Are cavers (on this forum at least, and those who choose to respond) atheist?

[TheBitterEnd]

It's kind of like the Epicurean Paradox but I think child abuse goes to the heart of the free will debate. I, like most people, simply could not do such terrible things, god has not granted free will in that area (thank ... erm ...god) so why does god grant that level of free will to some people.

 

[Rachel]

Yes but I'd like one of the Christians to have a go, why are they down on their knees WORSHIPING some being that permits child abuse?

Child abuse is one thing. They may argue that if humans are to be granted free will then there must be consequences of that. However, that does not cover why their god(s) allow childhood leukaemia, for example. Or the mass suffering and death that follows events such as earthquakes or the tsunami that I mentioned earlier.

It was thoughts like this that led me to leave the church I was brought up in. The conclusions I came to are that although we can never be sure whether God exists or not, looking at the events happening all over the world leads to several possible logical conclusions....

- There is no God
- There is a God who could prevent human suffering but chooses not to
- There is a God who is not powerful enough to be able to prevent human suffering
- There is a God who is oblivious to human suffering
- There is a God who causes human suffering

None of these possibilities makes me want to waste my Sunday mornings kneeling in a church.

 

[Andy Sparrow]

The question 'do you believe in God?' is not the same as 'do you believe in a religion?'.

It's like asking whether people believe in the possibility of inter-stellar travel and then descending into arguments about Star Trek.

 

[exsumper]

But Alex, be honest now, wouldn't you be a little disappointed if someone proved you have no chance of being rectally probed in your sleep by curious aliens?  :tease:

From what I've heard that's a normal occurrence at the Belfry most weekends.

So thats what it was  All these years I'd thought that Sunday morning feeling was the Butcombe 


Graham Is that the same Harry Harrison who wrote the Stainless Steel Rat books???

 

[graham]

It's kind of like the Epicurean Paradox ...

More pertinent to the current stage of the debate on this thread is the Euthyphro dilemma as originally articulated by Plato but given here in its modern form:

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

If the former then there is no requirement for god as a source of moral authority, if the latter then we may be at the mercy of capricious and potentially evil gods as moral authority is not absolute.

 

[graham]

Graham Is that the same Harry Harrison who wrote the Stainless Steel Rat books???

Think so Alex, yes, though Peter should be able to confirm.

 

[graham]

The question 'do you believe in God?' is not the same as 'do you believe in a religion?'.

Are you aware, Andy, of any gods (outside of avowed fiction) that are claimed to exist but have not got an associated religion?

If you believe in 'god' then surely you have a concept of what its characteristics are?

 

[Les W]

Graham Is that the same Harry Harrison who wrote the Stainless Steel Rat books???

Think so Alex, yes, though Peter should be able to confirm.

Peter, or Google --->Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harrison
For those who are looking for this book it is also known as Deathworld 2...

 

[cap n chris]

- There is no God
- There is a God who could prevent human suffering but chooses not to
- There is a God who is not powerful enough to be able to prevent human suffering
- There is a God who is oblivious to human suffering
- There is a God who causes human suffering

.... reminded me of this:-

Mr. Deity Episode 4: Mr. Deity and the Messages

 

[ChrisB]

Are you aware...of any gods... that are claimed to exist but have not got an associated religion?

I'm not aware of any - but I think Buddhism comes close to the opposite, a religion without an central god.

If I had to follow a religion, I'd go for Buddhism.

 

[Ouan]

I'm not aware of any - but I think Buddhism comes close to the opposite, a religion without an central god.

Buddhism is more of a philosophy "Life is suffering, so get over it".
However, it gets corrupted as people seem to have an urge to worship things.
In Thai Buddhist temples the gods worshipped, apart from the Buddha himself in various incarnations, include Hindu deities, dead monks, local ghosts, strangely shaped vegetables (Baldrick's turnips would be very popular)  and, very occasionally, Christian images.
The main reason for going to the temple seems to be to get guidance on that week's lottery numbers, which is a better reason than most.

My reason for going to Buddhist temples is the best excuse of all - to go caving.
Hundreds of caves have been turned into places of worship or meditation.

 

[Roger W]

Serious questions. What objective reasons do you have for thinking that this job was specifically organised just for you by that entity?

If he can act, now, on such a personal scale why didn't he help all those - his followers and others - who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Boxing Day tsunami hit in 2004?

Serious questions, Graham.  I'll do my best...

Objective reasons?  Well, the Lord clearly told me He had something lined up for me, and hinted at China.  And then, after I had been made redundant, a guy in China who had been appointed GM of a chocolate factory but knew nothing about making chocolate got in touch with me (through a man in Bournemouth who knew a man in Blackpool who knew a man in Brighouse...) and asked me if I could come to China and help him.  So before the six months that I'd received wages for in lieu of notice were up, we were out there and working.  And some more things happened after that, when we found where the church was in Shenzhen, things that I'd rather not post on an open forum as other people are involved...  But it became clear that there were things God wanted us to do out there that were more important that making chocolate or earning money.  All coincidence, of course, you might say.  But when your Friend is there with you all along the way, you don't have any doubts. 

