Posted by cav on July 12, 2005 at 18:47:58:
In Reply to: Re: However- posted by Dave on July 12, 2005 at 15:15:01:
Your points are valid. I've had hours of debates on some of those very subjects. Of course I can't really KNOW that nothing happens by chance, but my experience shows that in many cases so far, things that were once thought random have been proven. This is Ecology. This is why environmental laws are enacted, because humans now realize how far gone actions have impacts later. In in non-human systems seemingly unrelated events have been proven to be directly linked through a set of complex variables. It even goes into chaos theory and string theory. These still tentative theories rely on such complex calculations that they can't be "proven".
As for other suffering, no doubt it exists and I think we have a duty to correct it to the greatest degree possible. But I don't beleive we can make judgements on God's character based on the existence of suffering. I could argue that I think these suffereings have more to do with our own creation than God's and are a testament to his mercy in that he allows us to act in our own power for better or worse. The trick there is how free will and God's sovereignty work together, and I don't know, but I can imagine that a ruler who is willing to bear the pain of watching his subjects suffer in order that he can bring the perpetrators to a redeemed end rather than immediately charging out with his army and killing them all is a better ruler than the one who would pass quick judgement and allow no mercy.
But then of course is the point that it is within his power to make everything good...and we spin into the free will argument. But I beleive as does Timo, I think, that those who choose to follow God in Christian faith should understand that they will not be exempt from the suffering on this world, but we have to take it as a condition of reality. We will suffer, but God is good and in the end it will be revealed. Again back to faith, in that we accept that.
But let me pose one more thought. I beleive in the end there is only one other choice. Either God must be good or I must become a nihilist. For we both agree the Divine exists. We don't need that proof. But then the question is, good personal sovereign God, evil/indifferent personal sovereign God, in sovereign god, or impersonal divine. In all cases but the first I will eventually find life and striving to be good futile and decend into the existential abyss of nihilism. From which most existential philosophers spent their lifetimes trying to construct some sort of meaning for themselves or come to terms with their futility.
Since I have tried that and it only leads to more misery, I tried the other option. I sought faith and personal experience of it, and found it to be true. Thus I am a Christian. No harm in checking it out...but we have to check it out on it's own terms. Start with "ok, maybe it is true" and then go from there. I've seen several examples of this. But everyone will do this when they are ready.
This is my belief anyway. We must question, we must search. That is the only way we become certain of what we beleive. It's a rather strong position I know, but I can't help it, it's part and parcel. But I play no condemnation. I refuse to go there. Everyone must decide for themselves.
: I guess I would list more things under the category "mystery" than you do. For instance, I don't see how anyone could say for certain that nothing happens by random chance. If, as you say, the term refers to "a set of variables that are too complex to discern," then how can you know that they aren't random since you can't discern them? Granted, the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet's collision with Jupiter in 1994 was probably the end result of a very long line of complex variables that eventually caused the comet's trajectory to intersect with Jupiter's. Perhaps the comet had been nudged slightly off its course by a small asteroid two billion years ago, and had that not happened, it wouldn't have hit Jupiter in 1994. But the collision was still random as far as we can tell.
:
: As for the tsunami question, I was merely giving one example of apparently random suffering--any other historical catastrophe would serve just as well. You say that preservation of life shouldn't be used as an indication of fairness or justness. But if the words "good" and "loving" are to have any meaning at all, they must remain relevant to human experience. The problem is that Jesus said some very specific things about the "good" nature of God, not least of which is this: "Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, ...they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!" (Luke 12:22-24 ) But the world is brimming over with examples of unfed ravens.
: I think you sum up your position well with this: "We can research all the facts, we can study all the cases and examples, but in the end we will always reach some point where we must decide if we believe it or not." That is the great Kierkegaardian insight. Faith truly is a leap in the dark.
: Dave