse certain people of “playing God” when they take human life."

I think you understood that I wasn't saying "if I were a Christian" but that "I accept the Christian worldview as true" and there is a difference.  This is the best answer I've received, and I hate to sound ungrateful, but this leaves me wanting (not that you didn't answer the question, just that the looming question of where infant's and children's souls go seems like a pretty important point).  I see a few possibilities, but each has (unfortunately) corollaries which don't seem particularly good.  1) If a child dies, they go to heaven, every time (in which case it seems to me that I would want to kill my child to guarantee he goes there, regardless of the consequences) 2) If a child dies, they go to hell.  I can't dispute that this is a possibility, but it seems to me that this goes beyond malevolent and capricious.  I understand that God is the giver and taker of life, but sending kids to hell when they don't know any way not to go to hell seems really unjust.  Admittedly that's purely an emotional reaction.  Even Jesus, as I recall, said that harming a child is one of the more egregious evils. 3) Children do not have an eternal soul.  When they die, they die and they simply cease to exist. This is possible, but the problem with this is that I might still prefer my child to simply cease to exist then take the chance that they will end up in hell for all eternity and thus it doesn't solve the problem.  4) Children are reincarnated.  I've always thought that reincarnation is kind of silly, and I've never read anything in the Bible that indicates that this is remotely possible, but it's an option. 5) There is some interim stage between Earth and Heaven/Hell where children go, grow up, and make a free will decision to accept salvation or not. 6) Normally, all innocents (children/infants/people who don't understand these concepts) go to heaven, except when they are murdered for the purpose of guaranteeing their entrance to heaven, then they either a) go to hell or b) cease to exist.  (2), (4) and (6) are really the only ones that would (necessarily) thwart my goal of protecting my child from hell (reincarnation would, but there's a bunch of metaphysical baggage that makes it seem really unlikely).  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I would ever do this, or that it wouldn't be technically murder (in a sense, it seems to me that I would both be laying my life and soul for another, which according the gospel, is the greatest good a person can do).  I think my frustration with this is primarily that as someone who just believes that we die, and that's it, this is pretty simple.  Killing my child, who I cherish more than my own life, is bad because their consciousness will cease to exist.

"I do think that my experiences had a role in shaping the moral values that I inherited.   Of course, that says nothing about whether or not the values that I inherited are objective and binding.  If naturalism is true, then our moral standards cannot really be objective at all.  They are just a matter of social conditioning and preference.   And yet, we all know deep down that some actions are truly wrong (the Holocaust) and some are truly good (sacrificing one’s life for another).  If that is the case, that morality is objective in some sense, then naturalism is probably false."

This is another one that I struggle with, because I certainly can't deny that there is objective good and objective evil.  I was asked by a Christian how I could believe (without belief that God exists) that torturing, raping and then killing a small is objectively evil and it donned on me that people tend to assume that because something is objectively true, that necessarily means that it isn't relative in any sense.  The example I used was that of motion.  If you and I are standing on a track and start walking at a brisk 3mph, it's true that we are objectively moving at 3mph, however, in relative terms the Earth is also both spinning and orbiting the sun, our galaxy is moving and the universe is expanding.  Suffice it to say, that while we can be said to "objectively" be moving at 3mph, we're also moving much faster than that (something like 70 k/m per second I believe). So the question is, how does this analogy apply to morality?  Well, I came up with a thought experiment around it (which has two stages):



Stage 1) You are in a room which has a two way mirror (you can see in, but the occupant can't see you) and your room has no doors.  The glass is invulnerable and soundproof.  In the other room is a 3 year old girl.  The room is small and there is a closed door.  Here's my question - Let's say a man walks into the room, he rapes, tortures and finally kills the little girl.  Would he be committing an objectively evil act?



Stage 2) Let's go back five minutes in time, you are in your room, the little girl is in the room in front of you but the door hasn't opened yet.  Before this event happens, another two way mirror appears in your room, and you can now see (and hear) in the room that the door leads to.  The man in Stage 1 is in this room, and with him is a mad scientist.  Both you and he know the mad scientist, and he's truly crazy, but he has nearly unlimited resources, you also know he can and will do anything he threatens.  He has his finger on a button.  He says that the button, if pushed, will set off five nuclear weapons in the five most populous cities in the world and in one of those cities, near the bomb, both your and his entire families happen to be visiting.  He says that if the man doesn't go into the other room and rape, torture and kill the little girl he will push the button.  Stage 1 happens and he goes and rapes, tortures and kills the little girl.  Would he be committing an objectively evil act?


