Need some assistance with some confusing arguments. I'm 18 and recently stopped attending church because I became an atheist last year. My youth pastor has noticed how I've become more questioning and how I've recently distanced myself from church related activities. He gave me a call a few weeks ago and had some questions regarding my own rather potent and critical questions I've brought up in the past. Somewhat incriminating questions like; "What is more likely, that our religion is the one true religion out of say, a thousand other religions, and you only believe in it because it is true. And because of that, if you happened to be born in the Middle East you wouldn't be a Muslim because you can somehow tell it wasn't true? Or is it that you were simply indoctrinated into your faith because of your religious surroundings. And if you were in fact born in the Middle East, you would be saying the exact same thing about Islam?"
And a question about prayer that I've only now been brave enough to ask, "Does wether or not you pray really do anything? I mean the only possible answers are; Yes, No, and Wait. And 'wait' turns into either yes or no eventually anyways. Plus, if the answer is 'yes', that means 'God is so good' if the answer happens to be no, it's 'well God knows best anyways' Or is swiftly swept under the rug. Bottom line being that something would've happened either way. Attributing god(s) to it is as meaningless as saying Unicorn did it, isn't it?"
Note that these questions were not nearly as concise when I said them compared to how I just wrote them. There was a lot of stammering like a moron I can assure you. Anyways, now that you understand the context of questions I was asking, I would like some help with the arguments and counterarguments my youth pastor posed to me:
#1.)
"The problem of good"
This argument seems like some kind of mirror image of "the problem of evil". I don't know everything about the evil problem, I'm probably wrong, but I think I understand what it boils down to. I think "the problem of evil" is just a simple rebranding of "if god is good, why is there evil?". I'm not very well versed in atheist arguments, but I'm assuming by the same logic, "the problem of good" is the theists way of flipping "if god is good, why is there evil?" on its head changing it to "if there is no god, why is there good?" So my youth pastors position is that there is proof for god because most people have the need to help other people when in need. But because people are god's special creation, and that if it weren't for his grace and the word of the bible, everyone would just be savages. I pointed out that many animals have altruistic behaviors and it's not exclusive to humans, we are animals just like they are. And that there are many people who have never read the bible who do good things. This must've not been a good point of me to make because he insisted I was incorrect (he wouldn't specify on which part) he continued on to say: "Well the naturalists are still left with the problem of good. If we are just a bunch of atoms bouncing around, where does want to do good come from without the presence of a god?"
Apparently I was not smart enough to take the argument any farther. This is where I was stumped unfortunately. I thought I might ask then "where does god's sense of good come from then?" But I thought that would just lead to some dead ended circular response like "God is the definition of good." Or "doesn't apply. God isn't made of atoms, stupid."
Can someone explain how to respond to the problem the problem of good the naturalists have? Or correct me if my line of reasoning is dead wrong?
Question #2)
"We can know the bible is true because of the many prophesies the bible has verified."
This line of argument is a bit specified for me to keep up with honestly. My youth pastor says that the events of the bible are confirmed by history like ancient records in Egypt and such. And that the bible is like "double true" because it predicts things even today. I wish I could remember what he said that the bible predicts currently. But they were too vague and general for me to remember. I'm skeptical, to say the least, that history in fact confirms the bible. But I don't know of any examples in history that would refute that claim. Besides the fact that the story in Genesis is just a myth. But like 10 plagues, the Exodus of the Israelites or crossing the Red Sea. I mean there must a metric crap ton of evidence for that.
What claims don't match up? What about the prophecies? Have any of them really been confirmed?
I'm rather new to this site, looking to make some new friends it at all possible.
Anyways. Hope my long winded questions made some sense. Thanks so much!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I'm in a bit of a hurry so i apologize fore rushed reply and any mistakes i might say.
Welcome to the forum.
#1.)
"The problem of good"
"if there is no god, why is there good?"
Simple answer;
It is quite possible that the existence of good is not dependent on whether a christian god exists or not.
You have yet to present anything that even remotely hints that the christian god exists at all.
Are you seriously claiming that without the christian god there cannot be good?
Because if you are, then you must first support this claim before even considering your first question.
Assuming it, does not make it a fact, especially since the christian god is claimed to have created evil too.(eg: sin, hell, world flood, etc...)
