|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Defending God
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I am sure many people have seen this article about Stephen Fry. Now I think there is a whole lot of interesting stuff in this, but I am particularly intrigued by the response on facebook to this.
I think that Stephen Fry has a point. There is a question here to be answered, and it is not an easy one. That doesn't mean I think he is right, just that he has a point worth responding to.
But most of the discussion seems to be that Fry is an arrogant sinner, who shouldn't have the nerve to say such things. People seem to feel a need to defend God from these accusations.
When I posted that I think God should answer these, I was told that God is not accountable to us. And yet a God who considers my anguish beneath him is not a God I can worship. The God being held up here, as one who must not be questioned, is a poor God.
I do think he has a case to answer, and - crucially - I do think he has an answer for it. What is more, I believe that my God is far more ready and willing to be called a capricious, malicious piece of shit than most people seem to accept.
Why do people feel such a need to defend God? The God who needs defending is one I have had enough of. The God I believe in now is quite big enough to defend himself, should he need to.
[ 09. February 2015, 21:01: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Because people perceive the attack as on them, not God, so self-justification (and possibly fear of addressing theodicy directly) causes them to lash out.
Or, in other words, their God is too small.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
Unable to get link to work. Ironically.
Reality, as I posted on other thread, is the authority by which people speak and in whose name.
Over zealous demarcation creates many a wound.
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I have fixed the link in my first post. Sorry about that.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
Thanks SC. Does that demonstrate the situ ? The dynamic of fixing things on our terms ? Appropriate responses to disconnects ?
Does God cease existing, because of our individual choice ?
Does God exist, simply through our choice ?
Sound-bite solutions rarely meet the need for pain resolution and disconnect. Yet our basic humanity signifies a yearning for good better than we see.
Do time-constrained expectations morph the events ?
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Because people perceive the attack as on them, not God, so self-justification (and possibly fear of addressing theodicy directly) causes them to lash out. Or, in other words, their God is too small.
This is an unkind assessment, and it falls short.
I don't think anybody is really defending God against Stephen Fry. Everybody is defending other people against Stephen Fry. Stephen Fry can do nothing to God, or about God. But Stephen Fry certainly can mess up other people, and in particular, their approach to God.
These "other people" may indeed include oneself. It does not necessarily indicate that "one's God is too small" if one counter-attacks Stephen Fry mostly because one is concerned with one's own relationship to God. If somebody calls your wife a whore, and you spring to her defence immediately and vigorously, is that an indication that your love for your wife, and your trust in her, is too small? Typically we rather see this as a demonstration of the strength of one's devotion.
I have side-stepped theodicy in my way, I don't intend to explain this here again. But whenever I hear talk about worms eating eyeballs of children and whatnot, I mostly think "dishonesty". For sure, theodicy is the most serious problem facing the "benevolent God" believer. But in a sense that is a theoretical / intellectual problem: is it in fact logically possible that God is benevolent but the world is shit? There is also a kind of "practical theodicy", where the world has been shit to you. But that tends to express itself quite differently, much more emotionally and concrete. There's really no mistaking that, because just about the last thing you would want to discuss when faced with such personal disasters are theoretical solution of theodicy...
But this Stephen Fry stuff is basically just trying to grab your emotions while discussing the theoretical problem. It is inviting a leap to conclusions "this is so bad, nothing could possibly explain it". It's rhetorics, it's ultimately dishonest. Stephen Fry has no children whose eyeballs got eaten by worms, and the logical problem of benevolent God vs. crappy worlds doesn't require especially horrendous illustration.
What is Stephen Fry really saying? He cannot bear worms eating eyeballs, but he could tolerate say a bit of violence to children? Or how about a bit of economic injustice, like fat cat TV presenters getting lots of money for doing very little? Or whatever... The world is actually full of injustices, big and small, and no matter what size, they all pose a problem for the belief in a benevolent God.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Actually, I think when the response is particularly strong and 'violent' (and dare one say, un-Christian) then actually my snapshot isn't unfair or desperately wide of the mark.
If someone called my wife a whore I wouldn't leap up and biff them on the nose, nor would I tear into them aggressively and destructively. I'd either refute it calmly and clearly (not hard, unless she lives an incredible double life), or ignore it as pointless showboating bluster. The depth of my devotion to my wife is not measured by the degree to which I'd trample on others in her notional 'defence', and the security of my relationship with her is such that it would barely merit a "Oh, do fuck off my good man".
So for those that pitch in all hardcore stylee, I think it does to some extent speak to them identifying it as a personal slight. Those that respond in a more measured spirit of debate/refutation (e.g. the Krish Kandiah and Pete Greig responses that seemed very popular, albeit still ducking the main point), there it doesn't apply.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Stephen Fry is being dishonest? way to go in avoiding the issue and attacking the person, IngoB.
I think Fry is many things, and is wrong about many things, but I have no evidence that he is being dishonest about this debate. In fact, quite the opposite.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
SF is saying 'how dare you?' to God.
Simply another way of saying 'why?' - which is a very fair question imo.
My answer would be 'freedom' and 'evolution'. His would simply be 'evolution'.
Yes - he's using emotional arguments, but it's clearly something he feels strongly about.
Myself, I simply think we couldn't have the bad without the good (bacteria, weather, earthquakes, you name it) we depend on them all.
Why would God allow such a system - freedom.
He's very clever and would probably run rings round me, but I'd love a chat with him on the subject as my arguments tend to be very emotional too ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
The scenario itself is contrived. How could SF actually have conversation with someone whose existence he believes depends on the credibility of his thought.
Whether he likes it or not for his conversation to be valid God will need to exist.
An atheist assertion would have no God to have the conversation with.
We can choose to intervene as we feel prompted, showing merely a desire for our voice to be heard, as an appropriate response.Obviously God is able to respond, in His way. We in our humanity find unanswered questions difficult to leave alone.
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
The scenario itself is contrived. How could SF actually have conversation with someone whose existence he believes depends on the credibility of his thought.
Whether he likes it or not for his conversation to be valid God will need to exist.
An atheist assertion would have no God to have the conversation with.
That's true, SF is postulating what he would say if a God existed as is suggested by Christianity, not that he believes in such a thing. No logical conflict really.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fry's statement isn't even hyperbole. Why would an all-powerful, all-loving God create this world?
Valid question.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
Obviously God is able to respond, in His way. We in our humanity find unanswered questions difficult to leave alone.
That's exactly what SF was questioning.
He was saying IF God is able to respond/not create these foul things then the fact that he did (create eye eating bugs etc) was cruel and heartless in the extreme. Which it would be, of course, if that was how creation worked. Such a God could not be said to love anyone/anything.
I would say that's not how creation works. SF, of course, doesn't believe in creation in the first place - his answer was hypothetical.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Stephen Fry is being dishonest? way to go in avoiding the issue and attacking the person, IngoB. I think Fry is many things, and is wrong about many things, but I have no evidence that he is being dishonest about this debate. In fact, quite the opposite.
I did address the issue of the OP, which was why people feel the need to "defend God". My answers was that people do not really defend God, but belief in God, the belief of other people and possibly their own. And that that is perfectly fine.
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
[ 10. February 2015, 16:38: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
Obviously.
But, just as you or I don't bare your souls on this public forum, neither does SF in a public interview.
Nothing dishonest about that.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
My point when I posted was that I think Fry has a good point. He is asking God "how dare you", and that seems a reasonable question to ask God. It is one I wrestle with and struggle with.
The problem I have is that the response is "you can't ask God that!" or "Job answers that" (or similar), rather than "That is a damn good question, and I don't yet know the answer. But I believe there is one"
I think this is something I see in other places as well, its just that this was a prime example. The defensiveness of God - which I accept is often a defensiveness of their own lack of faith, or a sense of fear. Or something else.
But it makes me feel that their God is not big enough. That is the message it gives to me.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Actually I'd go the other way. People who don't feel the need to defend God worry me because it indicates a level of comfort with an apparently capricious sadistic God that is disturbing. People who are trying to defend God are ISTM at least trying struggle with the issues, find a way to square the circle. "He may look capricious but..."
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Actually I'd go the other way. People who don't feel the need to defend God worry me because it indicates a level of comfort with an apparently capricious sadistic God that is disturbing. People who are trying to defend God are ISTM at least trying struggle with the issues, find a way to square the circle. "He may look capricious but..."
There's a third option, which I hope is mine. That is to admit that he sometimes looks capricious, but (on other grounds) to trust that he is in fact not so--and to rest in that, without getting in other people's faces about it. Look, I don't have the answer. So why should I be madly scrambling to make you or anybody else believe some kludged-up pseudo-answer, as if it were better to believe nonsense than to say "I don't know"?
[ 10. February 2015, 21:03: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Actually I'd go the other way. People who don't feel the need to defend God worry me because it indicates a level of comfort with an apparently capricious sadistic God that is disturbing. People who are trying to defend God are ISTM at least trying struggle with the issues, find a way to square the circle. "He may look capricious but..."
There's a third option, which I hope is mine. That is to admit that he sometimes looks capricious, but (on other grounds) to trust that he is in fact not so--and to rest in that, without getting in other people's faces about it. Look, I don't have the answer. So why should I be madly scrambling to make you or anybody else believe some kludged-up pseudo-answer, as if it were better to believe nonsense than to say "I don't know"?
That is it. The option of 'not seeking the cheap answer',that is forced & time-constrained rhethoric, motivated by fear of the unanswered, that fails to grasp the depth of the pain of disconnect. SF and the interviewer having the liberty of space, time money etc to ask the question, without time for an answer. When people are living the pain, regardless of the answer.Has SF given a penny to the blind in response ? Yet, many will follow the casual line of thought & humour that creates entertainment from lives of poverty.In God's name and without it.
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Actually I'd go the other way. People who don't feel the need to defend God worry me because it indicates a level of comfort with an apparently capricious sadistic God that is disturbing. People who are trying to defend God are ISTM at least trying struggle with the issues, find a way to square the circle. "He may look capricious but..."
There's a third option, which I hope is mine. That is to admit that he sometimes looks capricious, but (on other grounds) to trust that he is in fact not so--and to rest in that, without getting in other people's faces about it. Look, I don't have the answer. So why should I be madly scrambling to make you or anybody else believe some kludged-up pseudo-answer, as if it were better to believe nonsense than to say "I don't know"?
I don't have a problem with any of that. In fact it's the sort of thing I imagined in my "..."
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DOEPUBLIC
Shipmate
# 13042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
Obviously God is able to respond, in His way. We in our humanity find unanswered questions difficult to leave alone.
That's exactly what SF was questioning.
He was saying IF God is able to respond/not create these foul things then the fact that he did (create eye eating bugs etc) was cruel and heartless in the extreme. Which it would be, of course, if that was how creation worked. Such a God could not be said to love anyone/anything.
I would say that's not how creation works. SF, of course, doesn't believe in creation in the first place - his answer was hypothetical.
If so, would he expect an hypothetical answer ? Me thinks not. Merely for entertainment IMO.
Posts: 2350 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Actually I'd go the other way. People who don't feel the need to defend God worry me because it indicates a level of comfort with an apparently capricious sadistic God that is disturbing. People who are trying to defend God are ISTM at least trying struggle with the issues, find a way to square the circle. "He may look capricious but..."
There's a third option, which I hope is mine. That is to admit that he sometimes looks capricious, but (on other grounds) to trust that he is in fact not so--and to rest in that, without getting in other people's faces about it. Look, I don't have the answer. So why should I be madly scrambling to make you or anybody else believe some kludged-up pseudo-answer, as if it were better to believe nonsense than to say "I don't know"?
Mine as well. Not all are called to be theodicists.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
Obviously. But, just as you or I don't bare your souls on this public forum, neither does SF in a public interview. Nothing dishonest about that.
If it is obvious that Mr Fry would not actually say to God what he said, then it is obvious that Mr Fry was dishonest in claiming that he would. Unless you are saying that Mr Fry is either stupid or lacks self-awareness. I don't think either is the case. Mr Fry fronted with atheist apologetics when asked a personal question, without indicating that he was doing so. I do not do something equivalent on the Catholic side. Rather, if I want to answer personal questions, I do, and if I don't, I don't. Mostly I don't, but there's nothing dishonest about that preference. Obviously it is easier to avoid saying something around here than in an interview. But nobody forced Mr Fry to give that interview.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
My point when I posted was that I think Fry has a good point. He is asking God "how dare you", and that seems a reasonable question to ask God. It is one I wrestle with and struggle with.