I would say during Stage 1, based on my relative viewpoint, absolutely.  But I can't say that it's objectively evil after Stage 2.  At Stage 2 I can say that the mad scientist is objectively evil, right?  Well, not really, what if there is a Stage 3 in which you find out that the mad scientist has been threatened in a similar way by someone else, equally as valid, but they threaten to destroy the entire planet and kill everyone in the world?  The reason we don't normally see the relativity as a factor is that we're all people and generally have a common, objective framework, so we all have a somewhat (but not completely) similar perspective.  Sometimes, such as with the Holocaust, there are entire groups of people who's viewpoint as observers is different enough that they do something we see as objectively evil, and we'd be right in saying it is.  It seems to me that we can then hold them responsible for their actions unless they can demonstrate that they had a valid reason for committing the act they did.  Likewise, I would argue that it would be truly good to sacrifice one's own life for another, but would it be good for a person to do so if (by merit of doing so) would allow millions of other people to die (and they knew that would happen?).  Take for instance a man who knows how to disarm a nuclear weapon.  He's the only one who knows how to disarm it and it's going to go off shortly, killing not just him, but a million other people (let say the only person who would survive this event would be the one person who he sacrificed his life for).  From that relative position, it would be (essentially) a crime against humanity for him to sacrifice himself for the one person rather than let that person die.  Ultimately the standard by which we judge are the extreme situations.  Sacrificing your life so that everyone alive would be saved is the ultimate good, the ultimate bad would be killing everyone alive.  Well, that's not necessarily true, because there are things worse than death, but the problem is that if God is the ultimate standard all it takes is a misunderstanding of what God wants and people believe that they are doing the greatest objective good when they aren't (and this is assuming that God exists).


"the Argument from Reason states that if our cognitive faculties are simply the end product of blind materialistic processes (which most naturalists are committed to) then we really have no good reasons to trust the conclusions that we draw from using such cognitive faculties.."


This is the point of my syllogism.  If I take most of this response and replace the relevant parts with "cats", "atoms" and "invisible" this is what we get and I think the problem with the reasoning behind this argument is apparent:


"the Argument from Reason states that if our CATS are simply the end product of INVISIBLE ATOMS (which most naturalists are committed to) then we really have no good reasons to trust that our CATS will be VISIBLE..."


You then continue:


"...So I think that you would need to show that we have good reasons to trust THE VISIBILITY OF CATS if they are merely the end result of INVISIBLE ATOMS..."


And then conclude:


"... why should you or I trust the VISIBILITY OF CATS if it is just the result of INVISIBLE ATOMS?   If INVISIBLE ATOMS is all that there is, then it seems that the conclusions that we draw are simply the result of INVISIBLE ATOMS of some sort or another.  And if that is the case then we have no reasons to trust that CATS WILL BE VISIBLE which are the result of such INVISIBLE ATOMS.  There would really be no genuine WAY TO WALK at all as the FLOORS WOULD BE COVERED WITH INVISIBLE CATS EVERYWHERE." (Just kidding with the last sentence)


Hopefully you can see why I'm skeptical of this argument, it makes the claim that things are only the sum of their parts, which can be true or false.  It doesn't necessarily mean that logic and rationality are purely naturalistic, but it's not necessarily true either.

The other question I had about morality is, what role (from the Christian point of view) does motivation play?  I've always made the assumption that a moral act is objectively good or bad relative to the observer (this is not to say whether it's good or bad is dependent on the observers preference, just how much they actually know about the situation).  But does the person's motivation play a role?  I have to ask which God would prefer, would God prefer a society in which all people obey his moral commandments (such as, do not steal) but do so for purely selfish reasons (such as, "I don't want to go to jail") or would he prefer a society in which people obey that moral commandment 50% of the time (they steal from half the people they meet) but as Kant suggested was the right thing to do, obey it because they feel it is the right thing to do?  Also, speaking of Kant, if morality is truly objective and is not relative in any way, would it not be immoral to lie to the Nazis when they ask you where there are Jews hiding?  You could say that not saying anything is an option, but let's say that if you remain quiet you hear the leader of the squad guess correctly where they are hiding, but if you lie they will not be able to find them.