"Well the naturalists are still left with the problem of good. If we are just a bunch of atoms bouncing around, where does want to do good come from without the presence of a god?"
Just because we do not know the answer to a currently unknown thing, like "where does want to do good come from", it does not mean that god did it.
It just means that we do not know yet.
This is a typical god of the gaps question.
Question #2)
"We can know the bible is true because of the many prophesies the bible has verified."
Ask him to be specific about which prophecies is he talking about.
99% what he considers prophecies are just generalizations and wishful thinking done by our innate human trait of pattern seeking.
Any fulfilling prophecies like the character in the story named Jesus fulfilling Jewish prophecies is immediately dismissesed since the authors are writing the Jesus story after the prophecies were foretold.
Any prophecies that Jesus himself makes are dismissed since the authors could create the character Jesus living before their time.
Eg: I could write about the life of a prophet that made a very specific prophecy a 100 years ago about my birth place and exact date.
There is no fulfillment there.
Any prophecies about today are all dismissed because they are all generalizations.
Eg
prophecy: there will be famine and lightning and death will follow.
This is not a prophecy but a generalization about very likely events that surly will happen eventually.
Ask him to support his claims if he insists.
Don't worry there aren't any specific prophecies in the bible, he is out right lying to you.
But what there surly is in the bible is failed prophecies and contradictions.
Hope that helps.
Jeff,
Thanks for the thorough walkthrough. Very clear and very helpful. I hope to hear from you again if I ever get a response from the pastor. Thanks again!
Welcome, sure you are free to put forward any arguments he brings about.
Though it is unlikely he will bring anything original that was not debunked over and over again.
good is a philosophy question, not a scientific one. If we hadn't got it down yet, we never will
well #2 is easy:
youth pastor - "My youth pastor says that the events of the bible are confirmed by history like ancient records in Egypt and such."
My response: he is lying. Perhaps he is only repeating lies he was told by people he trusts, but that statement is totally inaccurate and 30 seconds of research should reveal that. The Egypt/Exodus story is 100% fiction, it didn't happen. That should be grounds to doubt anything else he has to say on the matter.
Welcome to the forum.
I am delighted when I hear how people are thinking for themselves, asking questions and shedding the delusion that has been surrounding them.
I would like to point out something that many people forget, especially religious people: It's all right to "not know".
If you don't know the answer to a question, it's completely all right to just say "I don't know", it is also the most honest answer. It's easy to forget that we don't HAVE to know the answer to all these existential questions. To "insert god" or "magic" when we really don't know is self deception, delusion.
It's sounds like you have a friendly relationship with your youth pastor, so a diplomatic or rather Socratic method is probably the best approach. Unfortunately, it sounds like he is preaching to you rather then having a discussion.
I think it was a good argument by you to bring up altruism between animals. I can't understand how he could insist that it is "incorrect". As you said, he wouldn't specify what exactly was wrong in that argument, probably because he can't.
I think you should keep asking him, to get an answer. Is he saying that animals are not altruistic?
#1
"If we are just a bunch of atoms bouncing around, where does want to do good come from without the presence of a god?"
What an absurd simplification. An argument clearly designed to make you baffled and unable to respond. There are many books on the topic and there are numerous examples that show altruism between animals.
A short clip with Richard Dawkins talking about altruism, based on his book The Selfish Gene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8C-ntwUpzM
#2
"We can know the bible is true because of the many prophesies the bible has verified."
That is probably what he believes (or wants to believe). There may be a few historical parts that can be verified, but absolutely none of the supernatural parts.
The interesting phenomenon is when you ask questions like "Where is any of the archaeological evidence for the flood, or any accounts from the contemporary civilizations?"
If they don't just keep insisting, they switch to the "but that part is not meant to be taken literary" defense. As if they have a clear definition of what parts are to be taken literally or not.
The Pragmatic,
Thanks! What you wrote was very helpful. That is a good point about simply being honest about not knowing everything. I looked into the link you added. I also did more investigation for myself into the prophecies nonsense. Next time I have the chance I'll ask the youth pastor to give a more clear definition on his standings on altruism, and hopefully some examples of what he considers solid archaeological evidence.
