Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Belief in Angry God --> poor mental health

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 9:52:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Belief in Angry God Associated with Poor Mental Health".

http://www.realclearscience.com...

Huh, go figure. ;)

I noticed that this poll doesn't really make too many fine distinctions - which is, perhaps, understandable - but I will just point out some.

1. The options don't seem very mutually exclusive to me. There's a lot of overlap. One could believe in a benevolent God that also punishes and gets angry. One could hold that the punishment is remedial or reconcilliatory or restorational and could also hold that God righteously gets angry at injustice and sin.

2. I have no doubt that nearly all participants would claim to believe in a benevolent God. Some, like deists, would say that God is indifferent, but I don't find it plausible to suggest that very many people believe that the God they believe in is malevolent. (Or maybe there are some dystheists out there?) Now, I would also claim that many people hold certain beliefs about God that effectively make the term benevolence nonsense and turn God into a malevolent being but I think I am right in saying that they don't believe God is malevolent. I think they just fail to see the implications of their beliefs.

It'd probably have been more helpful if they characterized an "angry God" along the lines that Plutarch characterized "superstition". That seems more in line with what they were trying to get at.

http://thriceholy.net...

Basically on Plutarch's view a "superstitious" God was mainly a God characterized as fickle, erratic, prone to irrational bursts of anger, unjust, etc, etc. For example, if Dawkins' description of the God of the OT were correct then God definitely would qualify as the God of superstition. Those who believe in that sort of angry God I could definitely see exhibiting some mental health issues some times.

Anecdotally speaking, I have definitely seen that many who believe in an "angry God" (in a Plutarchian sense) tend to not be the nicest of people.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 4:51:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal

Define Evil ? if Evil is what is defined by God to be evil ( which includes the sins of men) that is part of God's creation , he gave us ability to sin and to behold from sining and gave us free will , guidance and Satan , so this package is all from God but remember that him creating evil does not mean he is evil , but it is part of the test .

Now when you speak about natural evil ?! what do you mean exactly as by the end everybody will die and be resuructed and judged , and those who fail will go to Hell and this is GOD JUSTICE , or you think we can judge God and question him ?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 4:53:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 4:51:07 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Nur-Ab-Sal

Define Evil ? if Evil is what is defined by God to be evil ( which includes the sins of men) that is part of God's creation , he gave us ability to sin and to behold from sining and gave us free will , guidance and Satan , so this package is all from God but remember that him creating evil does not mean he is evil , but it is part of the test .

Now when you speak about natural evil ?! what do you mean exactly as by the end everybody will die and be resuructed and judged , and those who fail will go to Hell and this is GOD JUSTICE , or you think we can judge God and question him ?

If it matters not how we die, then why would murder be considered evil? Clearly we consider Murder as evil because we understand that there are certain methods of dying that are wrong. This is how we understand what natural evil is, within methods that people shouldnt be dying of.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 1:59:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 4:51:07 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Nur-Ab-Sal

Define Evil ? if Evil is what is defined by God to be evil ( which includes the sins of men) that is part of God's creation , he gave us ability to sin and to behold from sining and gave us free will , guidance and Satan , so this package is all from God but remember that him creating evil does not mean he is evil , but it is part of the test .

Now when you speak about natural evil ?! what do you mean exactly as by the end everybody will die and be resuructed and judged , and those who fail will go to Hell and this is GOD JUSTICE , or you think we can judge God and question him ?

Generally, moral evil is evil committed by agents (that is, acting under free will) and natural evil is just unnecessary suffering in nature.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 7:37:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?

First, I think of N.T. Wright and keep his quote firmly in mind:

"If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

I think combining a whole bunch of theodicies is probably the best move.

For example, here's an inexhaustive list:

1. Soul-making (pace John Hick)
2. Connection-building (pace Robin Collins)
3. Free-Will (pace Stewart Goetz)
4. Defeating evil and intergrating it into the good (pace Marilyn McCord Adams)
5. I'm still not exactly sure how to feel about "free process" type theodicies to natural evil (pace Gary DeWeese)
6. etc. etc.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 7:42:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 7:37:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?

First, I think of N.T. Wright and keep his quote firmly in mind:

"If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

I think combining a whole bunch of theodicies is probably the best move.

For example, here's an inexhaustive list:

1. Soul-making (pace John Hick)
2. Connection-building (pace Robin Collins)
3. Free-Will (pace Stewart Goetz)
4. Defeating evil and intergrating it into the good (pace Marilyn McCord Adams)
5. I'm still not exactly sure how to feel about "free process" type theodicies to natural evil (pace Gary DeWeese)
6. etc. etc.

I will note that I've heard that Trent Dougherty will be defending a soul making theodicy for animals in a future book. This sound prima facie implausible to me, but I will check it out just because, if nothing else, it will be immensely interesting.

I'm (somewhat) agnostic on William Hasker's approach to natural evil, but I have to do more reading/thinking on it.

And Eleonore stump provides an interesting point about evil and narratives in her book "Wandering in Darkness".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 9:00:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 7:42:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/20/2013 7:37:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?

First, I think of N.T. Wright and keep his quote firmly in mind:

"If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

I think combining a whole bunch of theodicies is probably the best move.

For example, here's an inexhaustive list:

1. Soul-making (pace John Hick)
2. Connection-building (pace Robin Collins)
3. Free-Will (pace Stewart Goetz)
4. Defeating evil and intergrating it into the good (pace Marilyn McCord Adams)
5. I'm still not exactly sure how to feel about "free process" type theodicies to natural evil (pace Gary DeWeese)
6. etc. etc.

I will note that I've heard that Trent Dougherty will be defending a soul making theodicy for animals in a future book. This sound prima facie implausible to me, but I will check it out just because, if nothing else, it will be immensely interesting.

I'm (somewhat) agnostic on William Hasker's approach to natural evil, but I have to do more reading/thinking on it.

And Eleonore stump provides an interesting point about evil and narratives in her book "Wandering in Darkness".

Interesting. I haven't heard of a lot of those, but I'm going to look into them (after I read Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil). So you don't really believe in a Satan-type malevolent figure?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:32:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 9:00:40 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/20/2013 7:42:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/20/2013 7:37:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?

First, I think of N.T. Wright and keep his quote firmly in mind:

"If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

I think combining a whole bunch of theodicies is probably the best move.

For example, here's an inexhaustive list:

1. Soul-making (pace John Hick)
2. Connection-building (pace Robin Collins)
3. Free-Will (pace Stewart Goetz)
4. Defeating evil and intergrating it into the good (pace Marilyn McCord Adams)
5. I'm still not exactly sure how to feel about "free process" type theodicies to natural evil (pace Gary DeWeese)
6. etc. etc.

I will note that I've heard that Trent Dougherty will be defending a soul making theodicy for animals in a future book. This sound prima facie implausible to me, but I will check it out just because, if nothing else, it will be immensely interesting.

I'm (somewhat) agnostic on William Hasker's approach to natural evil, but I have to do more reading/thinking on it.

And Eleonore stump provides an interesting point about evil and narratives in her book "Wandering in Darkness".

Interesting. I haven't heard of a lot of those, but I'm going to look into them (after I read Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil). So you don't really believe in a Satan-type malevolent figure?

Some Story books Matt. 16:23 states that Peter was a Satan, so if we believe the catholics that their popeys are successors of Story book Peter, then in fact their popeys are actually agents of Satan!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 6:10:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal

So Natural evil is a subjective concept, It's judging the creation and the creator ?

a flood , a volcano irruption, an earthquake, no rain , all these can be natural "evils".

I guess if you consider this as "evil" it's because you consider plain DEATH as evil

But death is the end of a step ( or the END for atheists), why should it be an evil ? even prophets have died , and some of them used to hate death , but they still had to experience it in order to go to the next step. We may not like it, but that is not a reason to call it evil ! who likes being vaccinated !
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 10:43:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
People tend to characterize "God" in whatever way they need to, for whatever reason they need to do it. Lonely people see "God" as their friend. Frightened people see "God" as their protector. Resentful people see "God" as their avenger. People who feel weak see "God" as their strength. Kind people see "God" as being very generous and forgiving, while mean-spirited people see "God" the punisher of others. And so on it goes.

And people are capable of having different feelings and different needs at different times, or even occasionally at the same time. So their idea of "God" will likely find a way of accommodating those changes.

But our ideas about "God" are not God. They are only how we imagine "God" to be, in the moment. And I think this is very important for us to understand and remember, whether we 'believe in God' or not. For the non-believer, it's important to understand that the various characterizations of God that people throw at them, and the accusations that sometimes accompany them, are only an expression of the individual doing it. And those individuals are only human, just as we all are. While for the believer, it's important to keep in mind that their ideas about "God" are not God, and so do not carry the authority they imagine then to, or often even the spirit of the God that they claim to profess.