In any case, again, thank you for responding, I truly appreciate it,

Michael

Response from CARM

Michael, “I won't argue that if God created the universe AND God knew what would happen throughout all time when he created the universe we can only make decisions that he created us to make, just as if I program a VCR to start recording MacGyver at 8pm, the VCR wouldn't be responsible for recording it.  I would argue that if I concede that God is good (by nature) and can be nothing else, then God can only take actions which are the most good.  Is this not the case?  If that is the case, it seems to me that God could never make any choice.  That means that God doesn't (and cannot) have free will.  The corollary to that is that since God is constrained on EXACTLY what he can do, he could only have created the universe and us one possible way, which means that we are bound to that path and we have no possible choice in the matter.  Do you believe God has free will, and if so, how” I do believe that God has freewill of the libertarian variety.   But we have to be careful here because I don’t think that God actually makes decisions, at least in the way we would use that word.  I think that I understand your question.  I do disagree with the options as you have laid them out.   I do not believe that God must only take actions that are the most good. I would say that God is incapable of wrong doing but that does not therefore mean that He must perform one *specific* action that we would categorize as “the best”.  I’m not even sure if there is only one option available to Him that would be the best.  It may be that there are several “very good” options available to Him, none of which are “the best”.   So I don’t think that God is constrained in performing only *one* action per circumstance; rather, He is simply incapable of wrong doing as this is contrary to His nature and that He can perform any number of “good” actions according to His purposes. “However, if I accept the Christian worldview it seems to me that killing him would be sacrificing myself for him.  Now, I certainly don't think most (Christian) parents love their child(ren) any less than I do, so I have to question whether or not they truly accept the Christian worldview.  In any case, my question is, if your worldview is correct and I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my child, why wouldn't I kill my child at age five?” But if you accept the Christian worldview then killing your own child would constitute murder, and, is thus, forbidden.  I see the point that you are raising.  However, you must keep in mind that the Scripture is not clear that all infants/children who die necessarily go to Heaven.  That is a plausible position to take (I hold to it myself) but it is not explicitly taught in Scripture.   So I don’t see a person dying in childhood as a guaranteed ticket to Heaven.  It may be or it may not be.  God has seen fit not to reveal this conclusively to us. Let’s assume that it is a guaranteed ticket to Heaven.  It would still constitute murder, one of the gravest of all crimes.  I suppose that you could retort that you may be willing to pay the consequences in order to guarantee your child’s salvation.  But like I said, it would still constitute murder and it would still provide no such guarantee.  God, on the other hand, can take any person’s life-whether young or old-any time He sees fit since He is the giver of life to begin with.  Our lives are His to give and His to take at His good pleasure. He is under no obligation to prolong any person’s life for even another day.  We intuitively recognize this when we accuse certain people of “playing God” when they take human life. “What you refer to our "free will" and our moral values may come from something transcendent, but in order to believe that they only come from (and are dependent on) something transcendent you'd have to believe two very strange things.  First, you'd have to believe that past experience plays no role in your rationality and/or moral values.  You'd have to say, unequivocally, that your experience with your parents as a child, had no role in how you formed your moral values and rationality.  If you attribute ANY of it to your experience then your claim is instantly refuted.  Second, you would have to believe that a person who has never interacted with any other people, is not aware of God and is isolated would have logic, rationality and moral values.  Obviously that's absurd, but I think it demonstrates that we gain some of our logic, rationality and moral values from our experiences, even if our brains are "merely" chemicals.  My question is, do you believe that your experiences played no role in your rationality and/or moral values?” I do think that my experiences had a role in shaping the moral values that I inherited.   Of course, that says nothing about whether or not the values that I inherited are objective and binding.  If naturalism is true, then our moral standards cannot really be objective at all.  They are just a matter of social conditioning and preference.   And yet, we all know deep down that some actions are truly wrong (the Holocaust) and some are truly good (sacrificing one’s life for another).  If that is the case, that morality is objective in some sense, then naturalism is probably false. "In one of your videos ("A question for atheists regarding free will and rationality") you ask whether free will and rationality can exist if our brains are purely chemicals.  I don't know if I could answer that question because "free will" is kind of a loaded term, but I would argue that we can use logic and rationality (and we have moral values) in a purely materialistic world.  First, we apply the law of the excluded middle.  That is, we either can use logic/rationality in a purely materialistic world or you cannot.  So if I can show that your position (that you cannot) is false, my position is true because there is no third option.  I would argue that you are creating a fallacy of composition.  That is to say, you are making the case that the whole is nothing more than the sum of it's part, ever.  Another version of your argument would be syllogistic: A is composed of B B has only property C Therefore, A only has property C But surely you don't believe this, or you would have to believe the following: Cats (brains) are composed of atoms (chemicals) Atoms (chemicals) are invisible to the naked eye (do not have rationality/logic on their own) Therefore, cats (brains) are invisible (do not have rationality/logic” I haven’t seen the video that you are referencing but I will give you my take on what you said.  I think that you may be confusing two different issues.    Typically, the Argument from Reason states that if our cognitive faculties are simply the end product of blind materialistic processes (which most naturalists are committed to) then we really have no good reasons to trust the conclusions that we draw from using such cognitive faculties-including conclusions used to attempt to undermine arguments for theism!   So if naturalism is true, then we have lost our ability to reason our way to the conclusion that naturalism is true. So it may be true, but we could never trust the reasoning processes which led us to that very conclusion. So I think that you would need to show that we have good reasons to trust our cognitive faculties if they are merely the end result of blind materialistic processes.   You mentioned that we can use logic and rationality in a purely materialistic world.  You would need to develop this a little more.  On Naturalism, why should you or I trust the deliverances of our reason if it is just the result of blind natural processes?   If the natural world is all that there is, then it seems that the conclusions that we draw are simply the result of physical processes of some sort or another.  And if that is the case then we have no reasons to trust those conclusions which are the result of such physical processes.  There would really be no genuine free will at all as the conclusions that we draw were simply the result of physical processes.  Kind of like a plant growing. You mentioned being at about a 7.5 or so on a one to ten scale.  If you don’t mind me asking, what arguments or factors prevent you from being a ten on that scale? Is there a particular reason(s) why you think that God may exist?  Anyway, hope I helped to answer some of your questions-from our perspective, anyway.  Dan