Theodicy is generally considered to be not only a reasonable but also a tough question for Christianity. Whatever other merits Mr Fry's version might have, it is about as original as toasted bread.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem I have is that the response is "you can't ask God that!" or "Job answers that" (or similar), rather than "That is a damn good question, and I don't yet know the answer. But I believe there is one" I think this is something I see in other places as well, its just that this was a prime example. The defensiveness of God - which I accept is often a defensiveness of their own lack of faith, or a sense of fear. Or something else. But it makes me feel that their God is not big enough. That is the message it gives to me.
I assume the irony of you writing this here entirely escapes you? This is a board you helped create for those who have lost their faith, or who are close to that point. I can well imagine that in that place one finds it easier to deal with theodicy. But that's not because one's God has become bigger, but because one's God has faded (almost) into nothing. It's easy to pin blame on something solid, it's hard to do so on fog.
Theodicy is the best argument of atheists against Christians because it tries to pit two core beliefs of Christianity about God against each other: universal benevolence vs. omnipotence. If that doesn't bite for you, it means you have lost belief in one or the other. If you say that you don't know, and are satisfied with that answer, then you are simply saying that you embrace intellectual incoherence as part of your faith. In either case, the atheist will consider his work as done. And I agree with that judgement.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If it is obvious that Mr Fry would not actually say to God what he said, then it is obvious that Mr Fry was dishonest in claiming that he would.
Wait.. what?
1. Fry does not believe in God
2. If Fry discovers that God does in fact exist, and he is the person some claim he is, these are some of the things he would say to him.
You are using some spectacularly disjointed logic to suggest that you know for a fact this means he is lying.
quote:
Unless you are saying that Mr Fry is either stupid or lacks self-awareness. I don't think either is the case. Mr Fry fronted with atheist apologetics when asked a personal question, without indicating that he was doing so. I do not do something equivalent on the Catholic side. Rather, if I want to answer personal questions, I do, and if I don't, I don't. Mostly I don't, but there's nothing dishonest about that preference. Obviously it is easier to avoid saying something around here than in an interview. But nobody forced Mr Fry to give that interview.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
quote:
Theodicy is the best argument of atheists against Christians because it tries to pit two core beliefs of Christianity about God against each other: universal benevolence vs. omnipotence. If that doesn't bite for you, it means you have lost belief in one or the other. If you say that you don't know, and are satisfied with that answer, then you are simply saying that you embrace intellectual incoherence as part of your faith. In either case, the atheist will consider his work as done. And I agree with that judgement.
I see. Excuse me for believing this is a totally unhelpful interjection into the conversation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Why is an atheist's imagined conversation with God any different to an imagined conversation between a literary commentator and a fictional character like Hamlet.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are using some spectacularly disjointed logic to suggest that you know for a fact this means he is lying.
Lying is a bit strong. I would say that he tried to come up with an answer quickly, decided it was unwise to reveal anything personal, and went for some standard atheist rhetorics instead. The dishonesty is rather "technical", in essence I think he answered a different question to the one he was being asked. He answered "why do you think a Christian God is unlikely to exist?" not "what would you say to a Christian God if he did exist." But he phrased the former as if it was an answer for the latter.
As for my supposedly disjointed logic, while Boogie does not agree with my evaluation, she considered my analysis to be "obvious". I will settle for a "likely".
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Excuse me for believing this is a totally unhelpful interjection into the conversation.
No.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Theodicy is the best argument of atheists against Christians because it tries to pit two core beliefs of Christianity about God against each other: universal benevolence vs. omnipotence. If that doesn't bite for you, it means you have lost belief in one or the other. If you say that you don't know, and are satisfied with that answer, then you are simply saying that you embrace intellectual incoherence as part of your faith. In either case, the atheist will consider his work as done. And I agree with that judgement.
