There’s lots of good blog fodder out there, but I don’t want to let too much time go by before finishing my discussion of Stephen Fry’s presentation of the Problem of Evil. See Part One for the full context.
Of all the responses I’ve seen to Fry’s interview, there was one that was so bizarre and demented that we just have to take a look at it. And it came from an unexpected source–Larry Moran:
This video is making the rounds and a lot of atheists are wetting their pants over Stephen Fry’s response to the question of what he would would say to “he, she, or it” if he encountered god when he dies.
My questions would be “Who are you? Which groups of humans (if any) got it right when making up a religion? Tell me about yourself and why you didn’t reveal yourself to me.”
That’s not what Stephen Fry would do. He makes the assumption that he knows the mind of god and attacks the god for not being nice to humans. In other words, he accepts the problem of evil and assumes that the god he is facing gives a damn about some obscure species on a minor planet in one of billions of galaxies. Later on Stephen Fry concedes that he could be talking to the Greek gods or some other gods but by then it’s too late.
What’s gotten into Larry? Where do we even begin to unpack all the crazy in those paragraphs?
Fry’s question is premised on not understanding the mind of God. One suspects that if he knew God’s mind, he would also understand why God allows evil.
Fry didn’t actually protest God not being nice to humans. He objected to afflicting children with dread diseases. Why do you need to understand the mind of God to attack Him for that? If it turns out that God just doesn’t care about human suffering, well, then there’s your answer. But that doesn’t make it a poor question.
I have no idea what it means to “accept” the problem of evil. The point of Fry’s question was simply that evil and suffering are facts of life, and we can reasonably wonder why an agent with the power to stop it nonetheless chooses not to. As for why we might think that God gives a damn about us, one possible reason is that He created us in the first place. Are we to assume He did that out of malice?
Fry “concedes” that he could be talking to the Greek gods? What interview was Larry watching? Fry initially took it for granted that his interviewer was referring to the Christian conception of God (the interviewer specifically mentioned the Pearly Gates after all), and then went on to muse about the way other civilizations regarded their Gods. How does this reflect poorly on Fry?
Larry excoriates Fry for not considering the possibility that God does not care about humans. Yet one of his own questions is premised on the idea that God ought to have revealed Himself to him.
But we’re just getting started:
The god he is addressing may or may not have done any of the things in the Bible. If he isn’t that god then he will know that Stephen Fry is attacking a strawman. If he is the god of the Bible then presumably he/she/it had his/her/its reasons for doing apparently evil things and Stephen Fry is about to get educated about the real mind of god. That may turn out badly for Stephen Fry.
It just gets weirder and weirder. Attacking a strawman? What? Fry was asked what he would say to God were he to meet Him. He replied that he would ask God why He allows children to suffer from horrible diseases. How does that constitute attacking a strawman?
Regardless of whether or not we are talking about the God of the Bible, we can assume that if He exists, He has His reasons for allowing evil. I, for one, would like to know what those reasons are. Why does that reflect poorly on me?
If Larry fears it will go badly for Fry when he asks such questions, why does he think it will go any better when Larry asks God petty questions about human religions and the problem of divine hiddenness?
There’s more!
Many of my atheist friends think that Fry’s response is fantastic because he really shocks the interviewer, Gay Byrne. That’s naive. Most intelligent Christians have developed some very good rationalizations concerning the problem of evil. They’ve heard it all before and they know how to respond. One of the classic responses is that cannot they know the mind of god. But Stephen Fry knows the mind of god and this is puzzling because Fry is an atheist.
We can debate how good those rationalizations really are (the very fact that Larry refers to them as rationalizations suggests that he doesn’t think much of them), but what has that to do with the merits of Fry’s questions?
It is, indeed, very common for Christians to respond by saying that we cannot know the mind of God. The prevalence of that response is an admission both that evil and suffering is a serious problem for theists, and also that we have no good answer for it. I would say that only lends urgency to Fry’s question. Given the chance to finally get a definitive answer to this difficult question, I would think that a lot of Christians would ask the same question as Fry.
But Larry wasn’t finished! He then opened a subsequent post with this:
I think it’s ridiculous for atheists to get dragged into the argument from evil. As soon as you start down that path you are conceding that you are willing to debate “sophisticated theology” and not whether god(s) actually exist. The atheist must then be prepared to read a massive amount of literature beginning with St. Augustine of Hippo through Thomas Aquinas and including the most famous “sophisticated” theologians of the 20th century like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. If you don’t engage the arguments made by those people, and many others, then you are not being honest.
The “problem of evil” is not simple and atheists do not do themselves any favors by pretending that it is. That’s exactly the criticism we level at theists who don’t even try to understand nonbelievers.
Okay, now he’s just messing with me. There’s no way a smart guy like Larry could believe anything he’s saying.
Atheists get dragged into the argument from evil? Really? I’m pretty sure we’re usually the ones who bring it up. We do that because it’s a good argument.
Larry notes that there is a massive literature on the problem of evil. Indeed there is! Does Larry think that’s evidence of the argument’s weakness? The reason theists have to write so voluminously about it, and the reason that theology and philosophy of religion journals to this day routinely publish new papers trying to defuse it, is that the argument is very strong.
Some of us have gone through that literature. Speaking for myself, it is precisely because I have spent so much time considering the panoply of responses on offer that I am so confident that there is no plausible refutation of the argument to be found. But why is it dishonest to raise the argument without having done that much homework? Am I not allowed to accept evolution until I have read and considered every argument that creationists have ever offered?
You don’t have to think the problem of evil is simple to think it’s a compelling argument against theism.
Larry sometimes lets his desire to be contrarian get the best of his good sense. Hopefully he will return to his senses soon.