Atheist Ethicist: Evolution Accounts for Morality?

Atheist Ethicist: Evolution Accounts for Morality?

Alonzo Fyfe is amazing, and this is so eloquently stated and clearly correct there is nothing more I can add to it.

Consider this:

The fact is, evolution can't account for morality.

Neither can religion, by the way. This is not an either-or question. Evolution cannot account for the size of the Earth or the existence of the moon, but this does not imply that we must turn to scripture to find the answers. There is a third alternative.

Morality requires a community of two or more individuals engaged in intentional behavior (beings acting on beliefs and desires). It requires that some desires are malleable - they can be changed through interaction with the environment.

Once you have these elements, then you have a situation where one member of the community has reason to alter the environment in such a way so as to cause others to acquire desires useful to an agent. A community engaged in using environmental factors (e,g., praise, condemnation, reward, punishment) to promote desires generally useful and inhibiting desires generally harmful is a community with a moral system.

Have you ever noticed that when someone indicates that evolution accounts for morality, the immediate objection is that if that's the case, then there would be anarchy?  It's odd that this claim almost always comes from a theist (generally a Christian apologist, who is indicating that God is necessary for objective, universal moral values).  It may be an oversimplification, but it's certainly true.  Alonzo is spot on when he indicates that "morality requires a community of two or more individuals...", in fact, he could have labeled his post "Evolution Accounts For Morality?" and literally just said, "No, it doesn't, because morality requires nothing more than a community of two or more individuals engaged in intentional behavior (being acting on beliefs and desires, and it requires that some desires are malleable."  That's it, the argument was actually over before it began.  Why?  Because the entire basis for the idea that evolution can account for morality is based on things that happened to us (genetically) in our past.  But the above statement cuts that argument down at the knees.  How you ask?  Imagine two beings (agents who have intentional behavior) and they are (to some degree) open to changing their desires.  These two beings are in a room together.  What else do you need for morality to exist?  Morality is really just a word for the actions of these agents which affect each other.  Alonzo was correct in pointing out that it may be true that the agents are the product of evolution, but that isn't relevant to the question of morality.

Letter To CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)

This is the first letter I've sent to CARM.  This is an organization run by Matt Slick, radio host, pastor. author and public speaker.  Given that many Christians don't really know very much about the Bible, other than what they've heard in Church, I've found it's nearly impossible to get authoritative answers to questions I have about Christianity, so I sent this email to CARM to see if they would respond (they did, and I will share that soon).

Letter Number 1:

=========================================

Hello,


I can't really say I'm an atheist, but I can't rightly classify myself as a theist, so I guess I'll go with agnostic (say, on the scale of 1 to 10, where 1 knows God exists and 10 completely denies that God exists, I'm like a 7.5 or so). In any case, I have a few questions, none of which I've seen on the site by searching (though they've been tangentially discussed). I truly hope you can answer these questions, they've been a huge source of frustration and as many Christians as I've asked to answer them, generally speaking, either the Christians (that I've asked) have either misrepresented my questions OR they've found a reason not to answer. Anyhow, here goes:


1) I have a five year old child, and he's pretty much the most important thing to me in the world. I, like many other parents, would die for him if it would save his life. In the area discussing why God is considered a monster in the Old Testament for ordering the slaughter of children, you indicated that 2 Samuel 12 indicates that a child that dies before an age where they could understand the sacrifice of Jesus would go to heaven (I believe the phrase you used was, they would "be with God"). My fear (if I accept that the Christian worldview is true) is that my child could grow up and fall in with the wrong crowd (for example, with people like me who don't really believe God exists). So it stands to reason that if I value my child more than myself (both in life and in the afterlife), I should kill him now to guarantee that he goes to heaven. Now, as an agnostic/atheist, this isn't really a tough question. Life isn't, in my view, a doormat to eternal life and bliss (or suffering). However, if I accept the Christian worldview it seems to me that killing him would be sacrificing myself for him. Now, I certainly don't think most (Christian) parents love their child(ren) any less than I do, so I have to question whether or not they truly accept the Christian worldview. In any case, my question is, if your worldview is correct and I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my child, why wouldn't I kill my child at age five?

2) I read your well thought out statement on Euthypho's Dilemma Your claim, if I understand it, is that the question (Socrates posed to Euthyphro, amidst a barrage of sarcasm) is a false dichotomy You suggest that an act is good not because God loves it, nor does God love an act because it is good, but rather that good is based on God's nature and thus the question doesn't really make sense. My question is this, doesn't this just push the question back? At this point, I would ask, "Is God's nature the way it is because it is good or is God's nature good simply because it is God's nature?" If the former, the goodness of God's nature is independent of God, if the latter then God's nature is arbitrary (and we could say that murder and rape are good if it was God's nature.

3) In one of your videos ("A question for atheists regarding free will and rationality") you ask whether free will and rationality can exist if our brains are purely chemicals. I don't know if I could answer that question because "free will" is kind of a loaded term, but I would argue that we can use logic and rationality (and we have moral values) in a purely materialistic world. First, we apply the law of the excluded middle. That is, we either can use logic/rationality in a purely materialistic world or you cannot. So if I can show that your position (that you cannot) is false, my position is true because there is no third option. I would argue that you are creating a fallacy of composition. That is to say, you are making the case that the whole is nothing more than the sum of it's part, ever. Another version of your argument would be syllogistic:

A is composed of B
B has only property C
Therefore, A only has property C

But surely you don't believe this, or you would have to believe the following:

Cats (brains) are composed of atoms (chemicals)
Atoms (chemicals) are invisible to the naked eye (do not have rationality/logic on their own)
Therefore, cats (brains) are invisible (do not have rationality/logic)

What you refer to our "free will" and our moral values may come from something transcendent, but in order to believe that they only come from (and are dependent on) something transcendent you'd have to believe two very strange things. First, you'd have to believe that past experience plays no role in your rationality and/or moral values. You'd have to say, unequivocally, that your experience with your parents as a child, had no role in how you formed your moral values and rationality. If you attribute ANY of it to your experience then your claim is instantly refuted. Second, you would have to believe that a person who has never interacted with any other people, is not aware of God and is isolated would have logic, rationality and moral values. Obviously that's absurd, but I think it demonstrates that we gain some of our logic, rationality and moral values from our experiences, even if our brains are "merely" chemicals. My question is, do you believe that your experiences played no role in your rationality and/or moral values?

4) I won't argue that if God created the universe AND God knew what would happen throughout all time when he created the universe we can only make decisions that he created us to make, just as if I program a VCR to start recording MacGyver at 8pm, the VCR wouldn't be responsible for recording it. I would argue that if I concede that God is good (by nature) and can be nothing else, then God can only take actions which are the most good. Is this not the case? If that is the case, it seems to me that God could never make any choice. That means that God doesn't (and cannot) have free will. The corollary to that is that since God is constrained on EXACTLY what he can do, he could only have created the universe and us one possible way, which means that we are bound to that path and we have no possible choice in the matter. Do you believe God has free will, and if so, how?

Anyhow, those are my questions. I truly would appreciate answers to these questions but would understand if it's not possible.

Take care, and thank you for your time,


Michael

=========================================

If you have comments and/or questions, please feel free to post them, just keep it respectful.

Introduction To This Blog and Why It Exists

Hi everyone.

My name is Michael.  I'm, for lack of a better term, atheistic agnostic (my take on this is sort of summarized here, in a great talk by Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson) .  My parents were not particularly religious, and encouraged me to study the subject myself, so I've spent a good portion of my life studying religion (in particular, the Judeo-Christian faiths, but more generally all religions).  In High School I spent more time reading about religion and philosophy than doing pretty much anything else.  To me, these are the single most important questions that we can answer.  I also tend to discuss these conversations as often as possible, whereas most people (even very religious people) don't really like to talk about their beliefs.  So this journey started about 30 years ago, and in that time I've read the Bible (in it's entirety) about 16 times, the New Testament (in it's entirety) about 30 times and the Gospel of Matthew (for example) at very least 50 times.  This doesn't include just reading it as a reference, when I'm given one verse or passage, I always read at least the entire chapter.  I've read commentaries, articles, discussed subjects vital to the Bible and Christianity with experts and also argued with people who aren't (including both religious and non-religious).  I don't do this to beat up on Christians, in fact, there are positive features of Christianity, and I have a reverence for certain aspects of the belief system (and even more so with Judaism, as my Mother was Jewish, even if not observant).  Some people don't like talking about their beliefs, and even more people don't like debating the subject (even in a respectful manner), which I find both puzzling and frustrating.  Why puzzling?  Because I can't imagine believing (I mean truly believing, not just half-heartedly accepting) Christianity without taking it very seriously.  I like to think that if I truly believed Christianity to be true, I would feel obligated to make it my life's mission to promote it, because according the Bible (and Jesus in the Gospels specifically) Christians should be focusing their life on spreading the "good news").  I'm frustrated because most Christians have never actually read the entire Bible, which to me is beyond strange.  Imagine that you are given two contracts and you have to sign one of them.  Both of them explain what will happen to your eternal soul.  Would you skim through them, only hearing about what they say on Sundays from someone else, or would you carefully read both?  Heck, I'd spend 30 years reading them, I'd discuss it with knowledgeable people and I would truly seek to know what they both say, but sadly, people don't do this that often. What's even worse, most religious folks claim they want to discuss their religion, but what they really mean is that they want a one way form of communication where the goal is to only for the listener to accept their beliefs.  Many atheists do the same thing, which is also pointless and usually results in both people losing out.  The best way to discuss this subject, in my experience, is not preaching (from either side), but to simply ask and answer questions, be respectful, present your case and truly listen and be interested in what the other person has to say.  At the end of the day I acknowledge that I could be wrong, so before engaging with someone on this topic you should ask yourself, "is it possible I'm wrong about this"?  If you can't, I wouldn't discuss it with anyone.  Anyhow, that's my take.

Regardless, the reason for this blog is keep a record of some of my discussions with other people on the subject of religion.  So please enjoy.

Michael