My Musings

News

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:36:54 GMT

Prostitutes And Cash Cows

Okay folks, this is the "straw that broke the camels back"! Did you know that Google, Super Pages and Yellow Pages have your telephone number and a map to your house in their search? Yes, it's true. If you go to www.google.com. and www.superpages.com. and type your phone number with area code in their browser, your phone number, with name and address will come up. What's worse is, you, or anyone else who wants to find you, can click the map option to get a map showing directions to your house. This is an outrage! Can you imagine the implications. What if some pedophile, an old friend or acquaintance with an axe to grind or any other type of wacko wants to track you down? It will be easy now. It's bad enough that they can call and harass you at all hours because they have your phone number, (which in all fairness, they had to have to begin with to use this feature) but now they can show up at your front door with ease thanks to our friends at these websites.

Now, I should mention, the sites give you the option to complete an on line form to have your information removed within forty-eight hours. How noble of them. My question is this: why should the burden be on us to take the time to fill out a form to have the maps removed? Shouldn't they have to get our permission first to publish that information? This is a serious issue folks. I know, all this could be avoided if everyone paid to have their phone number unlisted since this information basically comes from the phonebook. But the issue isn't so much the phone number as it is the map. Do you remember giving these companies permission to post maps to your house on the web? I know I didn't.

This whole issue is the result of, what I think is a backwards mind set. Let me explain what I mean. When your name is published in a phone book or when you subscribe to magazines or apply for a credit card, your personal information and your purchasing habits are sold to companies who in turn try to solicit you? Where do you think those annoying phone calls and junk mail come from? And we won't even mention the countless junk emails that fill your mailbox on line. Hey folks, these companies are making big bucks selling your information to other companies. Don't you like knowing that companies are making money off of you that way? Where is your cut? How is this not any different from being a prostitute? Actually, there is a difference, prostitutes get paid to sell themselves and they had a choice to sell themselves. We don't get the former and the latter is contingent and illusory. And, what about our right to privacy? I guess it is not as valuable as these companies rights to hound people to try and make a buck, all done with your governments blessing! That's right, they can do it because it's completely legal.

Well, if it's any consolation, they have some serious competition when it comes to picking your wallet. The government still has the highest place of "honor" in that department. Well, what do you expect, they've been doing it a lot longer and have more experience developing creative new ways of extorting your hard earned money. And, lets not forget, the government, unlike big business, can always use coercive methods on us to get every last dollar they want. Remember, we are nothing less than cash cows to the government. If you don't believe me or think I'm just exaggerating, look at your tax form you get from the IRS. What does it address you as? "Dear Taxpayer." Have you ever really thought about how insulting that is? But that's what we are to the government, taxpayers, cash cows.

So which one of these opposing forces battling for our wallet will win? The ones with the guns of course. We can never be the lucrative prostitutes for big business when we are the cash cows for the government. Why? because we have limited incomes, which translates into limited discretionary cash. The ultimate losers will always be us because we are seen by both government and big business as sources of money, not as the individuals we are.

Religion

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:31:49 GMT

Why I Became An Agnostic

It may be considered ironic that what eventually led me to my present agnosticism was a study of theology. It all began about nine years ago when I was a delivery truck driver. My route took me to an area where I was able to pick up a Christian radio station. I began to listen, especially to this one particular radio evangelist who didn't really preach sermons, but rather had more of a lecture format in which he discussed many theological issues. I was intrigued by his knowledge and style of presentation. He really "dug deep" into many theological issues.

One week he was doing a series on predestination. I had thought about this issue before, but it was presented by this evangelist with such depth and clarity that I began to think more about the issue and it's implications. Now, I should mention that this evangelist came from a Protestant tradition quite different from my own. His tradition was strongly Calvinistic and put a very heavy emphasis on the sovereignty of God. For one week he presented a very well articulated and persuasive argument for the theory that God in his infinite wisdom had predestined some to eternal life, and many to eternal damnation in hell.
Far beyond the issue of predestination, I began to think a lot about the sovereignty of God and his control over all things. I began to purchase books on the subject and even obtained a library card to a local theological seminary so I could loan out books on theological issues. Well, for me a natural corollary of my study of God's sovereignty, was the problem of evil. How can the existence of evil be explained and understood within the context of the sovereign control of a loving, all-powerful God?

I know this is by no means a new issue. It has in fact bewildered and fascinated philosophers and theologians for centuries and has been one of the most powerful and persuasive arguments against theism. But for me, this was indeed a new discovery. Not that I didn't acknowledge the existence of evil before this time or that I didn't take it seriously. The fact was, I had just never really pondered it that much. I accepted the teaching of the church that evil was the result of Adam's fall in the garden and pretty much left it at that. However, once I really began to think seriously about it, I began to have many questions. If evil is the result of Adam's fall, how is that evil transferred to the rest of mankind? If God's creation was perfect before the fall, how could a fall from perfection even be a possibility? I also realized that evil cannot be the fault of mankind, because it actually originated with the tempter, the serpent of the garden, who according to the Bible is Satan.

