The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
23 April 2008 by Bob
It always interests me how the same arguments are pulled out against atheism. I mean, here’s a guy from Berkeley, who I’m sure is relatively intelligent, and then I read the following:
That led me to re-turn to one of C.S. Lewis’s finest books–and one of his first “Christian” ones–”The Problem of Pain.” And here’s the quote: “We ‘have all we want’ is a terrible saying when ‘all’ does not include God. We find God an interruption. As St. Augustine says somewhere, ‘God wants to give us something, but cannot, because our hands are full—there’s nowhere for Him to put it.’” Lewis is simply right, and even though it’s a tough word, it’s a good one. As he concedes, “It does not matter that I know I must become, in the eyes of every hostile reader, as it were, personally responsible for all the sufferings I try to explain…. But it matters enormously if I alienate anyone from the truth.”
And I feel the same way. I’d suggest that looking at both the amount and distribution of natural and moral evils shows that this “too much on one’s plate” explanation is simply a vapid attempt that goes nowhere.
And then, if that wasn’t enough, I get to read — once again — the values argument from theism.
The existence of good—and the related realities of meaning, purpose, and beauty—present together an almost insoluble problem for the atheist. [...] Consider the words of Richard Dawkins, Oxford scientist, and bestselling author of The God Delusion: “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” That’s a reasonably bleak portrayal of the universe, and, since we’re part of that universe, of our lives as well. It does, however, correspond perfectly with a basic conviction from Philosophy 101—“nothing comes from nothing.” Start with a purely physical system without any Creator, and all you have is brute fact. If the universe is simply a physical system, then why should something non-physical like good, meaning, purpose, or beauty arise? It cannot.
I’ll leave the “physical” and “non-physical” fallacies for the reader for homework.
And this is out of Berkeley?
[*sigh*]
23 April 2008, on 11:28 am
I love checking GifS first thing in the morning…always good for a laugh. Now I don’t feel so bad for only going to a community college, lol…
23 April 2008, on 12:08 pm
What do you expect from a Theologist. They are required to have warped sense of logic and reason. I guess they need to justify their paycheck. If I had a degree in complete horseshit, I would need to attempt to smack down the anti-horseshitters out there.
23 April 2008, on 12:37 pm
“Brute fact”!
I love it!
23 April 2008, on 2:19 pm
This item only confirms Pat Condell’s opinion. He thinks that if we persist in teaching theology in our universities, we might as well add astrology and tarot cards too.
23 April 2008, on 3:19 pm
I’m with Ben on this one. Brute fact was quite the Freudian slip. Score one for the nihilists.
23 April 2008, on 3:20 pm
“If the universe is simply a physical system, then why should something non-physical like good, meaning, purpose, or beauty arise?”
Uh, beauty, meaning, purpose, etc. are all human-made abstract constructs that have different meanings to different people and cultures.
If we were to meet alien beings tomorrow, they would have entirely different moral systems and their definitions of said concepts would be totally foreign to us, probably to the point of being incomprehensible.
Stupid wishful thinking. As usual.
23 April 2008, on 4:48 pm
As someone who goes to Berkeley every week for military training, I can tell you that fundies exist there as well.
23 April 2008, on 5:48 pm
The artificial distinction that religious people make between the “physical” and “non-physical” is key to understand how this tripe gets accepted, tho’. I mean, I guess we all know how there is no non-physical, but it’s the key.
So long as people can say “non-physical” like it has meaning they’ll be able to foist off crap like this. Sure, if one accepts that the non-physical exists then science has done a lousy job of describing the universe and this critique is valid. Too bad no one can actually find the non-physical - every time they try, they just find more physical.
23 April 2008, on 6:43 pm
Pat Condell: “What is the difference between a doctor of theology and a medical doctor? One prescribes drugs and the other one might as well BE on drugs. Theology should be a branch of the creative arts.” Theologians are experts on the unknowable. Real experts. Ya gotta luv Pat!!
I was also wondering about the guy’s definition of Beauty, Meaning, Purpose…huh?…These constructs “exist” apart from the subject? Pray tell, how is this??? It is the same old crap about some “trans-human” zombie plane…it makes NO sense. I guess when you are a theologian, work is work.
23 April 2008, on 10:50 pm
Yeah, Bob…the nature of Theology is to chase ones tail in an infinitely pointless, circular mindset. Taking any of the so-called ’sacred’ [anagram of 'scared'?] texts as a source of any “real” knowledge, leads to an endless conjuring up of rationalizations.
As Chris Hitchens so often points to…having Rev before one’s name; or in this guy’s case, a Phd. in Theology…instills unquestioned respect in the minds of many of the religious delusionals.
Actually, Theology; which purports to be a study of Theos or deity…or Gawd, is, as WE all know, nothing of the sort. It’s simply, and demonstrably, a ’study’…really a close, often reading between the lines…analysis…of mythologically made-up, often culturally borrowed, contradictory filled, carefully selected (with bias aforethought), often outright fraudulent laden, Bronze age stories.
[Take breath here.]
That said; an amazingly undeserved “reverence” is bestowed on the (brazen effrontery) holders of degree titles relating to that particular exercise in ivory tower elitism.
Of course, we DON’T quite do that regarding, say…a Phd. in English. [Well...I don't!] In other words…there’s no automatic “Sacred Awe” expected for analyzing Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”; though very interesting, nay, I’d say…MUCH MORE interesting…as it is, than the often ridiculous ‘Babble’ or ‘Ko-rant’ stories.
Nobody’s bowing or kneeling to kiss any English Professor’s ring…are they?
[Ummm...Let's hear it from the English teachers out there?...
Stardust?]
On another tangential Post note…
Ya know, Bob…after following your embedded links to those older, very relevant threads [with Sean's comments etc.]…it seems to me, we haven’t had an asshatting gif (?) animation for awhile.
