The atheist blogs are upset over the remarks that Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) made at a recent Illinois General Assembly to atheist Rob Sherman and who can blame them:
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.Illinois may be filled with people who believe in God but there are probably quite a few who do not and they have just as much right to representation as those who believe in God. We live in a nation founded on the belief that man is endowed by his Creator with certain rights and even when man rejects the Creator and refuses to acknowledges him, it doesn't mean that he has lost his rights. They have been acknowledged by our constitution. This woman may not like these views but her position doesn't give her the right to suppress them.I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!
And if she wants to hide children from atheism, she's too late. Secular humanism is pervasive in our schools and society. It's already being taught to our kids.
What's more dangerous to our kids is trying to keep them from understanding atheism and its arguments against God. Not preparing to engage in debate and to just think that we can ignore it and hope they never meet a persuasive atheist is a gamble I don't think that we should take. There are responses to the arguments atheists make and making sure your children have heard them prepares them for what they are about to face in today's pluralistic society (I recommend Keller's book to understand the questions and for equipping you and your child to answer them).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
While I'm agnostic with regards to the facts, I'm a weak theist with regards to belief, so I'll assume the existence of God for the sake of discussion.
I don't think the problem of evil means that God isn't good, otherwise God would have made things much worse. If God liked violent video games instead of the cosmic SIMS think how bad things could be. But it limits at least one of the Omni-attributes and seems to alter God's motivations.
While the abuse of free will is often brought up as a solution to the problem of evil. I think that falls short in two ways: First, humans don't have enough free will and are prisoners of our evolutionary heritage which allows our instincts to overcome our reason and better nature. Second is that natural evil is far deadlier than the human created kind.
Karen brought up resource constraints as a big cause of human cruelty. This relates nicely to my evolution point. The mechanism used to create man means that we have built in biases towards resource hoarding and violence toward our own kind because of the survival advantage conferred. These individuals survive to pass on their genes which reinforces these traits.
There's also all the wars fought over what was ultimately bad reasoning on the part of the participants. This has a basis in the state of nature where ignoring a real tiger can get you killed, while attacking a non-existent tiger behind a bush is only a waste of effort. Placing this instinct in the low trust environment of international politics triggers wars and much suffering.
The natural evils such as disease and disasters have killed more humans than all warfare. For example the 1918 flu pandemic alone killed at least 50 to 100 million people which exceeded the death toll from World War one by at least 10 million. The 2004 Tsunami killed more than 225,000 which exceeds the total death toll of the Iraq war.
Moving to an explicitly Christian issue. There's also the issue of God's motivation with regards to becoming Jesus. I could see a curious God taking on human form seeking to interact with its creations directly, but why the need for Christ's sacrifice? Why would God save us from the conditions he created?
Michelle you're being a good sport about this, plus there's an upside to this discussion. It we keep it up we can get you on the hot topics list.
Karen Brown, do you think man is inherently good or evil?
This is excellent and well-reasoned:
"I don't think the problem of evil means that God isn't good, otherwise God would have made things much worse. If God liked violent video games instead of the cosmic SIMS think how bad things could be. But it limits at least one of the Omni-attributes and seems to alter God's motivations."
"The natural evils"
What makes disease and disasters "evil?" From an evolutionary perspective isn't death just part of the process?
"There's also the issue of God's motivation with regards to becoming Jesus. I could see a curious God taking on human form seeking to interact with its creations directly, but why the need for Christ's sacrifice? Why would God save us from the conditions he created?"
If God's justice demanded that everyone who sinned against him had to spend eternity paying for it, would you stand a chance of remaining sinless? No one can. Christ came to lead the sinless life for us. He is the only one who can meet the standard of obedience necessary to enter heaven. God sent his Son to live the perfect life for us and die in our place to take our punishment. God's standard has been met but Christ and all of those who are united to him will be saved.
An analogy for this is Noah's ark. God's punishment is coming, it will rain down like the rain that filled the earth (I know you don't believe it) and we can't avoid it just as mankind could not avoid the flood. Those in Christ will live and those outside of Christ will be punished for all eternity. That's what the Bible says will happen.
From the Christian perspective Christ's death and resurrection makes sense because we understand the obedience we owe a holy God. Those who don't understand the purpose they were created for won't see their obligation to God as Creator.
BTW, God didn't create this situation, we did. We are free to be obedient to him and do not.
"Michelle you're being a good sport about this, plus there's an upside to this discussion. It we keep it up we can get you on the hot topics list."
I'm not being a good sport, out of all the things I can discuss on this blog, my favorite is discussing belief with others :-) And I don't if I can ever beat anything on God's Politics or the Crunchy Con :-)
"This is excellent and well-reasoned"
Hey thanks! Overall this thread has really made me think. I'm going to bookmark it for future reference.
"What makes disease and disasters "evil?" From an evolutionary perspective isn't death just part of the process?"
It is true that death is part of the process of life, but there's always the question of the time, place, and means.
I assume in a world where a God is sovereign over reality then there are no accidents unless God wills it. For example natural processes like plate tectonics while appearing random to us are in fact not random. In this scenario a tsunami which kills a lot of people really is an act of God and it automatically raises issues about what it means and why it happened.
In such a world evolution would be a directed process leading to specifically desired ends. This allows a God to create us, but the genetic mutation which allowed the 1918 flu pandemic wasn't really random either. Since that disease killed a lot of people it would also have a moral dimension also.
When such events actually kill more people than human evil it makes you wonder. From my point of view God is either non-existent or limited, so random processes happen and a tsunami or the flu have no moral dimension. They are actions without causes and no one can be held responsible, not even God.
"If God's justice demanded that everyone who sinned against him had to spend eternity paying for it, would you stand a chance of remaining sinless? No one can. Christ came to lead the sinless life for us. He is the only one who can meet the standard of obedience necessary to enter heaven. God sent his Son to live the perfect life for us and die in our place to take our punishment. God's standard has been met but Christ and all of those who are united to him will be saved."
"Those in Christ will live and those outside of Christ will be punished for all eternity. That's what the Bible says will happen."
I realize from your point of view you're following the rules as written and are not responsible for them. So justifying them is perhaps not something you concern yourself with. It might even be consider man judging God which might make you uncomfortable. But I have a questioning nature and I think those statements are the hardest thing for non-Christians to understand about Christianity for two reasons:
Given that I am finite then all of my sins are finite as well. So an infinite punishment for a finite crime seems a bit on the harsh side even if it is against an infinite being.
There's also the issue of how punishing one person (Jesus) for another's crime is itself a moral act. A finite punishment towards the sinner in question seems more moral. I realize that from a Christian point of view God is punishing himself however.
This also allows someone like Ted Bundy (who converted in prison) into Heaven while damming generally moral non-Christians killed in the Tsunami who only believed the wrong religion due to where they were born. I realize that Ted Bundy might not have been sincere but the concern is still valid.
I know the Catholic Church introduced the concept of the "Anonymous Christian" to cover this exact scenario. But I don't think this is recognized by conservative Protestant Christian groups.
I should close by saying that I'm not trying to anger you with this last section. It is meant as a respectful question/observation in a tough area.
I'm not sure what my beliefs regarding man's nature has to do with a state senator ordering a citizen out of a public forum because she doesn't like the group he's part of..
Just for FYI, neither.
I think humans are a messy mix of both. We can be, depending on need, circumstance, environment and a ton of other factors, surprisingly good or evil. And most of us, at different times, can be, and have been, both.
Now, if you can tell me what that's got to do with if the mere knowledge that atheists exist is dangerous to people's children?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.