Thursday, October 30, 2008

Compared to God: We Only have a Limited View

I had a discussion today with a Christian (now a few days ago) in which we discussed time and how god was not bound by its constraints. As obvious as this is to this person, that god isn’t bound by time, her conclusion left me a bit puzzled as to how she arrived at her ‘undenialable’ conclusion. In an effort to understand her position I asked, “Wait, how do you know god is not, as you say, bound by time?” She seemed to think my questioning into the reality of time and god was unworthy of any dignified answer for the only answer I received was an irritated reply, “Please! He’s god, he can do anything he wants!” Apparently, my question seemed juvenile to this lady. Though I could see the annoyance of my simple inquiry was building, I couldn’t help but to ask a few more. “Ok, so god isn’t bound by time because he is god. So why does god let bad things happen to innocent people, like children molestation and people’s mother killed, or 9/11?” Her reply was as expected, “I don’t know why. Sometimes bad things happen and we, as God’s children, can’t possibly understand God because we only have a limited view. We just have to trust God.”

I do not know how people can't see the inherent contradiction they exude with such explanations that snub away tangible, uncomfortable, immoral acts that happen to people under god's supposed omnipotent power and yet at the same time they know precisely how the unobservable science of God manifests itself invisibly...but apparently rendered obvious. How is it that of all the things 'god's children' possibly cannot know concerning god, like how he escapes the laws of physics, space, time, etc., people of faith 'just' automatically know? Yet, when it comes to actually physical observable matters and situations, like child molestation, the science of god and all of his previously known magnificent powers is suddenly lost on them? It seems convenient at these times to all of a sudden not know how God works, except to say that he has some 'unknowable plan' for which they KNOW is holy. I can only figure that the belief that God is all good, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere makes the knowledge of situations like, again, child molestation quite uncomfortable for those believers to continue to swallow. That is, unless they can come up with an explanation that allows a good-god and child molestation to exist peacefully side by side.

The psychologist, Leon Festinger's, included the process that one’s cognition follows when one merges a belief that contradicts another belief into his widely accepted theory of Cognitive Dissonance. For example, the dissonance between the belief that god is all powerful and good and the belief that child molestation is bad/evil is healed, by the faithful, when they conclude that ‘god’s children only have a limited view’ disabling anybody to conclude that god may not be so good after all...or even doesn’t exist all together. That is, if you choose to believe the absolutely unverifiable resolution of the ‘limited view’ position.

The simple notion that we all have a limited view compared to god's is a contradictory statement in and of itself. If they truly believe they have a limited view, how do they even erect the ‘limited view’ belief? For, if they truly had a limited view how could they know for sure they don't have a limited view on having a limited view. As a matter of fact, if they have a limited view, how do they discern that god is good? Furthermore, how do they KNOW they even have a limited view?

The whole ‘limited view’ position begs a person not to think for themselves. For instance, would rapping a woman ever be moral? I’m sure that everyone reading this blog, religious or not, will maintain an absolute, “No,” to that question without hesitation. Though, I invite anyone reading to contradict me if someone feels otherwise. However, in all of our ‘limited view’ the ‘holy’ book by ‘God’ states in Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 :

11: And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife

12: Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13: And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14: And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Not only does god say it’s ok, but he makes it an act worthy of a month preparation ritual of humbling. Not only does this man get to rape her at his will, but desecrate her as well. Who cannot stand up and say that an act of this kind is not wrong in any given situation? I certainly can. Yet, were I to maintain a limited view on God then how could I possibly disagree with god’s own words. He is, after all, all good and knows more than me and my ‘limited view’. And to go ahead and refute the popular rebuttal that Jesus’ returned to abolished the old law I shall insert Matthew 5: 17-18 here:

17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Has anyone changed their mind that rape of a woman under any circumstance has changed yet? Even though god, supposedly himself, maintains that it is just fine to rape in time of war. Hey, a man has to satisfy himself somehow, right? Yet, I presume everyone remains disgusted with the idea of woman violence, especially under god’s name.

Still, had the Christian followers maintained a ‘limited view’ on this matter, would we still see these kinds of acts still happening today? I imagine some may disagree but I would like to remind people that atrocities still happen in the vain of those who fervently persist that the bible is an absolutely moral book for which one must read and follow. Immoral acts are endured everyday by homosexuals, atheists, women, African Americans, etc., because those who believe in the bible’s complete morality thrush it upon these people. Furthermore, the ‘we only have a limited view’ excuse exacerbates the problem of clear injustice retained by these people. The very idea that one only has a limited view compared to god’s, chokes any independent thought from his followers. And so it follows, those who desire power cannot preside over a people who freely express independence in their thinking and rationality.

Can people of any faith really not comprehend that their confident answers about god consist of absolutely no obtainable evidence and that the time their “I don’t knows” come rolling out of their mouth the “we can’t possibly understand god because of a limited view” notions are always correlated with actual observable happenings? Do they not see that making something up that is improvable bodes well to never having to withstand ever being proven wrong? Indeed, whatever one has made up to feed the dissonance in their head stands a good chance of keeping a delusion valid. I suppose that is why those with schizophrenia and other mental illness rarely come to the conclusion they are actually schizophrenic. They feel that the delusion, hallucination, etc. is actually happening; therefore, it is actually happening. I really don’t think most are daft enough not to grasp this concept. However, whether or not they want to grasp it, I think, holds the answer and is a whole other blog altogether ;)).

9 comments:

Monica Scott said...

I am a victim of child molestation and I can tell you that we may not know why these things happen to us, but I do know God never gives us more than we can bare.Asking God to give you peace that surpasses all understanding and truly giving your burden to him will help you to continue on in your life without the pain and hate that could so easily eat u alive.

Mark_W said...