I KNEW there was something missing in my rather dull life of late. I think we need at least one Mod posted asshat graphic per month to keep us faithful GifSters from going into a lack of animation ["DT-like"] withdrawal syndrome…or is it…
“ATs” [Asshatting Tremors]; or perhaps more precise: “LAATs”
[Lack of Asshatting Animation Tremors]?
“I’ll have one LAAT-hey?…with extra cream, please!
Wait!…on second thought…
make it CREME, instead!”
It IS nice, though, to reminisce a bit in some of those old comment threads!
And, what ever happened to so many of the old gang, like Marcus, King Retard, etc.? And, has anyone heard anything from Naomi?
With the crazy Deisel gas prices; I wonder if she’s still able to “Keep on Truckin’”.
Anyway…just wondering!
23 April 2008, on 11:23 pm
“Theologians are experts on the unknowable. ”
Yeah Barbie, the absurdity of that career choice is mind numbing.
I always sigh and roll my eyes when Theologians try to argue, ad nauseam, that atheists can’t know beauty, happiness, meaning, purpose, and other entirely subjective concepts created by humans; concepts that require no “oogie-boogie” supernatural influence–only humans to experience them.
How can anyone seriously claim that I can’t enjoy the majesty of the redwoods, the genius of a DaVinci painting, the beauty of Bach or the taste of good wine–simply because I don’t find need or reason for Gawd belief. I’m living proof that you can indeed know all those concepts listed above, without the intervention of a superfluous invisible friend. How patronizing to insist otherwise.
23 April 2008, on 11:36 pm
I think you have a Nietzsche trigger finger!
24 April 2008, on 12:44 am
I was gunna drop to my knees and assume the MPP (Muslim Position of Prayer) to begin paying homage to this PHD from Berkeley - I mean seriously, Berkeley! Don’t be fooled, you find dingleberries like this anywhere. It’ssad that such a dingus can make a living spouting nonsense… He casually asserts that abstract ideas such as morals and beauty cannot arise in a physical universe, seemingly olivious to the fact that they do. The idea that concepts such as these are beneficial to the survival of a species and are thus selected for seems too difficult for many to wrap their heads around. I’m not out here to beat up people for being poets or creative writers, but come on Mr. Berkeley PHD - lets not try and make assertions amidst pretty writing that flatters self absorbed elitists. Particularly when it is factually wrong.
24 April 2008, on 4:10 pm
My favorite telltale digression contained in this litany of assumption, is when he describes Dawkins view of the universe as “reasonably bleak.” Dawkins idea of the universe having “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,” is, in fact, a fine definition for “freedom” rather than anything else. Such utter indifference means we know we aren’t driven to some ulterior purpose by forces outside us who require our complete acquiescence under threat of eternal torture to follow their wills so they may execute their own selfish plans without any regards for us mere mortals. Dawkins view, frankly, is a relatively consoling view of the universe for me in comparison to the alternative, and anyone who can only see bleakness in Dawkins view is being very obtuse. This is a classic example of why Christopher Hitchens says theists actually “prefer enslavement under a celestial dictator” to being actually truly free. This joker is no exception. Believers, at every turn, exhibit the plain fact that they can’t even conceive a difference between enslavement and freedom.
24 April 2008, on 4:26 pm
And it never occurred to either Lewis or this idiot, not to mention Augustine himself, to ask how an all-powerful god could somehow be prevented from doing what he wanted and knew was best for us simply by us insignificant, imperfect little humans having our hands full?!!
No wonder he’s incapable of answering any prayer other than the occasional “please give me a parking spot right in front of the store”…
24 April 2008, on 6:08 pm
Oh, c’mon Eve…that prayer always works for me at the $1 Waldo’s Mart but never at Nordstroms…Gawd loves thrifty shoppers…LOL!
24 April 2008, on 6:56 pm
Hey Barbie!
What happened to your blog? I clicked on the link and got a screen that said the blog had been removed. Hope everything is okay.
24 April 2008, on 7:13 pm
Hi Tommy,
All is well…I had a run-in at another site, picked up an obsessed-religious-stalker-of-the Armageddon-Kind and, frankly, he scared me half to death, so I took it down… but I will start up another blog again with more caution this time, no emails…Right now I’m in the middle of finals so I’ll give you a holler when it is up and running again. I’m still a BIG fan of the Exercise in Futility! Rock on!
24 April 2008, on 7:39 pm
I like the argument from ignorance about “The existence of good”.
Maybe a Google search for Altruism and Evolution
would help Mr.Cootsona.
Oh, and “Philosophy 101″,how does the Creator arise?
25 April 2008, on 2:02 am
godsarefake;
The only way I could agree with you more is if you had a twin saying the same thing. I never felt so free as the day I gave up the label “agnostic” for that of “atheist” (reading “The End of Faith” on a plane on the way to my Grandmother’s funeral. I felt much more relief of my grief thinking about her 93 wonderful years on earth than I would have saying “she’s in better place.”) Spot on.
25 April 2008, on 3:58 pm
Barbie, you’re so right! And of course praying for more money to be able to shop at Nordstrom’s never worked, either; I mean, come on - if you can’t depend on god to assist you in your shopping, then what’s a girl to do?
30 April 2008, on 8:30 am
“If the universe is simply a physical system, then why should something non-physical like good, meaning, purpose, or beauty arise? It cannot.”
Good, meaning, purpose and beauty can all arise from a physical system. All that system has to accomplish first is biological life with a relatively decent level of consciousness and intellect. This person forgot that concepts like “good, meaning, purpose…beauty” are all subjective concepts formulated by human minds.
It saddens me greatly that such a deluded person was accepted into a fine institution like Berkeley.