Humility is key in both instances, I think, but especially for the 'believer'.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:51:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 7:37:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?

First, I think of N.T. Wright and keep his quote firmly in mind:

: "If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

Love that quote and not just for obvious reasons. I've used it in a few debates as well. It does make me wonder though. If some Christians really are as moved by the problem posed by evil as this, how they can be so certain of their faith (and I'm not meaning "faith" in a pejorative, fideistic kind of way).

I think combining a whole bunch of theodicies is probably the best move.

For example, here's an inexhaustive list:

1. Soul-making (pace John Hick)
2. Connection-building (pace Robin Collins)
3. Free-Will (pace Stewart Goetz)
4. Defeating evil and intergrating it into the good (pace Marilyn McCord Adams)
5. I'm still not exactly sure how to feel about "free process" type theodicies to natural evil (pace Gary DeWeese)
6. etc. etc.

I'm reading Swinburne's attempt at the moment. Even though I completely disagree with him, you have to admire how clear his thinking is. Hopefully we'll get to debate this at some point.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:54:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:51:52 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/20/2013 7:37:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?

First, I think of N.T. Wright and keep his quote firmly in mind:

: "If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

Love that quote and not just for obvious reasons. I've used it in a few debates as well. It does make me wonder though. If some Christians really are as moved by the problem posed by evil as this, how they can be so certain of their faith (and I'm not meaning "faith" in a pejorative, fideistic kind of way).


I think that one could view the PoE as a strong argument for it's conclusion but think that there are stronger reasons to believe in God. After all, something can be probable given some fact p, but be vastly improbably given the totality of facts/background knowledge. For instance, I happen to think certain versions of the moral argument are quite strong, and so are certain versions of arguments from consciousness.

Without moral principles there'd be no evil and without consciousness there'd be no suffering.

One could weigh the relative stengths of the arguments and judge that the God ide of the equation comes out with a higher probability.

I think combining a whole bunch of theodicies is probably the best move.

For example, here's an inexhaustive list:

1. Soul-making (pace John Hick)
2. Connection-building (pace Robin Collins)
3. Free-Will (pace Stewart Goetz)
4. Defeating evil and intergrating it into the good (pace Marilyn McCord Adams)
5. I'm still not exactly sure how to feel about "free process" type theodicies to natural evil (pace Gary DeWeese)
6. etc. etc.

I'm reading Swinburne's attempt at the moment. Even though I completely disagree with him, you have to admire how clear his thinking is. Hopefully we'll get to debate this at some point.

Yeah.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:52:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 6:10:12 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Nur-Ab-Sal

So Natural evil is a subjective concept, It's judging the creation and the creator ?

a flood , a volcano irruption, an earthquake, no rain , all these can be natural "evils".

I guess if you consider this as "evil" it's because you consider plain DEATH as evil

But death is the end of a step ( or the END for atheists), why should it be an evil ? even prophets have died , and some of them used to hate death , but they still had to experience it in order to go to the next step. We may not like it, but that is not a reason to call it evil ! who likes being vaccinated !

Uh...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:55:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 9:00:40 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/20/2013 7:42:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/20/2013 7:37:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:42:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Popculturepooka, I asked you this on my Satan thread (which I admit is a poor argument, I rarely know what I'm talking about...) but how do you deal with moral and natural evil?

First, I think of N.T. Wright and keep his quote firmly in mind:

"If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass."

I think combining a whole bunch of theodicies is probably the best move.

For example, here's an inexhaustive list:

1. Soul-making (pace John Hick)
2. Connection-building (pace Robin Collins)
3. Free-Will (pace Stewart Goetz)
4. Defeating evil and intergrating it into the good (pace Marilyn McCord Adams)
5. I'm still not exactly sure how to feel about "free process" type theodicies to natural evil (pace Gary DeWeese)
6. etc. etc.

I will note that I've heard that Trent Dougherty will be defending a soul making theodicy for animals in a future book. This sound prima facie implausible to me, but I will check it out just because, if nothing else, it will be immensely interesting.

I'm (somewhat) agnostic on William Hasker's approach to natural evil, but I have to do more reading/thinking on it.

And Eleonore stump provides an interesting point about evil and narratives in her book "Wandering in Darkness".

Interesting. I haven't heard of a lot of those, but I'm going to look into them (after I read Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil). So you don't really believe in a Satan-type malevolent figure?

I'm agnostic on the issue.

http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!