Monica,

I’m truly and genuinely glad that you’ve found some peace and comfort after the appalling things that have happened to you, but, while I have no quarrel with anyone’s private beliefs, I must still (gently) take issue with your blanket statement that you “know” that “God” never gives us more than we can bear...

There are, unfortunately, many people (I’ve known some, as I suspect many of us have) that have become so unable to bear life that they attempt, sometimes tragically successfully, to take their own lives. As an atheist, I don’t of course believe that their situations were delivered on them by a god or gods (and if they were, I should want nothing to do with such deities, as none of them deserved anything remotely like what they had to go through).

Religion can, of course, do good as well as bad, and I say again that I’m genuinely glad that your particular faith and (presumably) others that follow it, have helped in your own case. That is a good thing. But to extrapolate from this to a cosy belief that your own particular god never visits upon anyone more than they can stand is just not justified.

Sadly, we can all think of any number of examples that show that this just isn’t so...

Best,

Mark_W

Mark_W said...

Susie,

Very interesting. Re. your first paragraph, I’ve noticed this too, the absolute certainty the religious have about things that they, nevertheless, “just don’t know why...”

You’re right about the “limited view” madness, too...

Personally, I’ve always subscribed to the view that the major dissonance occurs in believing in a particular god in the first place – if you can manage that, the problem of evil is a trivial one, since, if you’ve managed the major cognitive leap of believing a deity exists at all, then assuming you can’t fully understand his plans or why he or she allows dreadful things to happen is mere piffle in comparison...

You’re right about the nastiness of various bits of the bible, too. As I said over on Laurie’s blog recently, I once, when in an uncharacteristically contrary mood, upset a christian acquaintance of mine by declaring I’d like the bible a whole lot better if it didn’t have so much degenerate pornography in it. (I was thinking of Judges 19 – it’s truly appalling...)

Mark_W

Susie Q said...

Monica,

Thank you for your comment. The 'pain and hate' you describe as being able to 'eat you alive' does sound like a lot to 'bare'. If I understand what you have said correctly, it sounds like you have found your peace in God and you feel as though you can live a full and happy life. If I may, I hope you continue to follow where your heart has led you to peace. Again, I sincerely appreciate you speaking out and voicing yourself on this thread. Truly, it is my honor.

Sincerly,
Susie E.

Susie Q said...

Mark_W,

Thanks so much for your comment. It has spawn a stream of delightful fresh ponderings for me. So my reply to your comment is a quite a bit long. It is this reason that instead of posting a comment on this particular thread I will make my comment back to you as an actual blog post. Thanks for the inspiration.

Susie

Billy said...

Monica, I'm sorry to hear about your bad experienc. I got to know some one who was abused between the ages of 10 and 14. This person resorted to promiscuity, drugs, eating disorders. Thie person is seriously relationally disfunctional too. You can take it from me, she went through more than she can bear. There are also many people who have killed themselves because they cant reconcile their sexuality with the bible. I even know of a pioneering geologist (Hugh Miller) who killed kimself because he could not reconcile his belief in the bible with his work on fossils.
So, I have to respectfully and strongly disagree with you - believers do get pushed beyond their limits.
I too was a believer, and became an atheist - this to you as a believrer is the ultimate form of suicide, so even I was given more than I could take.

Suzie, to those who say god can do anything, I usually ask if he can make a square circle or make something too heavy for him to lift. You could also go down the moral line and ask if he can do evil (or good if you go by the OT god).

Susie Q said...

Billy,

I suppose your question pose a much less gruesome and poses it a bit more simply. I actually never heard the, "to heavy to lift" question, nice!

Lee said...

Good post Susie.

I’ve always found it funny when the theist uses the ‘logic’ “I do not know what caused A, so I KNOW it must be God”

A bit of a fallacy going on there...

Billy I usually ask if he can make a square circle or make something too heavy for him to lift.

Come on Billy – you know the ‘answer’ to this.

God can do anything that is logical, so ‘of course’ God cannot make a square circle because that is illogical.
(Notice how I didn’t answer the heavy stone… not heard a theist answer this part. It is not an illogical task in my book; I can make a lump of concrete too heavy for me to lift so no logic is broken)

Oh, and why is God tied down to logic? Is logic a limiting factor to God? Who made logic then Mr Theist?

You could also go down the moral line and ask if he can do evil (or good if you go by the OT god).

This one I like a lot…

Is there a moral act that God cannot perform?

Is there an ‘unholy’ act that God could perform?

If God can do everything and it is still deemed ‘Good’, if nothing that God does could be deemed ‘unholy’ - what actually then does it mean to be ‘good’ and ‘holy’ for God?

It is meaningless.

How can it be said we get our morals from God if it is meaningless to assign ‘Good’,‘Evil’ or 'unholy' to anything God does

Lee

Billy said...

God can do anything that is logical, so ‘of course’ God cannot make a square circle because that is illogical.



This still comes as a shock to many a theist though, who has never though other than god can do anything. If he is constrained by logic, he still can not do anything. As you mention the laws of logic, many theists claim that god made them (remember Sye from Stephen Law's blog?). This in effect means that god is constrained by something that he supposedly created - that means he is not a free agent either and is bound by a law he created. Presumably, he would have been free to violate it before he made it. However, then the have the problem of perfection to deal with. Does that mean that logic is not required for perfection? Then we encounter the problem that perfection can approximate to completeness. So did god have to invent logic to acquire perfection? In which case, he does not exists as an uncaused perfect entity. He would have to be imperfect to start with. I could go on. Inconsistency anyone?

A theist could argue that an act is not immoral if god does it, but that presents problems in demonstrating the existence of nmoral absolutes that we are supposed to just "know" exist.

Who would be a christian?