This is a weird situation I find myself in. I've know him and people like him since the 3rd grade. The school I went to pushed very hard to get children into being mentored by college age students from Adventist universities. And I'd be lying if I were to say it didn't influence me. It's a hard trap for a 3rd grader not to fall for. Crazy that over last year I started finding that literally nothing that was told to me by my religious mentors could even stand up to the mildest form of scrutiny and critical thought. Anyways, thanks again!
@ Sterling ...
I may be able to offer some help with the supposed "fulfilled prophesies "....
Try here......link..
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/matthew.htm
look into the "Fulfilling Prophecy"? chapter...about halfway down....
( advice...don't just take it at face value...check out what it says...look it up for yourself.....check the verses out in on-line translations etc.... then the next time your youth pastor tries it on............ nail his head to the floor ....or more properly.....refute his unfounded claims...........[with extreme prejudice])
Interesting site.
What it lacks is the knowledge that Mathew and Luck were competing for something much greater then themselves, the favor of the roman rulers.
Luke was introducing the idea that the gentiles and the slaves are the first because the last will be first.
Mathew was trying to keep the Jews on top because the Jews follow more strict rules.
Why this competition?
The truth is that the influential Jews that sided with the Romans against the Jewish rebels and fanatics are starting to lose power and influence.
These elite Jews like the Alexanders wanted to integrate in roman society and assimilate.
In their own eyes they were Romans, had roman citizenship, spoke Greek, etc...
The average roman citizen is not making the distinction between a good roman Jew and a demon(rebellious) Jew.
All Jews are starting to look bad.
So what once was their own idea is becoming their own doom.
Christianity itself is slowly turning on all the Jews now.
The Romans did not give a dam about this problem as long as the people were loyal to Rome through Christianity.
(there was no roman persecution of Jesus Christianity during the Flavian period(70-100 AD), the church invented it later on in history)
Jewish authors like Mathew are desperately trying to keep Christianity a Jewish thing in various ways like linking it to the OT prophecies.
It did work and it stayed a Jewish thing for some time.
The problem was that the church managed to bypass it, since the average people could not read so the people will believe what the church tells them, just like Matthew did with his false Jewish prophecies.
Later on it even made it illegal to read it, punishable by death.
"appealing primarily to a Jewish audience"
So it is indeed "appealing primarily to a Jewish audience" but it is intended to make the roman Jews important among the roman citizens.
The Jews are the prophets, Jesus is a Jew, the good guys
VS
The rebellious Jews(against Rome (Demons)) and the Pharisees(that support them) which are the bad ones.
Unfortunately making this distinction was not enough and all the Jews ended up being persecuted by their own invention in history.
It is like the Muslim apologetic trying to convince people that they are different then the other Muslims by calling them radicals and extremists.
It is all propaganda for an agenda, and Mathew agenda is to give the Jews power as roman citizens through Christianity.
Luke on the other hand wants to give power to the non Jews among the christian leaders.
There were more gentiles and non Jews in the roman empire, thus eventually most if not all the Jews were removed from the christian leadership and it became the Jew hating Church we know of today.
'Good' is an a product of evolution. Take motherly love: if parents don't protect their offspring then they don't grow up to breed and the species dies out. (I'm simplifying this, there are other survival strategies.) So it's an evolutionary imperative for some species, such as ours. The same with other types of good. Killing your neighbours, or stealing, or raping, may have short term benefits for the individual, but pisses off the rest of the tribe which is not useful in the longer term. So those things become bad.
If you look at what we are and what we do in evolutionary terms, everything becomes clearer.
Lots of creatures look out not just for themselves, but for other group members. For example, Cape buffalo defending themselves from lions. From that impulse comes what we humans define as good. Just my two cents. I think that some species besides us have been observed helping other species. If I'm right, then this greater sense of concern is not unique to humans.
Of course. It's an evolutionary advantage to defend other group members so that trait is preserved. Of course, individual members sometimes get killed which is tough on them, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I don't know about one species helping another, though. Maybe there are some examples. Domesticated species don't really count, though.
A Helping Flipper: Why Do Dolphins Save Humans?
Posted by Ross Pomeroy March 19, 2012
In Douglas Adams' acclaimed science fiction novel, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, dolphins (yes, dolphins) do mankind a great favor when, just before the Earth is demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass, they create a replica of the Earth and transport everything to it
as a way of saving the human race. The super-intelligent dolphins, however, did not inhabit the new Earth because they had important business to tend to in an alternate dimension.
Now, this whole situation is a tad ridiculous, but it isn't entirely fictitious. In reality, dolphins have saved humans on many occasions.
In two (sort of) similar incidents, one in 2004 and one in 2007, pods of dolphins circled imperiled surfers for over thirty minutes in order to ward off aggressive great white sharks. And in 2000, a fourteen year old boy fell off a boat in the Adriatic Sea and nearly drowned before being rescued by a friendly dolphin. The marine mammal swam up alongside the boy and pushed him back to the boat from which he had fallen, where the boy's father promptly scooped him up.
Far from being merely a modern phenomenon, historical accounts show that dolphins have been saving humans for centuries. In the 1700s, a pod of dolphins helped rescue Vietnamese sailors when their boat was sunk by Chinese invaders. According to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, recorded stories of dolphins protecting humans date back to ancient Greece.
We know that dolphins have lent humans a helping flipper on countless occasions, what we don't know is precisely why. Scientists, however, do know that dolphins are incredibly intelligent, large-brained, and highly social mammals -- like us in these respects. Scientists have also found that dolphins are capable of mirror self-recognition, a primary indicator of self-awareness. And, according to researchers at the National Aquarium in Baltimore, this capability "is thought to correlate with higher forms of empathy and altruistic behavior."
The altruism answer is certainly possible, but other theories abound. Can the dolphins' behavior be attributed to a biologically programmed response? Were the dolphins merely attempting to play with humans and saved them inadvertently?
Right now, your hypothesis is as good as any. The only way we may obtain a definitive answer is by asking dolphins, themselves.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/why-do-dolphins-save-humans...
Hey. In regards to the "problem of good" your youth pastor raised brought up and the evolutionary basis for altruism there's a lot of literature available on that subject. The selfish gene by Dawkins is a good book to read about this. Bill Hamilton was a scientist who tried to figure out how an altruism trait could evolve, he came up with Hamilton's rule and kin selection. You should be able to find info on this on google and maybe even get your hands on some of his published articles. There's a biography witten about him called natures oracle: The life and work of W.D. Hamilton, its a really good read. Theres also narrow roads through gene land written by the man himself. You could also check out Bob Trivers work on reciprocal altruism. There's a lot of literature around about religion itself as a Darwinian adaptation worth checking out too. Maybe you should suggest to your pastor that he read some of these things as well :D
Man, I haven't been on here in forever....
Anyway, I only feel like answering one of your questions in depth. I type on a phone, so long answers lead to hand cramps.
So, the problem of good. Yes, this does mirror the problem of evil. Together they form the good/evil dichotomy. The short answer is both are human inventions. "Good" seems to have a strong link to altruistic behaviors of social creatures. There are many social creatures that make survival a group effort, and share resources to improve colony population and overall strength.
Humans take it one step further because we are somewhat more intelligent. We can use past experiences to project probable scenarios into the future and try to plan and react in accordance with our social survival mechanisms. So what we define as "Good" is merely a projection of our social instincts into the future based on prior memories and experiences. And our understanding of "Good" is limited by our ability accurately predict the outcome of such actions. And that is why what's considered "Good", may be similiar in some aspects amongst many different cultures that seemingly developed such ideas independantly. For example, distributing resources amongst the populace (charity, something we share with many social animals and insects such as chimpanzees, meercats, ants, and bees) is almost universally excepted as good.
But also why what's considered "Good" can also manifest as laws that can vary wildly between cultures. Reason being, laws seek to regulate the group behavior for the social benefit of all, but we can't always predict what will and will not produce the desired results. An example of wildly varying laws might be the issue of gun control. As a whole grouo, we can't seem to come to a conclusion whether or not it is better to try and ban all guns and risk not being properly armed to meet attackers on even grounds, or whether it is wiser to allow the armament of individuals in the hopes that armed individuals can deal with solitary attackers themselves.
Did this response answer atleast the one question satisfactorily?
"Good" and "evil" are subjective. I am what I consider to be good because I choose to be. I prefer more objective terms like "beneficial to self and/or society" and "detrimental or harmful to self and/or society" and "neutral/subjective". As far as the prophecy thing, yes most religions make prophetic claims that are based on vague language and reverse engineering. I recommend that you tell your pastor that you are going to study science books now instead of coming to church, say goodbye and don't even go back.