The other question is a very old one - why does a good God allow suffering - and I have to admit I don't know the answer to it.  I think CS Lewis argued in "The Problem of Pain" that for beings like ourselves to exist and express ourselves, the universe has to be such that we can manipulate it so that we can express ourselves and make ourselves known to each other - and if we can do that, we can do things to each other, be it buy our neighbour a pint of real ale or hit him over the head with a blunt instrument.  It's a good book and I'd recommend it.  But the whole question is a big one, and my own feeling is that we are just too small to be able to see the whole picture.  But I do know that, whatever the reason God chose to allow suffering, he didn't do it just for fun.  Twice it says in the Bible that Jesus wept - once at the grave of his friend Lazarus (John 11:35), and once as he approached Jerusalem and foresaw the coming destruction of that city (Luke 19:41).  And then he allowed himself to be crucified, being willing to take upon himself the responsibility and punishment for our wrongdoing.  God himself coming as a man into the universe he had created and suffering for you and me! 

Rats!  You've got me preaching now!  But, yes, my faith in God gives me a reason for being distressed at the pain and suffering in the world, and a desire to help and to do good to others where I can.  I have to admit, though - I'm not sure what my attitude would be if I were a thoroughgoing atheist earnestly following Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest.  Why then should I care if you are hurting, as long as I'm OK? 

 

[Fulk]

And then he allowed himself to be crucified, being willing to take upon himself the responsibility and punishment for our wrongdoing.  God himself coming as a man into the universe he had created and suffering for you and me!

One thing that really puzzles me about the Christian message is the central tenet that Jesus took upon himself our wrongdoing and somehow redeemed us of it.

Now, consider the following (purely hypothetical, I can assure you!) scenario:

Just down the road there?s this little old lady who has no relatives, no pets, nothing to leave her money to ? but she?s loaded; furthermore, she doesn?t trust banks and keeps her dosh at home. Every Wednesday a kind neighbour takes her to the supermarket to do her weekly shop, so I figure that next Wednesday I?ll pay her (or rather, her home in her absence) a visit, and indulge in a little bit of ?redistribution of wealth?. If she should happen to come home early and get in the way, I may have to deal with that.

Hell ? it?s wrong . . . you know that, I know that, we all know that  ? but so what? Jesus has already died for me and redeemed my sins before I?ve even committed them.

That makes no sense to me ? the only person who can carry the can for my sins is ME.

 

[graham]

Roger

Thanks for the answers. I shall respond fully when I have a bit more time. I did not want you to think I was simply ignoring you.

 

[graham]

That makes no sense to me ? the only person who can carry the can for my sins is ME.

Not so, your sins shall be visited upon your descendents even to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7:

... yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

The other question is a very old one - why does a good God allow suffering - and I have to admit I don't know the answer to it.  I think CS Lewis argued in "The Problem of Pain" that for beings like ourselves to exist and express ourselves, the universe has to be such that we can manipulate it so that we can express ourselves and make ourselves known to each other - and if we can do that, we can do things to each other, be it buy our neighbour a pint of real ale or hit him over the head with a blunt instrument.  It's a good book and I'd recommend it.  But the whole question is a big one, and my own feeling is that we are just too small to be able to see the whole picture.  But I do know that, whatever the reason God chose to allow suffering, he didn't do it just for fun.  Twice it says in the Bible that Jesus wept - once at the grave of his friend Lazarus (John 11:35), and once as he approached Jerusalem and foresaw the coming destruction of that city (Luke 19:41).  And then he allowed himself to be crucified, being willing to take upon himself the responsibility and punishment for our wrongdoing.  God himself coming as a man into the universe he had created and suffering for you and me! 

But that's all just generalisations, my question was very specific and has free will at it's very core, I'll state it again - I, like most people could not torture and murder a small child, I do not have the free will to do it, in fact every instinct in my body would make me put a stop to such a thing if I witnessed it.

So why did god give some people free will in this matter but not every one. WHY? Of all things for which to give and withhold free will why give such an evil freedom to some evil people. Is such a god worth of praise and worship? Surely any half decent deity could construct a universe that did not require the terrible abuse of small children as part of its mechanism?

Rats!  You've got me preaching now!  But, yes, my faith in God gives me a reason for being distressed at the pain and suffering in the world, and a desire to help and to do good to others where I can.  I have to admit, though - I'm not sure what my attitude would be if I were a thoroughgoing atheist earnestly following Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest.  Why then should I care if you are hurting, as long as I'm OK? 

Are you really saying that if you lost your faith you would stop caring for others? Caring for others is a human instinct and a survival trait and the notion that you can "sin" and then  confess and be absolved is just as likely to lead to people hurting others (ask a catholic priest)

On another point why are descriptions of hell so detailed and lurid but descriptions of heaven so vague (FWIW, my take on this is there is nothing better than the best aspects of what we have here and now - this is heaven, no one has ever described anything better but we can all imagine things being a lot worse...)

 

[Subpopulus Hibernia]

I have to admit, though - I'm not sure what my attitude would be if I were a thoroughgoing atheist earnestly following Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest.  Why then should I care if you are hurting, as long as I'm OK?

Altruism. If humanity had evolved such that it was a case of every man from themselves then we'd be screwed. Survival of the fittest is a bit outdated now. More like survival of the fittest and most nice and helpful. Altruism is well documented in the animal kingdom and we are no different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

 

[gus horsley]

Altruism, absolutely.  I don't believe in God any more than the fairies at the bottom of the garden but each to their own.  If I had to say what I'm into it would be Taoism (but not the fairies at the bottom of the garden variety).

 

[SpeleoTrog]

Since the Queen is still the reigning monarch and therefore holder of all the UK laws, then your duty to her is simply not to break the law, regardless of what you think of her family. I think as a society, we've evolved long past paying homage or whatever to our ruler

Your duty to God, is whatever you think it is. Personally, I don't give a f*** what you think it is but what religion, or not, you claim to belong to so long as you don't try to tell me that yours is the only point of view and the whole world should agree with it.

 

[Roger W]

Fulk,  I follow what you say about the only one being able to carry the can for your sins is you.  But there are examples - I'm sure you can think of some - where someone in authority takes the blame for his underlings' failure, even though he is not personally responsible.  Or situations where someone else pays the price and bears the consequences for someone else's misdeeds. (I remember the time my daughter kicked a football through the window...  "I'll pay for it," she said, contritely running for her piggy bank.  But of course, she didn't have enough money, and of course her dad forgave her and paid the bill himself  :halo: )  And the Bible tells us that yes, Jesus has already died for you and paid the price for your sins.  That's why you - and I - can be forgiven for all the nasty things we've done and said.  Of course, we can always refuse to accept what Jesus has done, and insist on carrying the can ourselves...

And, Graham..  Yes, God does warn us that the consequences of our actions will affect others, and that he will "visit the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations" as it says in Exodus 34.  Note that it says that the guilty will be punished, and that the bad results of the evil we do may well affect our children and grandchildren.  And, in all fairness, it does say in Exodus 20:5-6 that while God warns that he will punish the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate him, he will also show love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.  In other words, the bad results of sin are much more limited than the good results of obedience... 

BitterEnd,  I hear what you say about "not having the free will" to do certain dreadful things that, unfortunately, others clearly have the ability to do.  But what exactly is it that stops you doing these things?  Is it that you feel that you ought to be so evil, and are in some way disappointed that God won't let you?  No - I didn't think so - you're not that sort of person (I hope!).  But some people are that evil, and I suppose that if God interfered with their free will and stopped them doing (or wanting to do) such dreadful things, you could argue that they didn't have free will any more... It's a difficult question for a Tuesday afternoon, an unfortunate and unpleasant fact that we have to live with, whether we are pinning our hopes on a loving God or inbuilt animal altruism...

And if I were to lose my faith, I don't know what I'd do.  If I were not a Christian, I would be sorely tempted to put number one first and let the rest go hang - by nature I was (am?) a decidedly selfish brute and have to admit I caused a lot of hurt to a lot of people in trying to get my own way before Christ gave my life a new direction.  I'm not perfect now, I know - but please be patient.  He's still working on me!

Descriptions of heaven and hell?  You may have a point in what you say!  The pictures that are given in the Bible have to be based on things around us in this world - there's nowhere else we can get our pictures from.  Those of hell, seem to be drawn mainly from the Jerusalem municipal rubbish dump in the valley of Hinnom (where the fires never go out and the worms devour what is dumped there) and, possibly, a volcanic crater.  Some time ago I visited such a crater on Nyssiros, still hot enough that you couldn't stand still, and with sulphur vapour coming up through holes in the ground - I couldn't help thinking of the "fiery lake of burning sulphur" in Revelation 20:10 and 21:8.  Heaven?  Jesus refers to his Father's house, with its "many mansions" or permanent dwelling places in John 14, comparing heaven to the most opulent of royal palaces.  There are pictures of feasting and joyful responsibility and, in the Revelation, a beautiful city with streets of gold and where there is no pain or sorrow.  Maybe cavers think more about the pictures of hell because that place is commonly pictured as underground?

Sorry if I've been long winded, but I felt you guys were looking for some serious answers.  I've done my best...