This is just symptomatic of the need to have everything completely pinned down. If you don't want to clear out and destroy -- through clever theology -- all mystery from the Christian religion, then you "embrace intellectual incoherence." Part and parcel of the Thomist need to define everything down to the billionth part of a nanometre. Let there be no apparent contradictions. Let there be no conundrums. Let there be no dilemmas. Anything that has to hold two apparent opposites in tension is incoherence. Without complete and thorough logic-chopping, your (generic your) religion is contemptible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Which is odd, given so many great Roman Catholic writers embraced the contradictions - such as Chesterton.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Lying is a bit strong. I would say that he tried to come up with an answer quickly, decided it was unwise to reveal anything personal, and went for some standard atheist rhetorics instead. The dishonesty is rather "technical", in essence I think he answered a different question to the one he was being asked. He answered "why do you think a Christian God is unlikely to exist?" not "what would you say to a Christian God if he did exist." But he phrased the former as if it was an answer for the latter.
Did you watch the same video I watched? He was certainly talking about the questions he would ask the Christian God were he to meet him.
How can you possibly know that these are not the first questions Fry would ask - or the first answers that Fry at least imagines he would ask?
You imply that there are deeper personal questions, but I'm sorry, I have no idea how you can know that these would take priority over these questions in the mind of Stephen Fry on the day that he was asked this question for the TV segment.
quote:
As for my supposedly disjointed logic, while Boogie does not agree with my evaluation, she considered my analysis to be "obvious". I will settle for a "likely".
Now you appear to be reading the mind of Boogie as well as that of Stephen Fry.
[ 11. February 2015, 14:07: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is just symptomatic of the need to have everything completely pinned down. If you don't want to clear out and destroy -- through clever theology -- all mystery from the Christian religion, then you "embrace intellectual incoherence."
A contradiction is not mysterious. If Christian mysteries are merely contradictions, then Christianity deserves to die. The sooner, the better. You can claim that suffering is a mystery, and I actually would agree that ultimately this is so. But in theodicy you are facing a serious and well-argued charge of outright self-contradiction. You may accept the mystery of suffering, but you better be able to say why it does not establish an outright contradiction between your cherished beliefs. At least so if you are an educated, adult Christian with a brain, who has had time to think about this. Otherwise you are not providing a witness for God with all your heart and mind, much less for any Christian mysteries, but simply for the fact that people can say things like "1+1=3, it's mysterious" with a straight face.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How can you possibly know that these are not the first questions Fry would ask - or the first answers that Fry at least imagines he would ask?
Magic.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest
I don't think so. Fry, being honest, is likely to ask/tell God that he is guilty for allowing his followers to be homophobic. Sort of "Why did you create me gay and then supposedly inspire a book to be written that encourages homophobia with its subsequent death penalty?" and that still stirs up hate crimes now.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think so. Fry, being honest, is likely to ask/tell God that he is guilty for allowing his followers to be homophobic. Sort of "Why did you create me gay and then supposedly inspire a book to be written that encourages homophobia with its subsequent death penalty?" and that still stirs up hate crimes now.
Thus you agree with my assessment! What Mr Fry said in the interview is not what he is likely to say to God. I didn't say that Mr Fry is a dishonest man (i.e., that he has a habitual character fault). I do not know Mr Fry, how can I say that? I said that what he answered in the interview is unlikely to be a honest answer to the interviewer's question. And I can judge that not because I know Mr Fry, but because Mr Fry rattled down some standard atheist apologetics. And it is just inherently unlikely for anybody that the thing they really want to tell God if they meet him after death is some tired apologetic rhetoric. That's so pretty much regardless of your convictions now, whether atheist or zealot, or anything in between.
[ 11. February 2015, 18:18: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At least so if you are an educated, adult Christian with a brain, who has had time to think about this.
Uh, yeah, I love you too.
quote:
Otherwise you are not providing a witness for God with all your heart and mind, much less for any Christian mysteries, but simply for the fact that people can say things like "1+1=3, it's mysterious" with a straight face.
Ah, so everyone IS an apologist, and they must have every single apparent contradiction nailed down, or they're letting the team down. God is sitting in the owner's booth far above the cheap seats, weeping because we fumbled on the one and the other team ran it back 99 yard for a touchdown. If we don't nail down everything so tight the nails squeak, then our "witness" is dog shit with whip, sprinkles, and a cherry.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And I can judge that not because I know Mr Fry, but because Mr Fry rattled down some standard atheist apologetics. And it is just inherently unlikely for anybody that the thing they really want to tell God if they meet him after death is some tired apologetic rhetoric.
Unless of course they actually believe what YOU call "tired" apologetic rhetoric. That wouldn't be atheist rhetoric at all if some atheist, somewhere, didn't believe it at some point. Presumably some still do. They may not take YOUR definition of what's "tired" to be binding on them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ok, I've read the transcript, here. Shorter than I expected.
I don't really understand all the fuss. If someone's busy digging themself into deep denial of theodicy, then yeah, I can understand the upset. (No condemnation.) But Stephen said much the same as many Shipmates have wrestled with, including me. (I expect he'll get along well with Mark Twain. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) He'd probably love our classic "Calling God To Hell" thread.
Personally, I think there'll be a long line of people wanting to have A Little Talk, F2F, with God...with varying levels of bluntness and force.
God, if She exists, is good, etc., etc., can handle it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, so everyone IS an apologist, and they must have every single apparent contradiction nailed down, or they're letting the team down. God is sitting in the owner's booth far above the cheap seats, weeping because we fumbled on the one and the other team ran it back 99 yard for a touchdown. If we don't nail down everything so tight the nails squeak, then our "witness" is dog shit with whip, sprinkles, and a cherry.
I have, of course, said nothing of the sort. But let's talk about you, shall we? You are apparently qualified to be a teacher, you have a university education that supposedly included philosophy, and you have been hanging out for years on a discussion forum, where the question of theodicy comes up every couple of months or so. Do you really think that it is good enough for you to shrug your shoulders and say "Theodicy? I don't know, it's a mystery." Well, I just don't. To me that is just an affectation of naivety.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless of course they actually believe what YOU call "tired" apologetic rhetoric.
I'm sure that Mr Fry believes that bit of rhetoric he delivered. That doesn't mean that it wasn't recognisable as rhetoric, rather than as a revelation about his personal state of mind. And it is tired by frequency of use, something that a non-atheist can judge irrespective of truth value. It's a bit difficult to construct an analogy here, given the asymmetry of the situation. But I'm pretty damned sure that if I am worried on my deathbed about there being no God and no afterlife, then I will not reel off the tired apologetics of the cosmological argument. Horses for courses, that's just not the sort of thing that helps at that point. To repeat, I think it is entirely possible that Mr Fry would throw a "why that?" into God's face. I just don't think that the "that" there would be about "worms eating children's eyeballs". Unless Mr Fry happens to have a child whose eyeballs got eaten by worms, that is...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
It seems to me that there are some atheists who come closer to loving their neighbour as themselves as do some Christians.
It is possible that Stephen Fry is such an atheist.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have, of course, said nothing of the sort. But let's talk about you, shall we? You are apparently qualified to be a teacher, you have a university education that supposedly included philosophy, and you have been hanging out for years on a discussion forum, where the question of theodicy comes up every couple of months or so. Do you really think that it is good enough for you to shrug your shoulders and say "Theodicy? I don't know, it's a mystery." Well, I just don't. To me that is just an affectation of naivety.
Leaving aside your casual indifference and superior tone of Mousethief's qualifications and experiences - you appear to be saying here that if the realities of the universe *actually are* an unfathomable mystery, it is still better to believe in something that fits the pieces together. So you are not actually interested in the truth, are you?
The universe is not an unfathomable mystery because you say so. Sorry, that's not good enough.
quote:
I'm sure that Mr Fry believes that bit of rhetoric he delivered. That doesn't mean that it wasn't recognisable as rhetoric, rather than as a revelation about his personal state of mind. And it is tired by frequency of use, something that a non-atheist can judge irrespective of truth value.
I see. So because in your mind it is 'rhetoric' that means a) he cannot really believe it and b) it isn't a revelation of his state of mind.
Someone pointed a camera in his face, and he answered with something that came to his mind. Why are you continuing to second-guess that.
Maybe he would have said something else on reflection. That doesn't make what he said somehow something you can judge as dishonest.
quote:
It's a bit difficult to construct an analogy here, given the asymmetry of the situation. But I'm pretty damned sure that if I am worried on my deathbed about there being no God and no afterlife, then I will not reel off the tired apologetics of the cosmological argument.
Right. But assuming that you are not Stephen Fry, that might be what he will do. So I don't see how this is getting us anywhere.
quote:
Horses for courses, that's just not the sort of thing that helps at that point. To repeat, I think it is entirely possible that Mr Fry would throw a "why that?" into God's face. I just don't think that the "that" there would be about "worms eating children's eyeballs". Unless Mr Fry happens to have a child whose eyeballs got eaten by worms, that is...
Constantly second guessing what other people have said and what they'd actually do in imaginary situations is not a way to conduct an argument.
Who cares what you think Stephen Fry would do? Ridiculous.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Leaving aside your casual indifference and superior tone of Mousethief's qualifications and experiences - you appear to be saying here that if the realities of the universe *actually are* an unfathomable mystery, it is still better to believe in something that fits the pieces together. So you are not actually interested in the truth, are you? The universe is not an unfathomable mystery because you say so. Sorry, that's not good enough.
Who is talking about "the realities of the universe"? They can remain as mysterious as they might be. We are talking about what is probably the most popular apologetic argument among atheists, which attacks forcefully and reasonably two key propositional beliefs of Christians about God.
If it can be demonstrated that what you say contradicts itself, then it is false. If you were talking about your faith at the time, then your faith is false. That should worry you to the degree of your realisation that your faith is false.
I have a lot of respect for people who realise that they are out of their depth but continue to trust in something. I have no respect for people playing dumber than they are. One does not have to "defeat" the theodicy challenge. But an educated, intelligent and informed person has to at least convince themselves that reasonable doubt persists about the atheist argument there.
Because if there is no such reasonable doubt, then the atheists are right that at least the Christian God does not exist. And if they are right about that, then it is absurd to continue in Christian faith as if nothing had happened. Faith can stand in for the lack of knowledge, it can lead us where we cannot go by our own lights. But it cannot override knowledge that we do have, it cannot extinguish our own lights. Such faith is evil as such, and sooner or later it will lead to evil in practice.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe he would have said something else on reflection. That doesn't make what he said somehow something you can judge as dishonest.
I think he reflected long enough to decide against exploring in public what he might actually say to God. That's fair enough, of course. The technical dishonesty arises in not acknowledging that openly, but rather fronting with some standard apologetics. Yes, all that is my guess about what was going on there. But I think it's a pretty good guess. And if I am wrong, then I think Mr Fry can handle that some random guy on the internet was not thinking as highly of him as he should have. Mr Fry is a public figure, and so by his own choice.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who cares what you think Stephen Fry would do? Ridiculous.
You, apparently. Feel free to stop caring any time you like though.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
If it can be demonstrated that what you say contradicts itself, then it is false. If you were talking about your faith at the time, then your faith is false. That should worry you to the degree of your realisation that your faith is false.
Or possibly it just reflects the reality - that the thing is contradictory.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Your whole argument is spurious.
I don't have to have a child whose eyeballs are eaten by worms to believe that the existence of such a thing raises serious questions to a deity should one ever have the opportunity to meet him. What are you talking about?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Or possibly it just reflects the reality - that the thing is contradictory.
Reality cannot possibly contradict itself. What would that even mean?
Mental representations of reality can contradict themselves, in which case they show themselves to be false, and should be rejected (at least in those parts that establish the self-contradiction).
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Your whole argument is spurious. I don't have to have a child whose eyeballs are eaten by worms to believe that the existence of such a thing raises serious questions to a deity should one ever have the opportunity to meet him. What are you talking about?
And if your first thought upon meeting a God that you thought did not exist was to confront Him with the question of human suffering, and if not your own suffering or the suffering of those close to your heart was foremost in you mind there, but rather a rare "worst case" of the type typically used in atheist apologetics, then you might indeed ask this specific question upon meeting God. But that is unlikely. Not on logical grounds, but on psychological ones.
That's a general statement about the human condition, by the way, though I did apply it to Mr Fry. A quick look at the internet shows that Mr Fry is bipolar and attempted suicide in 2012. Hence I am now even more convinced that other suffering than that of eyeball eating worms will readily spring to his mind when faced with God...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
nd if your first thought upon meeting a God that you thought did not exist was to confront Him with the question of human suffering, and if not your own suffering or the suffering of those close to your heart was foremost in you mind there, but rather a rare "worst case" of the type typically used in atheist apologetics, then you might indeed ask this specific question upon meeting God. But that is unlikely. Not on logical grounds, but on psychological ones.
That's a general statement about the human condition, by the way, though I did apply it to Mr Fry. A quick look at the internet shows that Mr Fry is bipolar and attempted suicide in 2012. Hence I am now even more convinced that other suffering than that of eyeball eating worms will readily spring to his mind when faced with God...
Utter drivel. Hard as it is for you to understand, some people think that their own struggles pail into insignificance compared to others. Maybe Fry is resigned to the reality of his illness but cannot understand the pointless suffering of small children.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrw
Shipmate
# 18045
|
Posted
From a purely theoretical point of view, it makes no sense to 'have a go at God'. If he doesn't exist, he won't hear us. If he exists and he's the scumbag we imagine him to be (and I can't say with any great certainty that he isn't), then he isn't going to care what we think. That doesn't mean, however, that in practical terms, it cannot be a form of catharsis for believers and possibly for atheists too.
Posts: 522 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Utter drivel. Hard as it is for you to understand, some people think that their own struggles pail into insignificance compared to others. Maybe Fry is resigned to the reality of his illness but cannot understand the pointless suffering of small children.
According to you then, some people will do this. Implying that most people won't. Just to have some concrete numbers, let's assume that one in ten is so concerned with others as to launch into a discussion of eyeball worms upon meeting God. I think it's more like one in a hundred, or even less, but let's be conservative here in our estimation. Hence the likelihood of some person doing so would be 10%. That is what one calls "unlikely". What can we say then about a person whom we do not know well concerning mentioning eyeball worms to God? Well, just that it is unlikely that they would do so. What did I in fact say about Mr Fry? That it is unlikely that he would do so.
Apparently then, you do agree with the "utter drivel" I have been spouting, even though it is unlikely that you are ready to admit that anytime soon. I give it a one in ten chance.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think so. Fry, being honest, is likely to ask/tell God that he is guilty for allowing his followers to be homophobic. Sort of "Why did you create me gay and then supposedly inspire a book to be written that encourages homophobia with its subsequent death penalty?" and that still stirs up hate crimes now.
Thus you agree with my assessment!
Not quite - I could have expressed myself better by saying that his experience of being condemned by the church has predisposed him to condemn church teachings in addition to those about human sexuality.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
IngoB, how can we talk meaningfully of probability in fantastical scenarios like meeting God?
Probability relies on a stable and familiar frame of reference: we know how we'd probably react to, say, a rough breakup, or to losing our keys. We don't know how we'd react to getting zapped by grays, seeing a Yeti, or facetime with a deity.
Given that, we can't assess the credibility of Fry's opinion, can we? We don't know anymore than he does.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
IngoB you appear to think you have a good answer to the question of why God permits suffering - what is it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Actually I'd go the other way. People who don't feel the need to defend God worry me because it indicates a level of comfort with an apparently capricious sadistic God that is disturbing. People who are trying to defend God are ISTM at least trying struggle with the issues, find a way to square the circle. "He may look capricious but..."
There's a third option, which I hope is mine. That is to admit that he sometimes looks capricious, but (on other grounds) to trust that he is in fact not so--and to rest in that, without getting in other people's faces about it. Look, I don't have the answer. So why should I be madly scrambling to make you or anybody else believe some kludged-up pseudo-answer, as if it were better to believe nonsense than to say "I don't know"?
The problem with this is it comes off much like an abused spouse saying, "Well, I don't know why he's bastard sometimes but I love him anyway". Or even, "I don't know why he abuses the children sometimes, but I love him so I'll stand by him."
To which most people's reaction is frustrated rage or pity.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The problem with this is it comes off much like an abused spouse saying, "Well, I don't know why he's bastard sometimes but I love him anyway". Or even, "I don't know why he abuses the children sometimes, but I love him so I'll stand by him."
To which most people's reaction is frustrated rage or pity.
True. but what makes the difference between the two scenarios--in the one you posit, the bastard IS a bastard and abusive, with no contradictory evidence (she stays with him in spite of the evidence); in the case of God, we have contradictory evidence.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