Now, according to the Bible, Satan was once Lucifer, a high-ranking angel who fell and was banished from the splendor of Heaven along with many other angels who fell with him. Unless this is to be understood mythologically, the idea of a fall in Heaven is very problematic indeed. Why would God allow Satan and his demons access to earth and put his beloved creation at risk? For a common human to put his children at risk in this way is irresponsible. For an all-knowing, all-powerful being, who according to scripture knew the outcome beforehand, it seems downright insane. So why did God put the "chickens in a fox's den" if you will? To test us? A test seems meaningless to someone who already knows the final outcome. The question still remains, what is evil's etiology? It predates the creation of man and thus the fault for its existence cannot be laid at man's feet. At best, he is responsible for perpetuating it.

I have since read many books on theodicy, the area of theology that investigates the problem of evil, and have spoken with pastors and even a professor of systematic theology. To this day, I haven't found a satisfying answer within the context of traditional, orthodox theism. Evil can be separated into different types. There is moral evil and what many call natural evil. In my opinion, moral evil is the easier of the two to explain and still hold the belief in God's sovereignty, however still without some serious questions. Natural evil is the "thorn in the side" that I find more difficult to square with the idea of a loving, all-powerful God.

Moral evil in my understanding is basically the result of man exercising his free will in ways detrimental to his fellow man or environment. The blame for this evil could be removed from God responsibility with at least fewer difficulties than natural evil. Most theists and Christians acknowledge that humans have free will, with the possible exception of the Calvinist camp, who while not denying free will to humans, have developed elaborate philosophical arguments to explain how free will is still compatible with a very strict interpretation of God's sovereignty. Most Christians today, however, have adopted a more relaxed viewof God's sovereignty that allows more room for human free action in the shaping and destiny of creation. However, most Christians and theists, with the exception of process and open theists, still hold the belief in God's foreknowledge of future events, including man's "free" choices. This results in many complex questions about the meaning and limits of free will, and also put God back in the "hot seat" as being at least complicit in moral evil's existence and perpetuation by virtue of his knowledge and allowance of it beforehand.

Natural evil is much more difficult to explain and justify in a traditional theistic context because it cannot be logically explained by human free will. Examples include such natural disasters as earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc. Most diseases and both human and animal pain are included in this category of evil. How can there be so much pain and suffering in a world created and pronounced "good" by a loving God? If you accept the Augustinian view that the garden was a perfect paradise and that pain and even death were introduced into creation by the fall of Adam, it is very difficult to consider God as either loving or good. If natural evils are just an ongoing punishment for the sin of a distant ancestor. One of the most used metaphors used in the Bible for God is that he is a loving father, who loves his children more than any human father could. That begs the question: what earthly father would subject his progeny to the kind of pain that our "heavenly father" does and not be locked up in an institution never to see his children again? Is it simply a question of "might makes right"? Well, maybe some can accept that, but it seems a little below the dignity that most theists would ascribe to their heavenly father.

Now let's touch on the area of eschatology, the final destination of humanity. Many Christians still believe that those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior (what does that really mean anyway)? will die in their sins and spend eternity suffering in hell. Fortunately this abhorrent belief is becoming an embarrassment to many thinking Christians today. It should be permanently assigned to the "dust heap of dogmatics." This particular item of Christian dogma is just fraught with difficulties. First and foremost in my opinion, how can anyone in an average lifetime commit such atrocities that would warrant eternal punishment? And why would a person who lead a relatively good life and never committed any crimes, but for whatever reason, did not or could not become a Christian, be consigned to the same eternal fate as a Hitler or Pol Pot? I know that many Christians believe there are "levels" of punishment in hell and that the "average" sinner and Hitler's punishment would vary in intensity though not in duration. The problem with the idea of levels of punishment in hell is that it is more reminiscent of Dante' than scripture. We cannot ignore the original question however: how can eternal punishment be justified by any earthly action committed? It makes me question the nature of God's love. Again, I hearken back to the heavenly father image and compare that "greater" love to the love of an earthly father. I'm a father myself and I could not imagine allowing my son to suffer eternally for any bad action or series of bad actions he has done.

Hell, as it is taught in most Christian theology, serves no other purpose than to punish for punishment's sake. Because it is eternal, it serves no redemptive purpose. As a father, I understand that punishment is often necessary. But it's purpose is corrective and often retributive. Punishment is a learning tool used to guide people in the proper direction in order to function as productive members of human society. It does have a punitive nature as well, but that is still for the purpose of discouraging one from making the same mistake again as well as offering closure and a sense of justice to the offended. Hell, as it is usually understood, serves none of the above, again because it is eternal.

The doctrine of eternal punishment owes much of it's structure to St. Anselm (1033-1109). He lived in a feudal society where the intensity and duration of the punishment was based more on who the offended party was than on the offense itself. A crime against a fellow serf was not punishable to the extent that a crime against the lord and so on. It was a hierarchal system in which the most severe punishment was for an offense against a king. The logic of St. Anselm's idea that an offense against an eternal being, namely God, requires an eternal punishment is quite evident and even understandable within the context of the time he lived and with the general occidental mindset. But, does it square with the concept of a loving God? Furthermore, how can the scriptural teaching be fulfilled that God will finally overcome evil with good and be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28) if there exists an eternal dualismbetween heaven and hell? Finally, how can heaven be a place of eternal happiness and peace for humans when some of those we love are simultaneously enduring excruciating torture in hell? Will God wipe our memories clean of those who we've lost to the tortures of hell and if so, how can that be done without changing so much of who we are? For example, if I'm in heaven, but my father is in hell, how can the memory of my father be erased from my mind without also erasing all that my father has taught me about being a good person and the loving influence he had in shaping who I am? Our memories and the people in our lives, especially in our formative years, play such a major role in shaping our personalities that to delete those memories cannot be done without literally changing our identities. So, it seems untenable to believe our identities can be retained if our memories of loved ones in hell were to be divinely erased.

I've included eternal punishment in this brief discussion of evil and it's influence on my move to agnosticism because, in my opinion, it is the ultimate evil and the most absurd. Even bodily pain, while unpleasant serves a purpose. It lets us know there is something wrong within our bodies and we should see a physician. What purpose does eternal punishment serve? What is its telos? And this evil, is perpetrated by God himself! While our wrong choices, our "sins" may have put us there, God sustains that malevolent chamber of horrors we call hell throughout eternity.

So how do we explain the existence of evil and still retain the traditional view of God? Many, including myself cannot. Some have gone the route of atheism or agnosticism. The problem of evil, while still a horrible thing, ceases to be a problem if God is taken out of the equation. Evil just becomes the result of physics and human choices in an indifferent universe. This sounds stark and hopeless, but for some it's an easier pill to swallow than having a God who is a cosmic sadist or at best, one who looks the other way in the face of evil. Others have joined the process theology camp, which offers an attractive theodicy, but at the expense the traditional understanding of God's sovereignty over the universe. In process theology, God's power is persuasive, not coercive. Consequently, God does not have unilateral control over the universe and the future remains open and unknown even to God. This idea of God isn't all that different from Rabbi Kushner's in WhenBad Things Happen to Good People. Some theists would probably say that process theology makes God superfluous, a "ghost in the machine" who really serves no purpose in a self-evolving universe. While my purpose here isn't to present an apologetic for process thought, I would recommend that one look into the subject before rejecting it completely. It does offer a unique and comprehensive doctrine of God. And while I'm not at that place yet, I may indeed find myself someday among the ranks of those who embrace the process view of God and the universe.

Currently, I label myself as an agnostic for the reasons presented above. I realize that the God I am rejecting may only be an erroneous idea of God, perpetuated through the centuries and not the true God if in fact one exists. Belief systems, like so much in life, should be subjected to continuous revision as new knowledge is obtained and verified. I don't recommend changing ones beliefs just for the sake of change, but an openness to new alternatives is a wise choice. Will I remain an agnostic? perhaps not. As I've already stated, I find much appeal in process thought. I'm also quite sympathetic to much eastern philosophy, which in my view is quite compatible with process theology as I understand it. One thing I'm fairly certain of: I will never be able to return to my former beliefs as expressed in orthodox Christian theology. To do so, I'd have to completely disregard all I've learned since I began this journey nine years ago. It's been a very educational and exciting adventure and I've both enjoyed and at times been challenged by my discoveries. But, because I kept an open mind and tried to maintain objectivity, I believe it was a very positive experience.

Religion

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:18:32 GMT

The Responsibility Of Omniscience

One of the attributes that are ascribed to God is that of omniscience. Most Christians and theists take the strong definition of omniscience when they apply it to God, meaning that God knows everything, past, present and future, including supposedly free choices made by human beings. I have pondered this idea for quite some time and for me there seem to be many difficulties with this concept, particularly with reference to God’s knowledge of future events and decisions as I will explain shortly. Now, there is a movement in theology by some (open and process theists), who take the view that God cannot know future events with certainty when it involves choices by humans, but only probabilities based on past decisions, the general temperament of the individual and the cumulative affect of the contributing factors. The majority of this article is not directed at those individuals, however the open theists may feel obliged to re-think their position before they get to the last sentence of the essay.

However, the majority of Christians and theists do indeed believe the strong definition of omniscience should be applied to their almighty God and it is to those Christians that I extend this challenge: How can you defend and hold your God guiltless in the face of the all evil atrocities committed on this planet throughout the entire history of human existence? I am not even going to mention what most theologians refer to as natural evil (see my "Why I Became An Agnostic"). This inquiry will be specifically directed at the problem of moral evil. The evil resulting from human free choices.

There are two problems with moral evil when it is understood from a theistic standpoint: First, if God knows our future decisions before we make them, how can they be freely made? This conundrum has baffled philosophers and theologians for centuries and is still a major difficulty for theists who have not closed their mind to rational thought and fallen into the trap of blindly accepting church dogma simply because it is biblical. "If the bible says it, it’s true and no evidence to the contrary is being considered thank you very much." Well folks, do you know there is much biblical support for the idea that God does not know future events? The story in Genesis about the "test" God put to Abraham to kill his son Isaac is a perfect example. The idea of an all-knowing being requiring tests seem ludicrous. I know that many Christians will say that the test was for Abraham’s benefit to test his faith and not to teach God anything so let me offer another example: Genesis 6:6 states that after God saw all the wickedness and evilness of man’s heart, he "was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain" (NIV version of the Bible) It sounds to me as if all this came as a surprise to God. If God did know before creation that he would end up destroying all but eight people in a flood and decided to create anyway, I would say God is a foolish, derelict that deserves not to be worshiped but scorned. Look at all the waste of human life as a result of God’s decision to create a species only to nearly destroy it later. It would seem that most Christians would be all too happy to deny their God the ability to foresee future events and spare him the image of a capricious spoiled child.

Not the case though. Many philosophers and theologians have been able to hold the view that we are free and God is omniscient by developing a view of free will called compatibilism. Basically, it states that we are free to act within the boundaries of our created nature and since that nature was created by God, we can be both "free" and still have our choices foreknown by God. This view is particularly popular within the Calvinist ranks of Christianity.

The other alternative is a libertarian view of free will which states that we are completely free to choose to act or not act in a certain way. Yes, we all have proclivities to certain behaviors and more often than not we "cave in" to them. But libertarianism allows that some times, we rise above our habits and dispositions and make choices that could not be pre-determined based on them. This is a much higher and nobler idea of free will in my opinion and has been shared by many even in early Christianity such as Pelagius.

The second difficulty is that even if we believe our choices are completely free in the libertarian sense and God does not know the outcome of our decisions, while we may be able to relinquish God’s direct responsibility for human atrocities, how can we hold him blameless in an indirect way? Let me give a simple example from a human perspective, which of course is the only example we can give: Let’s say you are out walking and as you turn a corner, you see a person robbing a elderly woman. What do you do? You could try to forcibly stop the thief, which may not be the wisest choice, after all, you are a mere human, not an omnipotent being. You may get injured or worse in the process and still not help the victim. You could grab your trusty cell phone or scramble to the nearest payphone and dial 911 (probably the wisest choice, unless of course you’re a police officer), or, you could take the third choice and just stand by and watch and do nothing. Doesn’t it seem like choice three is the one almighty God chooses on almost all occasions? Now, we have this concept of complicity to deal with. You see, in our system of jurisprudence, a person who is not directly involved in an act of violence could be considered as an accomplice to the crime if they had some involvement in it. How is witnessing a crime and not reporting it not considered being involved? Okay, I know I’m stretching the idea a bit when it’s applied to witnesses as opposed to the guy who drives the "getaway car", but you get the point. Could you live with yourself or consider yourself to be a good and moral person if you stood by and watched someone being robbed and terrorized? But isn’t that what God does daily. How often have you read about missing children’s bodies being found and there was evidence of sexual abuse and torture? Can you imagine the horror and pain that child went through? Is it a stretch of the imagination to believe that they may have cried out to God to be rescued? But there was no deliverance for them except in the surrender to death. How do we absolve God from the guilt of that child’s blood? Did he just turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to her pleading cries? How could we absolve ourselves if we had the opportunity to stop it? Is the moral standard applied to God any less demanding than what we apply to ourselves? And, like I said, the above scenario does not even require that God be omniscient regarding future events, which of course only exacerbates the problem and begs the question to our open theology friends.

Many Christians will defend a God who watches indifferently because they state that he does not want to interfere with free will. Well my first response to that defense is that the bible is replete with examples of God interfering with free will. Second, who in their right mind would say that a rapist exercising his free will is of more value than the life of his victim. Think about that folks, it sounds insane. But that is the defense used by Christians and theists when this question is asked.

My conclusion is that God is at the very least indirectly responsible for moral evil by virtue of his omniscience. God’s attributes come with a price tag and the price is high. You cannot have the ability to see all and claim not to bear at least partial responsibility for allowing it to happen. Especially when you also have the attribute of omnipotence. Unless God is held to a lower moral standard than humans, to allow evil that could be stopped is to be partly responsible for it.