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1wnX9yU
There’s lots of good blog fodder out there, but I don’t want to let too much time go by before finishing my discussion of Stephen Fry’s presentation of the Problem of Evil. See Part One for the full context.
Of all the responses I’ve seen to Fry’s interview, there was one that was so bizarre and demented that we just have to take a look at it. And it came from an unexpected source–Larry Moran:
This video is making the rounds and a lot of atheists are wetting their pants over Stephen Fry’s response to the question of what he would would say to “he, she, or it” if he encountered god when he dies.
My questions would be “Who are you? Which groups of humans (if any) got it right when making up a religion? Tell me about yourself and why you didn’t reveal yourself to me.”
That’s not what Stephen Fry would do. He makes the assumption that he knows the mind of god and attacks the god for not being nice to humans. In other words, he accepts the problem of evil and assumes that the god he is facing gives a damn about some obscure species on a minor planet in one of billions of galaxies. Later on Stephen Fry concedes that he could be talking to the Greek gods or some other gods but by then it’s too late.
What’s gotten into Larry? Where do we even begin to unpack all the crazy in those paragraphs?
Fry’s question is premised on not understanding the mind of God. One suspects that if he knew God’s mind, he would also understand why God allows evil.
Fry didn’t actually protest God not being nice to humans. He objected to afflicting children with dread diseases. Why do you need to understand the mind of God to attack Him for that? If it turns out that God just doesn’t care about human suffering, well, then there’s your answer. But that doesn’t make it a poor question.
I have no idea what it means to “accept” the problem of evil. The point of Fry’s question was simply that evil and suffering are facts of life, and we can reasonably wonder why an agent with the power to stop it nonetheless chooses not to. As for why we might think that God gives a damn about us, one possible reason is that He created us in the first place. Are we to assume He did that out of malice?
Fry “concedes” that he could be talking to the Greek gods? What interview was Larry watching? Fry initially took it for granted that his interviewer was referring to the Christian conception of God (the interviewer specifically mentioned the Pearly Gates after all), and then went on to muse about the way other civilizations regarded their Gods. How does this reflect poorly on Fry?
Larry excoriates Fry for not considering the possibility that God does not care about humans. Yet one of his own questions is premised on the idea that God ought to have revealed Himself to him.
But we’re just getting started:
The god he is addressing may or may not have done any of the things in the Bible. If he isn’t that god then he will know that Stephen Fry is attacking a strawman. If he is the god of the Bible then presumably he/she/it had his/her/its reasons for doing apparently evil things and Stephen Fry is about to get educated about the real mind of god. That may turn out badly for Stephen Fry.
It just gets weirder and weirder. Attacking a strawman? What? Fry was asked what he would say to God were he to meet Him. He replied that he would ask God why He allows children to suffer from horrible diseases. How does that constitute attacking a strawman?
Regardless of whether or not we are talking about the God of the Bible, we can assume that if He exists, He has His reasons for allowing evil. I, for one, would like to know what those reasons are. Why does that reflect poorly on me?
If Larry fears it will go badly for Fry when he asks such questions, why does he think it will go any better when Larry asks God petty questions about human religions and the problem of divine hiddenness?
There’s more!
Many of my atheist friends think that Fry’s response is fantastic because he really shocks the interviewer, Gay Byrne. That’s naive. Most intelligent Christians have developed some very good rationalizations concerning the problem of evil. They’ve heard it all before and they know how to respond. One of the classic responses is that cannot they know the mind of god. But Stephen Fry knows the mind of god and this is puzzling because Fry is an atheist.
We can debate how good those rationalizations really are (the very fact that Larry refers to them as rationalizations suggests that he doesn’t think much of them), but what has that to do with the merits of Fry’s questions?
It is, indeed, very common for Christians to respond by saying that we cannot know the mind of God. The prevalence of that response is an admission both that evil and suffering is a serious problem for theists, and also that we have no good answer for it. I would say that only lends urgency to Fry’s question. Given the chance to finally get a definitive answer to this difficult question, I would think that a lot of Christians would ask the same question as Fry.
But Larry wasn’t finished! He then opened a subsequent post with this:
I think it’s ridiculous for atheists to get dragged into the argument from evil. As soon as you start down that path you are conceding that you are willing to debate “sophisticated theology” and not whether god(s) actually exist. The atheist must then be prepared to read a massive amount of literature beginning with St. Augustine of Hippo through Thomas Aquinas and including the most famous “sophisticated” theologians of the 20th century like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. If you don’t engage the arguments made by those people, and many others, then you are not being honest.
The “problem of evil” is not simple and atheists do not do themselves any favors by pretending that it is. That’s exactly the criticism we level at theists who don’t even try to understand nonbelievers.
Okay, now he’s just messing with me. There’s no way a smart guy like Larry could believe anything he’s saying.
Atheists get dragged into the argument from evil? Really? I’m pretty sure we’re usually the ones who bring it up. We do that because it’s a good argument.
Larry notes that there is a massive literature on the problem of evil. Indeed there is! Does Larry think that’s evidence of the argument’s weakness? The reason theists have to write so voluminously about it, and the reason that theology and philosophy of religion journals to this day routinely publish new papers trying to defuse it, is that the argument is very strong.
Some of us have gone through that literature. Speaking for myself, it is precisely because I have spent so much time considering the panoply of responses on offer that I am so confident that there is no plausible refutation of the argument to be found. But why is it dishonest to raise the argument without having done that much homework? Am I not allowed to accept evolution until I have read and considered every argument that creationists have ever offered?
You don’t have to think the problem of evil is simple to think it’s a compelling argument against theism.
Larry sometimes lets his desire to be contrarian get the best of his good sense. Hopefully he will return to his senses soon.
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1wnX9yU
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire