Religions > Atheism > Jason Gastrich interviews Doug Krueger, Round 2 Transcript
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Grinder" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 01:05:47 AM |
| Object: |
Jason Gastrich interviews Doug Krueger, Round 2 Transcript |
Jason Gastrich interviews Doug Krueger, Round 2
May 13?, 2003
Introduction 00:00:00
JG: Ok, well this is Jason Gastrich and JCSM, and we're happy to have
Doug Krueger on the show today. And Doug and I are going to debate some
issues like what is the existence of God, or does God exist. And he has
written a book called "What is Atheism?", and he's going to tell you a
bit about himself, and then give the opening statement and we're going
to jump right into it. So Doug, how are you doing?
DK: I'm doing well. Thank you for having me on your show.
JG: Thank you for coming sir. So, go ahead and tell us about yourself.
DK: Well, I'm an instructor here at a couple of local colleges here in
Arkansas, the Northwest Arkansas Community College as well as the
University of Arkansas, Fort Smith. I've been an atheist for a number
of years, and the reason I got into dissenting atheism is that ... When
I was asked to explain my beliefs on one occasion for a forum that
someone was planning, there wasn't really a book on atheist, an
introductory book, that I thought I could heartily recommend. Most of
them were either too long or too complicated, so I wrote a book that
you've taken a look at called What is Atheism? A Short Introduction.
And it's published by Prometheus Books, out of Amherst, New York, and
it's been out now for a number of years and it's doing quite well, and
I'm pleased with the response I've gotten to the book.
DK: In that book, I deal with a number of subjects, and today you've
asked me to talk specifically about arguments for the non-existence of
God. Or that is just ... Since atheists don't agree with the theist
that says God exists, many times I'm asked, well on what grounds can
you make that claim? How can you say that God doesn't exist, or why is
it don't you agree? Now, one of the things that's sometimes confusing
is that there's a couple of different definitions of atheist. There's
simply the person that doesn't agree with the theist that God exists,
and that would embrace both those who deny that there's a God, and also
those who are agnostic, as they say. The definition I tend to use more
often is the one that's a stronger definition of atheism, and that is
someone who says that we can be justified in knowing that there's no
God, and those are the type of arguments that I tend to give. So, if
you'd like, I'll give you a few of the arguments that I use in my book?
JG: Ok.
Four Arguments 00:02:25
DK: Ok, well the first one ... There's four of them that I tend to
prefer over others. There are other arguments for atheism, but the ones
I like most of all are first, the presumption of atheism argument. Now
this is the argument that trades on the fact that it's an accepted
principle that if someone gives you an extraordinary claim, that is if
someone says that there's a leprechaun, or a fairy, or a god, or
whatever it is, some sort of supernatural entity, this is in the
category of an extraordinary claim. That is, it's something that's
outside the boundaries of our common, scientific, empirical experience.
And so when someone gives this type of claim, they're expected to be
able to support it. In the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence,
in favor of that proposition, whatever they're claiming, then in the
absence of such evidence, we're justified in rejecting that claim and
saying, no, I don't feel that I'm justified in believing it and, in
fact, I believe it's false. So, for example, if I were to tell you that
right now that I'm talking to you on a cell phone from a flying saucer
that's on Venus, not only would you not be agnostic about that
proposition, (Jason laughs) you would probably say, well, I think
that's just not true. Ok? Now that's the sort of thing I'm talking
about. So, when someone claims that there is a being, who is
all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, and exists outside of space and
time, and is the creator of the universe, well, in the absence of
strong evidence in favor of that proposition, then, I feel justified in
saying, I don't believe it, it's false, the burden is on you to show
that it's true. So, that's the presumption of atheism argument. In
fact, it's very common for people to agree with that, because, after
all we do know that there have been thousands, or actually tens of
thousands, of gods in human history and people, at least in this
country, tend to reject, disbelieve, in all of them but one. I simply
treat the Christian god, for example, in the same way people treat gods
of other religions. They just aren't there.
JG: Hmm.
DK: The second argument that I usually give ...
JG: Well hold on, let's ...
DK: ... is the argument from contradictory attributes. That is, if the
concept of God is incoherent, [if] there are certain parts of it that
don't fit together, then it can't be that there is such a being.
Because if the attributes are contradictory, it's impossible for that
concept to be true. So, for example, if God is all-knowing then if I
know something that God doesn't, then that would mean that I ... Well,
God isn't all-knowing, because there's something God doesn't know. So,
for example, I can know from experience, with personal experience, what
it's like to make a mistake. But if God is perfect, then God can't know
that, so I can know something that God doesn't, so the concept of God
being all-knowing is incoherent. It doesn't cohere with Him being
perfect, a perfect being. If I can learn how to do something, that's an
ability I have that God doesn't, so how can God be all-powerful? And if
I can do something that God can't. Another ... Well, there's plenty of
examples. I can know what it's like to be an atheist, God can't. I can
go out and sin, and presumably, God can't. How can God be all-powerful
if that conflicts with his omnibenevolence, his being morally perfect?
So if the concept of God doesn't cohere, I say we're justified in
saying there can't be such a being.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Now, the other two arguments that I give are based on evidential
propositions about the world. The first one is that the existence of
suffering, in the amounts of suffering we see in the world, give us
good reason to believe that there isn't a being that is all-good,
all-powerful and all-knowing. So, for example, with the Jon-Benet
Ramsey case in, I believe that was Colorado ... Well, the police are
looking for the culprit here, and God knows who did it, if He exists,
if He's all-knowing. God could call the police and turn them in.
However, that doesn't happen. And why not, wouldn't God want to see
that justice is done? Well, the fact that this event even occurred,
that this poor little girl was killed, suggests to us that there is no
God, because God could have prevented that from happening. And, if God
were all-knowing, God would know that event was about to take place. If
God were all-powerful, then God would have the ability to prevent it
from taking place, and if God were all-good, then we think he would
prevent it from taking place. So, since there is suffering, or some
would call it sometimes, evil, in the world, then that shows us that we
have good reason to believe that there isn't a God that exists.
JG: Hmm.
DK: And then finally, and I'm going through these very briefly so that
we can talk about them, but the final argument that I like to give, is
the argument from non-belief. This is the argument that, if there were
a being who was all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, and, being
all-good, would want what is best for everyone ... Right? That's what a
good person does. A good person wants what's best for everyone. Well,
if what's best for everyone is that each person goes to Heaven, then
God would see to it that that happens. And if you go to Heaven by
having certain beliefs, like the belief that God exists, or belief that
there's a Heaven and things like that, you can assert whatever
particular beliefs you think God wants us to have in order to be saved.
Then, if God were all-good, God would see to it that everyone had those
beliefs, so that everyone could be saved. Yet, not everyone has those
beliefs. I, for example, don't have those beliefs. So if God were
all-good and wanted what's best for me, for example, then God would
give me clear an unequivocal evidence that these propositions, that I
don't believe, are actually true. But I don't receive such evidence,
therefore there is no such being. In fact, there are millions of
non-believers in the world, and God could convert them all right now.
And God could, being all-powerful, have the ability to send clear and
unequivocal evidence. Being all-knowing, would know who's a
non-believer and who's not, and know what sorts of things would be
required to convince them. So God could convert everybody who's a
non-believer right now. That doesn't happen, and that, in itself, is
evidence that there is no such being that's all-powerful, all-knowing
and all-good, and who wants everyone to be saved by believing certain
propositions.
JG: [Good.]
DK: Ok, well those are my four standard arguments that I give, and uh,
what do you make of them?
Argument From The Presumption of Atheism 00:09:05
JG: That was very good. I'm interested in talking about each one of
them in turn here. Let's go ahead and get to the first one first
DK: Ok.
JG: Now the first one basically hinged on the extraordinary claim. Now,
do you believe anything that you've heard that is extraordinary? I
would tend to think that people do ... Well, first we have to define
extraordinary, because that's sort of a subjective term. People can
call, a person in Africa can call a car driving seventy miles per hour
extraordinary if he's never seen one before. So, first that's a little
subjective, but um, I would posit that people believe extraordinary
claims, certain extraordinary claims that they hear in every day
conversation ... Of course the ones you gave about the, I don't know,
the leprechauns, or pink unicorns or things, seem a bit out there. I
don't know if you can actually equate those to a belief in God, because
the seem kind of off the deep end. There are some extraordinary claims,
or claims that some may think are extraordinary that aren't so
extraordinary to others, and I think belief in God is one of them.
DK: Well, let me ask you this. On what grounds would you say that those
examples that I gave were off the deep end?
JG: Well, people haven't seen these things, they haven't heard about
them. Well ok, we've heard about them, but no one's ever seen one.
DK: Well, some people claim that they did. Right? Like the Cottingley
Fairy photographs were, in fact, photographs taken by children who
claim to have met fairies.
JG: Well then I guess ...
DK: The leprechaun myth has along with it a number of stories of people
that caught a leprechaun, you know, and what do they say happens if you
catch a leprechaun? It has to give you three wishes, right?
JG: (Laughs) I don't know.
DK: There are stories about that, about people that caught them and got
wishes, and things like that. So, it's not as if somebody just came up
with a concept and there's no claims whatsoever that any of these
things are real. There are claims that those things are real.
JG: Well, then I guess to be judicious, I would have to say, I don't
think that there's leprechauns because I haven't seen one, met one, I
haven't ... I don't necessarily trust the people who have claimed to
have met one or seen one, but I couldn't completely rule it out that
there aren't any.
DK: Ok, well, I can live with that. Would you agree then, if I have not
had any experience with God, and I have had, let's say, interactions
with people who offer evidence that seems inadequate, then would I be
justified in rejecting belief in God?
JG: I don't think you would be justified in rejecting God.
DK: Well, I was not rejecting God, but rejecting belief in God.
JG: No, I don't think that that would be justified, because you're,
because there still is a God.
DK: Well, someone could say the same thing about the leprechauns.
JG: Yeah but unfortunately ...
DK: Yeah, but there are still leprechauns, right? If there is a God,
and I reject belief in God, the question is not whether I would be
error, because if there were a God, yes, I was wrong.
JG: Right.
DK: But my question is, by the same reasoning that allows you to reject
belief in leprechauns, wouldn't I be justified in rejecting belief in
God?
JG: I suppose putting it that way, that you may be justified in
rejecting God. That is, of course, your choice, and you can justify
your decisions, but I think the risk of rejecting God is much greater
than the risk of rejecting leprechauns.
DK: Now that's an entirely different argument. That sounds like a
version of what's called Pascal's Wager, which is, you should believe
in God just as a sort of a safe bet, just to make sure nothing bad
happens to you. But what I'm talking about is whether or not one's ...
If you're going to base your beliefs on evidence, and that's as you saw
with your discussion with James Randi, that's the sort of mindset I
have as well, we should base our beliefs on evidence and not on
promises, or what if propositions because you can say that about
anything, right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Maybe someone would say that you should reject belief in
leprechauns because then you'll never be able to catch one and get
their pot of gold, or something like that. (Jason laughs) I think you
would agree that would be a pretty weak argument for a belief in
leprechauns, wouldn't you?
JG: Yeah, it's just the risk of ... Ok, I know like you said, this was
a slightly different subject, but I think you kind of went back to it.
If we do reject leprechauns then we may run the risk of not getting
their pot of gold, but, if we reject God ... (Crosstalk)
DK: ... goes into your claim. You said, that ... Since you hadn't had
any experience with leprechauns, then you had no reason to believe
people that said they had seen them, then you're justified in believing
there aren't any leprechauns?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Well, can't I say the same thing about God, belief in God?
JG: Yeah, if all you're trying to get is the, I don't know if respect
is the right word, the ability to go ahead and reject God on the basis
of me rejecting leprechauns, I mean I'm sure that you can be granted
that, if that's all you're going for here. But I thought you were
actually going for more of a disproving of the existence of God based
on this kind of logic.
DK: Well, it's sort of a coupling of this particular argument, the
presumption of atheism argument, with two other facts. First, that, at
least as far as I can tell, there isn't extraordinarily strong evidence
in favor of the existence of God. And then second, there is at least
some evidence that God doesn't exist. So if we put those two things
together, then I think we're certainly justified in rejecting belief in
God, and in fact, in holding to non-belief in God.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Just as you, you're not agnostic about the leprechauns, you may be
open to evidence that there might be some, but right now, you believe
that there aren't any. Well, that's the way I am with God.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: I open to the possibility that there might be some, of some sort,
but until I see the extraordinarily strong evidence, I'm going to say,
nope, right now I believe there aren't any.
JG: That seems, what you're saying now, is a little more like a weak
atheist's viewpoint, and it seemed like a few minutes ago that you were
more of the strong atheist, saying that I can prove God doesn't exist,
or I know He doesn't exist.
DK: I can do that with regard to certain concepts of God. Like with the
concept of God in the standard Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, given
the contradictory attributes argument, I believe that at least that
concept of God, we can show that there can't be such a being because
the concept is contradictory. But with regard to say some minor deity
like Hercules, or something, I would have to rely upon: since you can't
produce good evidence for it, on those grounds, I can say I'm justified
in rejecting that belief, and saying there isn't any such thing, just
as you do with leprechauns, ok?
JG: Ok.
DK: Ok, further than that, that's why I use more than simply that
argument, I say, there's even more grounds for believing there's no God
in addition to the presumption of atheism argument. But actually, you
and I seem to be in agreement with the presumption of atheism argument,
because the parity of reasoning between what you believe about
leprechauns and what I believe about God suggests that we're pretty
much in agreement, I'd say.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Doesn't it seem that way to you?
JG: Well, if you ... Just, let's ... First I want to get to that Judeo
God and the contradictory God. Let's put that on number five and
address that one after the first four points. I think I do agree with
you to an extent, just because I think it's appropriate that a person
be somewhat justified in having this belief in leprechauns due to the
factors I already said.. So therefore, if a person like yourself claims
that they don't have enough evidence for God, then ... I use the word
justify loosely because justification in the Christian sense is a
completely different meaning. In a Christian sense, there's a
justification, and that means becoming clean and saved by a trust in
Christ and repenting. So when you say justified, I really don't mean it
in that sense, I mean it more as in helping you sleep at night kind of
justification.
DK: Oh, right, yeah. I think what we're talking here about epistemic,
or knowledge related, justification, ...
JG: Ok.
DK: ... and not the relationship to the divine, or something like that.
Argument From Contradictory Attributes 00:18:09
JG: Ok, why don't we move on to number two and tackle that one next.
Are you ready, do you want to do that?
DK: Sure, yeah, the contradictory attributes argument.
JG: Uh-hmm. Ok, basically you're saying that how God can't know how to
do something without doing it, but don't you know to do lots of things
you've never done before?
DK: Well, it's a little bit more than that, because in addition to
simply ... I'm not simply claiming that God doesn't know how to do
something because there might be some sense in which God could know how
to, let's say, go out and sin, right? I mean, God might be able to say,
ok, you could go out and sleep with a woman that's not your wife, or
something like that.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: There's different types of knowledge one can have about different
things. In philosophy, we typically divide knowledge into categories,
and one way of doing that is to have three different categories. The
first one is propositional knowledge, and that's simply knowledge about
which propositions are true or false. Like is it true that I'm in
Arkansas, or false, or is it true that Bill Clinton was once president,
or is it false, and so on. (Jason laughs) Now that was propositional
knowledge, and the second is skill knowledge, like knowing how to
juggle. That's something where, if you know how to juggle, it's not
really just a matter of knowing true or false propositions, because ...
I don't know if you've learned how to juggle, but somebody can come up
to you and explain exactly what you need to do, and yet, you still need
to practice it in order to do it.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: You can know which propositions are true, but that's not knowing
how to juggle.
JG: Right.
DK: And then finally, knowledge by experience. Being able to draw upon
your, this kind of knowledge by acquaintance of a direct experience
you've had in doing something. So, for example, if you have a priest
and a pornstar having a discussion about sex, ok, let's say, stipulate
the priest has never any and the pornstar has had much, they can utter
the same proposition, but they attach to it a kind of knowledge to
them, when they're talking about this thing, that the pornstar has some
kind of knowledge that the priest doesn't. Ok?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: So, it's knowledge by acquaintance, knowledge by experience. It's
that third type of knowledge that God can't have about certain types of
things. I can know what it's like to make a mistake, I can know what
it's like to have that embarrassment feeling, or that ... I can draw
upon an experience of that is more than simply uttering a proposition,
or knowing whether a proposition is true or false. And that kind of
knowledge by experience, God can't have about certain things, if other
things said about God are true. Right?
JG: Uh-hmm. So ...
DK: Would you agree with that?
JG: Well I'm interested to see what kind of things you think that the
Biblical God cannot have or be because of this lack of experience
knowledge that you're mentioning.
DK: Well, for one thing, God can't know what it's like to be a
confirmed atheist. (Jason laughs) He can't know, from experience, what
that is. God could never have the experience of doing that.
JG: If that's true, what does that reveal about God?
DK: Well that means I could know something that God can't. (Jason
laughs) So, God can't be, by definition, all-knowing.
JG: Hmm.
DK: There is something that can be known, and God doesn't know it. So
God, on that view, can't be all-knowing.
JG: Well perhaps there's a fourth kind of knowledge that humans don't
understand and that's more of a supernatural experience type of
knowledge that God can have, that humans cannot have.
DK: Well, perhaps. That's certainly true, but that wouldn't change the
fact there would be at least some kind of knowledge that God doesn't
have. Even if God had other kinds of knowledge that we don't have, He
is not all-knowing if we have some kind He doesn't.
JG: Hmm. It's true that God can't sin, for instance, so God wouldn't
have a ... Or like you said, God couldn't be a confirmed atheist and
couldn't experience in a human way what it would be like to be a
confirmed human atheist. But then again, describing God with human
words only gets you so far anyhow, because human words are limited in
describing a God that's bigger than human words, that created human
words.
DK: Well, yeah, that defense will only get you so much because we are
talking about a human concept. What I am talking about is the concept
that people often use when they're talking about God, this human
concept. If that's incoherent, we're justified is saying that such a
thing cannot exist because incoherent would mean it can't, literally,
all fit together at the same time.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Now, you might argue that this concept is just wrong. But if so,
then you would be conceding my argument that the standard concept of
God, if what I'm saying about it is true, is incoherent, and we're
justified in rejecting that concept. If you have another concept, for
example, if you have the concept of a god that isn't all-knowing, then
that would be a different case entirely, and many of the arguments that
I would have about incoherent attributes wouldn't apply.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Right? That would be a possible defense to say, well, that concept
of God just doesn't, isn't what I have. But then, the one that I'm
using is that of a being that's alleged to be all-knowing,
all-powerful, all-good, and outside of space and time.
JG: Hmm. I can't concede that God is not like he is listed in the
Bible, but it would make sense for me that God, the God who created
everything, would, could supernaturally know what it would be like to
be a confirmed atheist. I know that would be impossible, for instance,
on a human level. For a confirmed atheist who has never prayed, or
never repented, or trusted Christ, to be a Christian. So, as far as our
understanding goes, I think that you have an interesting concept, but I
just think that we need to look at it in a new paradigm when we're
referring to a supernatural, omnipotent god.
DK: What you seem to be arguing is, I'm saying, there's categories of
knowledge one, two and three, and God can't have number three. And
you're saying, well maybe he has number four.
JG: Right.
DK: Maybe he has one, two and four, but if he doesn't have three, he's
still not all-knowing. Alright? So, I mean that's why I'm saying you're
.... And of course, it hasn't even been shown that there is a category
four, but I mean, even if there were, if category three is still
missing, God isn't literally all-knowing.
JG: I think category four can transcend category three.
DK: Well, that's your claim. Show how this would work. How can this
happen?
JG: Yeah, I ...
DK: How could God know, by experience, how could God know the feeling
of being a confirmed atheist. How could he know that?
JG: Well, I think that these ...
DK: It's impossible. He couldn't be. He couldn't be a confirmed
atheist. He couldn't know this by experience. He couldn't know the
feeling I have when I look at the world and I don't believe there's an
all-powerful being in it.
JG: I think there's some evidence in the Old Testament about God
knowing certain things that we see that He, supernaturally, knows, so
we have to try and figure out, ok, what kind of know does this mean?
God had not come to the Earth in the form of Jesus yet, so how does God
know this, and in what kind of a way does he know this? Maybe that
would help us understand how there could be a fourth kind of know here
that is supernatural and reserved for God alone.
DK: Can God feel ashamed?
JG: If ashamed isn't a sin, then I bet Jesus probably felt it while he
was on the Earth.
DK: Well, but then my question is, did God know that?
JG: I see God, Jesus as God the Son and part of the Trinity, so it's,
we could call Jesus God also.
DK: Hmmmm. Well it's interesting that you said that, something about
Jesus wasn't on Earth yet, as if somehow He wasn't eternal, or
something, but I'm sure that must have been a slip, right?
JG: Well, no. He was, He is eternal and he was in Heaven, and there's
evidence of that in the Old Testament, but He ... in the person, in the
human person of Jesus Christ, who's all-God and all-human, He didn't
come to Earth until two thousand some odd years ago. But I think we're
getting off track, though.
DK: Jesus died before there were any telephones. You and I know what
it's like to talk on the phone?
JG: Yeah.
DK: Jesus doesn't, didn't. (Jason laughs) Does God know that, having
the experience of that. Can God [draw from] that? Well, no.
JG: Well that would lend me to ...
DK: There are many examples of this.
JG: Absolutely. I agree. I think there are many examples, and I think
that must lend strength to the argument that God must have a fourth
kind of experience knowledge without literally experience talking on
the telephone, or else God wouldn't be the God of the Bible that we
read about.
DK: It just doesn't say in the Bible that God does have specifically
that kind of thing. There's no categories of knowledge, per se,
discussed in the Bible ...
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: ... in terms of one, two, three and four, or the sorts of the
things we're making. Until I can see that there's some good reason to
believe that there is this fourth category, and it can be explained
exactly how this would work, I think I'm justified in believing that
the concept is not coherent.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Because it certainly seems to be that we can have at least some
kind of knowledge that God doesn't have, and until I can ... Until it
can be explained how that could be otherwise ... You're proposing that
it's possible that there's a certain way that there's a fourth
category, but show how that could work, right?
JG: I think it's ...
DK: Until that's been done, I don't think ...
JG: Ok.
DK: ... that the problem has been solved.
JG: I think it could be a logical extension of a person of a creature
[pronounced as create-chure] who literally created the Earth, and human
beings, and all things ...
Argument From The Existence of Suffering 00:28:06
JG: Why don't we move on to number three and talk about suffering some.
DK: Alright. Yeah, this is a problem that I think you're probably well
aware of
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Many people want to know why bad things happen to good people, or
(Jason laughs) why there's so much evil in the world, and so on. So
what's your explanation?
JG: What is my explanation? Well, sin, poor choices I suppose.
DK: What that? Sin?
JG: Sin, poor choices. People suffer generally because they've done
something wrong. I don't think anybody has been perfect, so therefore
everybody has sinned in their life, and God, as a creator and as judge,
He holds the judgment in His hand, and sometimes he judges people,
sometimes he gives them mercy, it all just depends on His choice.
DK: Well, yeah, that's sometimes called the, or that seems to be a
version of the free will defense.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: That people use their free will and sometimes they choose to do bad
things, and that's why there are bad things that happen, right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: That's basically what you're arguing?
JG: Well you mentioned that people, like I think you [?] to the Ramsey
case, or said some murders got away ... I was also going to indicate
that a lot of times, murders and people get caught, and they don't get
away. And also, do you think there could be more suffering in the
world?
DK: Sure. But I also believe there could be a lot less.
JG: Uh-hmm. Uh-hmm.
DK: Well, let's take the case of the Jon-Benet Ramsey [crime].
JG: Ok.
DK: I think, presumably, she was found dead in her parent's basement,
or something like that, right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Suppose that I had been there in the basement, and somebody killed
this little girl. Let's say I wasn't the killer, I was just standing
there ...
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: ... and I didn't do anything. Then later, the police find out that
I was there, and let's suppose that the killer was unarmed and I had a
big machine gun. The police, I think, would be justified in asking,
well, why didn't you do anything? If I say well, sure, I know who the
killer is but I'm not telling, and I could have stopped this from
happening, but I didn't, and I could have done all this with no cost to
myself, no risk, or whatever, I think people would be justified in
thinking that I'm not a good person. Because, when we think of a good
person, we think of somebody ... Good is opposed to evil.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: That's en evil act, that's suffering that's taking place, I could
have prevented it and I didn't, that would make me, I think, a bad
person. So if God is all-knowing, and so on, all-powerful, God could
have stopped that event from happening, this little girl from getting
killed, and God could right now, in fact, turn in the killer, but that
doesn't happen.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: To say that people sin doesn't seem to be a defense. What if I hid
in the basement and they ask me, why didn't you do anything? If I were
to just say, well people sin, would that be an adequate defense?
JG: Well it looks like you're kind of reaching for sort of a utopia
principle or theory, saying that if there's a God there would be no
suffering, is that what you're saying?
DK: Well certainly there wouldn't be the amount of suffering we see in
the world. There might be some suffering that would be ... Like, let's
say when I get a cut on my leg, I feel some pain. But that pain might
be good, it might have a purpose, because that would draw my attention
to the fact that I got cut and then I could do something about it. So,
in that case, it's probably a good thing that we feel pain so that we
can avoid harmful things, or apply remedies when something happens.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: In the case of this little girl getting killed, that's something,
that doesn't having anything to do with necessarily a utopia. It's
simply common sense.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Good is opposed to evil. If you have a good person there that can
prevent it, that person would. So that wasn't prevented, so there was
no good person there, therefore there was no God there.
JG: There's two ways that I want to answer that. One is I think, well I
know from the scriptures, that the Earth was created in a perfect way
and that sin happens after the creation, and so God didn't want all
these things to happen necessarily from the beginning. It's the way
that it happened from sin, and sin is the reason why we get suffering
and disease and murder, and all these terrible things. And the other
way that I wanted to answer it, I'm sorry, was that ... oh shoot, I
just lost it (Laughs)
DK: Oh, you mean you lost your train of thought?
JG: Yeah I did.
DK: Well, then let me then say something about what you just said.
JG: Sure, sure.
DK: Even if it were true that God created the world perfectly, did God
know that if Adam and Eve sinned that suffering would come in the
world?
JG: Yeah, God would have to know all things already from the beginning.
DK: Ok, well then why didn't He stop them from sinning?
JG: God just loved them ...
DK: Look at all the suffering that was caused.
JG: Oh that re, ok, that jogged my memory. And that's a good question,
but I think God gave them the ability to choose what they wanted. I
think that suffering in this lifetime, if you will look at it in view
of eternity, is probably very very insignificant. When you're thinking
about millions or billions, trillions, unfathomable years, if you get a
cut on your leg, or even if you get killed in this world, it's not such
a big deal.
DK: That's the sort of view that I think is not only ... First of all,
I don't think there's any good reason to believe that's true, but I
think that does a disservice to this life. I mean, I think this life is
important, and I think that unless you can show (Jason laughs)
otherwise, we have every reason to believe that this is all there is.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: And I've never seen anyone give any good evidence to suggest that
this isn't all there is.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: To say that, well, it doesn't really matter if this little girls
gets tortured and killed, in the big picture, it doesn't really matter
.... Well, if you're saying that evil doesn't really matter, you just
gave everyone of your listeners some reason to think, well, I might as
well go out and do evil things, what does it matter?
JG: Uh-hmm. Ok, well ...
DK: It doesn't matter. It certainly matters to me, and it mattered to
Jon-Benet Ramsey, and it mattered to ... I mean, if her parents aren't
guilty of anything, it certainly mattered to them.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Actually even if they were guilty, it mattered to them. I think it
does matter. And to say that these things don't really matter, I think,
is just false.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: The question, the reason that people wonder about evil ... If it
didn't matter, they wouldn't really wonder about it, but it does
matter, and that's why they wonder about it. Like the 9-11 thing also,
God could have prevented every one of those hijackers from getting on
the plane. God could have, once they've taken over the plane, God could
have stopped them.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Once they had decided to drive into, fly into a building, God could
have caused the plain to go somewhere else.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: None of those things happened. But for you to say that it didn't
really matter, that just sounds very hollow. I mean, that just doesn't
ring true. Certainly you can see where I'm coming from on that?
JG: Yeah, well I don't justify doing evil, and I didn't say that to
make light of sin or evil. I think sin is awful. I don't think there's
anything worse than sin. I'm not saying that I don't think life is
important, and that I don't think that Christians, or people, should
relieve other people's suffering. I'm not saying that at all. All I'm
saying is that in light of eternity, and eternity forward, that some
suffering or even death in this world is not, is not as bad as some may
think, or as bad as atheists may feel and think. I think we're probably
going back to our worldviews here. For somebody who only sees this
world as the be-all, end-all of existence, oh, of course, that want to
protect this life, they don't want any suffering in this world, because
this is it. But people who see that there's a life after death, then
they can understand why they have to experience suffering a little bit,
and put it in it's proper place saying, ok, so I've got to suffer a
little, so this bad thing happened to me, ok, I can deal with it, after
this life it's going to be better and things are going to be fine for
eternity, it's not so bad.
DK: Would you have been able to say the same thing if you were in
Auschwitz in World War 2? That, well, a little bit of suffering, I can
take it, it doesn't matter as much as these non-believers want to
think, and so on. That just seems false.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: If wholesale slaughter doesn't really matter that much, then ...
Well, first of all, why would people be eternally punished for
something that doesn't really matter that much. It just doesn't seem
true that these things don't matter as much as atheists think.
JG: Hmm.
DK: When 9-11 happened, the churches got filled. People went back to
their religious beliefs looking for answers. Why would God allow this
to happen? Maybe they did hear a lot of, you know, it doesn't really
matter that much type of response, because after six or eight months,
the levels of church attendance went back to normal, which is, that is
not very much, and I think it's because they didn't find answers. When
they, when people hear representatives of, supposedly, this religious
position saying, this stuff isn't really that bad, or it doesn't really
matter too much, or ... That is basically what you're saying, that just
doesn't ring true to most people.
JG: It could also be that people are just not real disciplined. They go
to church when they have a need, and when they don't have a need
anymore, they start fading away. And once again, don't take my
statement out of context. I'm not saying it's the solution to all of,
every argument under the Sun. All I am saying is that, as far as the
question, why is there suffering, does not suffering say that there is
no God, I'm saying that in light of eternity, suffering is not as bad
as you make it sound.
DK: Well, look, if God is a good being, isn't God opposed to evil?
JG: Yeah, God hates evil.
DK: If God could have prevented 9-11, or if God could have prevented
this little girl from getting killed, why is it that God didn't do
that? The same reasoning that would lead you to believe that if I was
there, and I could have prevented it and didn't, that I was bad ...
Shouldn't be believe that about God too? What if I had said, well you
know, it doesn't really matter if this little girl gets killed? Should
the police just say, oh ok, you can go. Yeah, you were there in the
basement and you could have prevented all this, but so what, you're
right, it doesn't really matter as much as we thought. Well that's just
not true.
JG: I agree. I think, though, that we're mixing two different issues. I
think on a human level for you in the machine gun scenario, I don't
think that you, having limited knowledge, would be justified in not
protecting this person. But I think on the other hand, I think God,
having a huge overview, and a much more knowledge than us, does see and
know some purposes for suffering and allows it to happen.
DK: Ok, well why? Why would knowing more mean that God would be
justified in not preventing suffering like that?
JG: Ok, well you brought up something about the only kind of suffering
that seemed like you thought was appropriate was maybe a cut on your
leg. Can you think of any kinds of suffering that you think may bring
some positive effects?
DK: Well sure, like when you go to the dentist. You might have to
undergo a little bit of pain to avoid a lot more.
JG: But maybe besides physical pain, is that the only kind of suffering
you're talking about, or want to talk about?
DK: No, there's what some people call tough love. Like a baby in a crib
thinks, or wants to be held, but you might allow the baby to go longer
and longer periods without being held so it doesn't get spoiled, or
things like that.
JG:
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: So, uh, sure, there's other kinds of things that might be required
for some other kind of benefit. But the thing is, often these cases the
we see in the news, and read about, and so on, those don't seem to have
any beneficial result. In fact, many times it just makes things worse.
Like the Holocaust takes place, and what was the good that came out of
that? Well, nobody can see any good that came out of it. Certainly
nothing that would justify slaughtering millions of people.
JG: Well a lot of times they have a little policy in the internet
forums and places that when you get to the, talking about Hitler or the
Holocaust, (Laughs) really the conversation's over because you can't
get much more, much bigger than that. Just for sake of argument, you're
mentioning a couple of terrible things and I'm not justifying either
one of them from a human point of view. I'm not saying that those
people were right, or what happened was good, you know, I think those
things were atrocious, but I also think that God does work out bad
things for the good. And there were good things that happened in all
sufferings throughout all time. For instance, if someone loses their
job, and they liked that job but they didn't really know that there's a
better job for them, and they weren't going to leave and they were
going to stay there, and there were some issues with that job, or what
have you, and they lost it, and that could be a motivator or a way they
could go find a different job. And would they be, have some suffering?
Yeah, of course. They would experience some suffering because nobody
likes to lose a job, and you have that moment or those weeks of not
knowing what's going on, but then when you find a new one and you start
working there and it's better, then you start realizing, hey, this
suffering had a purpose and a meaning.
DK: Are you suggesting then that every case of some suffering is
allowed to happen because God, in his infinite wisdom, knows that some
beneficial result will become of it? Is that basically your position?
JG: That is basically my position, yeah.
DK: Then presumably, on your reasoning, we should go out and cause as
much suffering as we can, (Jason laughs) because if it causes
beneficial results, then we're doing something good. Right?
JG: I wouldn't go that far. I wouldn't ... No, because that would be
disobeying a principle in the Bible.
DK: Isn't there a principle to do unto others as you'd have them do
unto you?
JG: Ok, can you see that this is kind of silly?
DK: Wouldn't you want someone to do things that had beneficial results
for you? Well sure. So presumably we should go out and cause suffering
as much as possible. (Jason laughs) Because on your view, this is
causing untold beneficial results ,right?
JG: Uh-hmm, uh-hmm. Well I think that ...
DK: You've sanctioned the committing of evil. Right? You're saying
basically that there isn't any real evil, it's all just good in
progress. Right? That's basically your position. But that just doesn't
seem to be true.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Not only do we not always see beneficial results, we know of many
cases where people lose their jobs, and they don't get a better one,
they either don't get one, or get a worse one. We know of many cases
where people are made homeless because they lost their jobs, then they
get beat up and robbed and their lives are ruined. There are many cases
of suffering that don't have any known, or any visible beneficial
result, and have very clear non-beneficial results.
JG: Well first, just because you don't see or recognize the benefits, I
mean, it doesn't mean that they're not there necessarily, it could just
be a case of being a little short-sighted. And just because maybe the
person you're talking about, in a different scenario, gets a worse job,
which can happen, that would ... You still have to try and see why, and
I'm sure that you could find some ways that the person could have grown
in intangible ways, in patience, and ...
DK: Well, that's your claim, but how can you show that all cases of
suffering have good results. Where's your evidence for this? Because
there's ... Every newspaper is filled with cases where it sure doesn't
look like it. Then thousand people starved to death today, right?
Where's the beneficial result? Because I can tell you the same thing
happened yesterday, and the day before, and the day before. So where is
the good that is supposedly coming from all of this?
JG: Well, if you want to take that situation, I mean, of course the
liberal media is only going to give you the information that's
newsworthy, they're not going to give you the little tiny things about
people growing and intangibles. Once again ...
DK: How does somebody who just died from starvation grow intangibly?
(Crosstalk) They're dead, they don't grow. They're dead.
JG: Now let me answer that. Now, and before I answer that, I want to
tell you that I'm a finite being. I (Laughs) have a human brain, so I
can guess at the mind of God, and I can guess at why I think these
things are happening, but ultimately, I'm quite certain, there's many
many reasons and I don't know or see them all, and I can't. As far as
somebody dying of starvation, as tragic as that is, and how I wish and
hope that we can feed them, I suppose one thing would be they would, if
they believe in Christ, and he dies of starvation, the guy or the girl
is going to go to Heaven, so that would be their reward for dying
early, from dying a painful death.
DK: Ah, so, well do you think, is that a good reward?
JG: Absolutely, going to Heaven?
DK: Does that justify it?
JG: If the creator God deems that, you know ...
DK: Does going to Heaven justifying dying a short, painful death?
JG: Apparently that's one of the things that happens to people,
believers, who die of starvation.
DK: Well, how do you know that?
JG: How do I know what?
DK: How do you know that people who die of starvation go to Heaven? It
doesn't say that in the Bible.
JG: Oh, I'm saying believers. No no no, I've said believers. I'm not
saying just anybody who starves, but people who believe and trust in
God will go to Heaven, and who have repented and have accepted Christ
and trusted Christ.
DK: Well, they would go ... According to you, they'd go to Heaven even
if they didn't starve.
JG: I didn't say that, no I didn't. Oh, wait no, say that again. I'm
sorry. (Jason laughs)
DK: Surely you would agree, that someone who has repented and accepted
Jesus and so on ...
JG: Right.
DK: ... upon your worldview, they'd go to Heaven even if they didn't
starve to death.
JG: Right, right.
DK: So, there isn't a point to them starving to death.
JG: Well, you might not see a point, or for the sake of this argument,
you may not see a point. But, like I said a second ago, there are many
many reasons and I know some of them, and one of them is like you said,
there's suffering in this world, so this ten-year-old who starves and
goes to Heaven, the could have suffered for ten more years, right?
DK: Yeah.
JG: You know, they didn't.
DK: Well in your view, then, we ought to convert and kill (Jason
laughs) the people that are starving.
JG: (Laughs) Oh gosh. I wouldn't take it that far.
DK: That's what you just argued for.
JG: Oh, no no no.
DK: Because wouldn't that be better ... I mean, that would be less
suffering if we kill them early (Jason laughs) and they're going to
Heaven, which is the best thing for them. So, why not?
JG: That's an illogical extension.
DK: Did you even agree that them going to Heaven is a justified reward?
That justifies them getting, you know, starving.
JG: Alright, I think this would be a good point to take our five minute
break.
DK: Alright.
JG: Does that sound good to you?
DK: Uh sure, do you want to call back, or what do you want to do?
JG: It would probably be easier if I just leave everything running.
DK: Ok. Let's go ahead and take a break.
JG: See you in five minutes.
DK: Alright.
Argument From The Existence of Non-Believers 00:48:26
JG: Ok Doug, are you there?
DK: Hello? Are you there?
JG: Yeah.
DK: Ok, are you done with your break?
JG: Yeah, we're all done.
DK: Ok.
JG: Are you done?
DK: Yep, I'm fine.
JG: Alright. I'll edit that out before I upload and before I send you a
copy
DK: Oh, ok.
JG: Alright. So, did you want to ... Let's move on to number four.
DK: Ok, the argument from non-belief.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Now that's the argument that if ... Now this concept of God that is
addressed by this particular argument is a little bit more of a
full-blooded concept of God than is addressed with the other arguments.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: On this one, it's the concept of a god that not only has the
standard deistic attributes of being all-powerful, all-good, and all
knowing, but also wants people to have certain beliefs in order to be
saved. Ok?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Now, it would seem that, it certainly seems commonsensical that,
that's say, if I wanted my kid to know something that was essential for
their survival that, if it was within my power to get them to belief
that, I would make sure they believed that. Like, looking both ways
before crossing the street, right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: If it was important for them to know that sort of thing, or watch
out for cars or whatever you want, then I would see to it that they had
that kind of knowledge, [and] they were convinced that this was
important, and that there was unequivocal evidence that they should
look both ways before crossing, and so forth.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Well, presumably, on your concept of God, there's a certain thing
that's essential to know for my salvation, and that is that Jesus died
for my sin, or however you want to phrase that. Well, if it really is
that important, God could convince me of it. God could convince me of
it right now. But, I've been looking for many years for evidence that
that's so, and I've found none.
JG: Hmm.
DK: So, I think I'm justified in believing that there is no such being,
because if there were such a being, I would have found such evidence.
JG: Uh-hmm. Now is that what the same number four was that you had
mentioned earlier?
DK: Yeah, the argument from non-belief. If there were a God who is
all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing, and who wanted me to have
certain beliefs, I would have those beliefs. I don't have those
beliefs, therefore there's no such being.
JG: How about if he didn't want you to have them, or didn't care if you
have them?
DK: Well then, he's not all good, (Jason laughs) and you would concede
that there's no being that's all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing.
JG: I was just proposing that, I'm not saying that He didn't want you
to know or He doesn't want you to know, I just was curious how you
would answer that.
DK: Yep, well now you know how I'd answer that.
JG: (Laughs) Ok, yeah. So essentially are you saying that because
unbelievers exist, that that means that God doesn't exist?
DK: Well, yeah, no, certainly. Yeah, no God of that sort. Now there
might be some ... This doesn't address other concepts of God, but
certainly it would address a being that allegedly wants people to have
certain beliefs because it's essential for their salvation.
JG: What about a scenario where your son or daughter is about to go out
and do some things and you allow them to make the specific decisions
whether they will do drugs or whether they will go to a movie. And God,
in a similar manner, allows us to trust Him, believe Him, or reject
Him.
DK: Well, if I didn't provide any evidence that engaging in certain
activities was detrimental to one's health, or if I didn't provide any
evidence that there were such things as heroin, or something like that
that you'd want to watch out for, then I think I would be negligent as
a parent. Fortunately there's information like that all over the United
States. But, where's the evidence that there's your God?
JG: I suppose that it's in the Bible, in nature and science.
DK: Well, that doesn't cut it. (Laughs) I mean, I've looked at the
Bible, and nature, and science, and not only have I not found
persuasive evidence, I haven't found anything that even remotely
resembles good evidence.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Of what I have found is, for example, with the Bible, that these
stories are not all that different than stories that we find in other
religious traditions
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: And, there's certain things about these stories that contradict
things such as science, such as the global flood and things like that,
and so those things give me good reason to believe that these stories
are not true, or at least some of them are not true.
JG: Hmm.
DK: I don't think that the Bible is going to cut it. I think you and I
have had some discussion of the Bible, but certainly people have been
trying to show that science supports the Bible, or that archeology
supports the Bible, and none of those attempts have been successful.
And in fact, just the reverse is true. The more you know about Biblical
archeology, the more you know that there are at least some claims in
the Bible that are not true. Now I'm certainly not going to argue that
all of the stories in the Bible are false.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: I think there are some that have not been shown to be true by
archeology, and some that have been shown to be false.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Like the fall of Jericho is thought to be a fiction. The Exodus is
thought to be a fiction, because of the archeology.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: So, science, the Bible, things like that, those are not sufficient.
The problem is that even if they were sufficient, if those were not
convincing to me, your God could go even further and demonstrate to me
that He exists without using those means. I mean, if that's not good
enough, God could do something else.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Like God could cause all the stars in the sky to form the words,
Jesus saves, one night when I'm looking up.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: And then, you know, that would be a much different kind of level of
evidence. So why doesn't that happen?
JG: Well, I thought ... It looks like that you have a bias that has
contaminated your perception of the evidence.
DK: No, I don't have any bias. I use the same standards of evidence
that say, you would use, if you were examining the truth of the Koran,
or the truth of the Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism, or the truth of the, of
[?] Zoroastrianism, and so on.
JG: Well, I ...
DK: You wouldn't believe those stories just because they were in a
sacred book.
JG: I have read the Koran and it's ... You can see my research and an
online Koran at koran.jcsm.org, and it's definitely a lesser book than
something like the Bible. It calls for the killing of Christians and
Jews, the mistreatment of women, killing infidels ... It's not a good
book, (Laughs) you know.
DK: That's better than what your book has. (Jason laughs) Your Bible
has people getting killed, not for their beliefs, but just because they
were on somebody's land that they wanted. Well, not even someone else's
land, like killing the Malachites, or killing ... There's a whole list
of people that get slaughtered in the Old Testament, and presumably
it's because God wants his representatives to have some land. Well, I
think that's a pretty poor excuse for killing people.
JG: Well, there's a difference ...
DK: If God was all-powerful, he could have relocated those people with
just a wish, and that didn't happen, so there the lesson seems to be,
it's ok to kill people for land, and I think that's a bad lesson.
JG: Ok, well getting back to the subject, slowly here but surely, it's
.... First, there is a difference between a historical account and a
present command, and the Koran has commands for people today to go out
and kill people, and what you're talking about [are] four or five
thousand year old stories in the Old Testament, they don't line up,
they're not the same thing. I really do think that you just see the
evidence differently for number four here. I think you've got sort of a
bias because you've already gotten one through three if that's not
proof enough. There's a whole word, you saying you want to see more of
God, you want God to reveal himself, maybe stars in the sky, and you
know ...
Efficacy of Prayer 00:56:50
JG: I want to quote something I talked to Mr. Randi about was Matthew
12:38-40. The Pharisees wanted a specific sign for them, and basically
for their ego, and Jesus said, no, you're not going to get it. Jesus
had been healing people, doing miracles, and He told them that He was
going to rise from the dead, and that would be the only sign that they
would get. So, I mean ...
DK: Is that your belief then, about miracles? You think there aren't
any these days?
JG: Well, my belief is that God is not privy to being manipulated into
doing things under observation strictly for money, or people's egos.
DK: You said that, according to you, Jesus said he wasn't going to give
them a sign?
JG: Right.
DK: Was that Mark 11, excuse me, Mark 8 ...
JG: Maybe in Mark, but I know it's in Matthew 12:38-40.
DK: Oh yeah, that there'll be no sign except for the sign of the
prophet Jonas?
JG: Right.
DK: Well in Mark he says there's not going to be any sign at all, but I
guess that doesn't fit with your worldview, in Mark 8. But what about
John 20? Which says, and Jesus did many other signs in the presence of
his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ.
JG: Right.
DK: So Jesus did miracles so that His followers would believe in His
divinity.
JG: And were the Pharisees his followers?
DK: Well it says in the presence of his disciples.
JG: The Pharisees were definitely not his followers.
DK: It doesn't say Pharisees, it says, in the presence of his
disciples.
JG: That's the thing, you've got three different verses there talking
about three different situations. Jesus told the Pharisees, because of
their ego and their unbelief, that they weren't going to get a special
sign. But yet, Jesus still did miracles and signs, and his followers,
people that loved him and recorded these things, did see them and
experience them.
DK: Well, you've got contradictory passages here.
JG: No I don't.
DK: Mark 8, Jesus, uh, the Pharisees come and ask Jesus if there's
going to be any sign, and he said, verily I say unto you, there shall
no sign be given unto this generation. And He left them.
JG: Then there ...
DK: Then Matthew, and also Mark 8. But what about Luke 11, there shall
no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. So it's
false that there's no sign, in these other two books He says there will
be at least one sign. But then we see also in John that He gives signs
all over the place. John 6:2, and a great multitude followed him,
because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
And then Mark 16 says, and they went forth, the disciples, and preached
every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with
signs following. And then Acts has, the Jesus of Nazareth, a man
approved by God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God
did by Him in the midst of you. He did lots of signs.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Acts 5, and by the hands of the apostles were many signs and
wonders wrought among the people, and so on. And that's not even the
exhaustive list. In fact the Bible does say whatever you ask for in
prayer, you'll receive. Matthew 21:22, if you believe, you will receive
whatever you ask for in prayer. Do you believe it? (Jason swallow
beverage) Do you believe, that if you believe, you will receive
whatever you ask for in prayer?
JG: Uh-hmm. Which verse is that?
DK: Matthew 21:22. I might have the ... let me triple check here ...
You can't tell me you've read this and bleeped over it. This is a gold
mine for you.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: If this is true ...
JG: Do you believe that all scriptures were written to, directly to
twenty-first century Americans?
DK: Well, that's what you believe, don't you?
JG: No, absolutely not.
DK: So, maybe only people in the first century are saved by Jesus,
maybe not people now, right?
JG: Well that wouldn't make sense, but it is ...
DK: Where's your evidence that this wasn't directed at other people?
JG: Jesus had just answered and said to them, as surely as I say to
you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was
done to the fig tree, but also if you say that this mountain be removed
and cast in the sea, it will be done. And whatever things you ask in
prayer, believing, you will receive.
DK: Yep.
JG: Now there are other statements too. I mean, ...
DK: Well, so if you believe, then whatever you ask for in prayer,
you'll receive. Do you believe that?
JG: Yeah, if you, and I think that word believe also implies praying
according to God's will.
DK: This is a pretty good thing. Are you going to try to split hairs
about the word believe?
JG: Oh no, I'm not splitting hairs. I'm trying to tell you what the
passage means.
DK: It's pretty clear what it means. It means if you believe, you will
receive whatever you ask for.
JG: Uh-huh.
DK: That's what it says. Whatever you ask for in prayer, you'll
receive. End of story, that's what it says.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: So I'm asking you if you believe it? You say you believe the Bible,
so presumably, you ought to believe this. It doesn't seem you believe
it.
JG: So, what does this have to do with your point, number four?
DK: Well, I mean, you're trying to make it out that God isn't going to
give me unequivocal, miraculous evidence of this existence on the
grounds that there isn't going to be any sign given to the Pharisees,
or something. Well I'm not a Pharisee.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: I'm not a Pharisee, I'm somebody asking. I asking for evidence.
Now, according to you, if you believe the Bible, you ought to be able
to provide this evidence, right now. You could ask, in prayer, right
now that, see, I'm in this room now, I left my sunroom where I was on
my cordless phone, and I'm now in this bedroom that has a TV in it. You
could make, my prayer, this TV fly up in the air and spin around, and
then I'd believe.
JG: Uh-hmm. Well I guess you're not getting the principle that I'm
bringing up, because still requesting the same kinds of signs that the
Pharisees are requesting. Now I only brought that up, and I'm willing
to address these scriptures, and as a matter of fact, I addressed all
these in my book, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and
Explained. (Crosstalk) Now you can get the book at sab.jcsm.org. I give
fantastic answers to all these questions, and ...
DK: Well, let's hear them.
JG: Well right now, I'm trying to address your number four. Your number
four is about God, and about the evidence of God's existence, ...
DK: Those were the Pharisees. I'm not a Pharisee.
JG: ... and all I was doing was bringing up some scriptures that showed
you a principle that you didn't get, because you asked for a sign,
which was the TV flying. And once again, let me say it again, God, over
time, just doesn't look like God, and according to the scriptures, is
privy to doing miracles for peoples egos, under observation.
DK: Why did that happen in the Old Testament, and in the New, and it
doesn't happen now? It gives you the rule how you can do this. It says,
if you believe, you'll receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Now, if you believe that, then do what I'm asking, right? I mean,
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: The apostles went and did signs, all over the place. It said they
did many of them. In fact, is says, doesn't it say that the believers
will be able to do things even more amazing than what Jesus did?
JG: That just wouldn't make any sense to take this verse into the
context that you're putting it in, because Jesus ...
DK: That what it's for. People were doing signs, in order that people
might believe. That's specifically what it says in the Bible.
JG: Wait a minute.
DK: When in fact we have even other verses that will say ...
JG: It doesn't say that in Matthew 21, and that's what you're getting
at.
DK: Yeah, that's one. There's also Matthew 18, if any two followers
agree on anything I ask God for, it will be done.
JG: Do you understand what that meant? You can't just run off an list
scriptures, don't jump around so much, you know, if you want to know
what some scriptures mean, you've got to look it up, you got to find
out, have you checked commentaries?
DK: (Crosstalk) ... to look it up. These are prescriptions for doing
alleged miracles.
JG: See, you're an atheists who wants to stand back and wants to say,
hey look, this word right here, I know it means, and, and it means that
God should be able to do on command, you should, like a monkey or
something, exactly whatever [a] person tells him he should do. And as a
whole, that's not what the scriptures say God is like, or God will do.
DK: Well, but it also says, that if any two followers ask for
something, God will do it. It also says ...
JG: That talks about church decisions.
DK: ... that if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can move
mountains, move trees, make them go plant themselves in the sea.
JG: Now if you look at the context of the first verse you quoted,
that's about church decisions, that's not just about arbitrary things.
I mean you're really bombing me with scriptures right here, and it's
not a very fair tactic.
DK: Well, look, you should already be familiar with these verses.
JG: I'm not saying I'm not familiar with them. I'm saying I can't
answer them at the rate you're proposing them, and after I do answer
them, you still don't like the answer.
DK: Well, you aren't answering. You're saying these don't apply, but I
don't see why. Why? If it says, if you agree on anything, it will be
done. Agreeing on a policy is not getting something done.
JG: Hmm.
DK: That's not what ... That doesn't make any sense. But if it says,
look, if you believe, you'll receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
That's very clear. It's plain speech. It says, look, you pray, you ask
for something, and if you're a believer, you'll get it. That's what is
says, in plain language. So, I'm simply asking you to demonstrate
that's true. Now I even asked you if you thought it was true, and
you're kind of hedging on that.
JG: If you read the verses ahead of that, you see what happened, and
Jesus walked by a fig tree and He withered it and (Coughs) Excuse me,
and the disciples marveled, and the whole statement was based around
them marveling at this miracle, going, wow, look what happened, and
Jesus saying, basically, did you think that was awesome, well, if you
believe, you can do even greater things.
DK: Yep, well there you go. So, you're agreeing with me. (Jason coughs)
You're acting like you're disagreeing, but you've just proved my point.
According to the Bible, if you believe, you just ask for something in
prayer, something even like that, and you'll get it. So, why don't you
come to my house and wish one of my trees to wither, and then the next
day we'll look and see if it happens
JG: Well, I think there are other scriptures too that indicate things
about prayer, and I think that being pure, and having a pure motive,
and there's lots of other things ...
DK: No, it doesn't say anything about that. It says, if you believe.
Now, Jason, you believe don't you? So, if you believe, you ought to be
able to do these things.
JG: Alright, I'm not discussing this verse with you anymore because you
don't get it.
DK: Well Jason, it's clear.
JG: It's clear that you don't get it. It's clear that you don't listen.
DK: The only thing that's required for you to do miracles, is that you
believe.
JG: It's clear that you're stuck on what you think is right, and you
don't know it, and you won't understand it, and I'll bet you haven't
read one commentary on it.
DK: Look, every Christian knows that verse is false. Everybody. Nobody
would ever try it. I can ask a thousand Christians that come to my yard
and try to make one of my trees wither, and nobody will even try.
Because I've been asking for a long time, [and] nobody does it. That's
why I have a yard full of healthy trees, right?
JG: Hmm.
DK: And you won't do it either, because you know it doesn't work.
Right? You may say that you believe that verse, but you don't. I've
never met a Christian that really believes that.
JG: Well, I haven't met an atheist that understands it. So do you want
to move on to number 5?
DK: I'm sure you've met plenty. It's plain speech. Right? Ok, well in
any case, it seems that the ...
JG: Number five was about he Judeo-Christian God?
DK: (Crosstalk) ... believe that even on your worldview, if God wanted
someone to believe something, God could do something to make that
happen. In fact, in the Bible, God does that. Remember when that king
had a boil, and he wanted to know if he was going to die? God makes the
sun go backwards. I'm not even asking for something that big.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: God could do things to have people believe.
JG: Hmm.
DK: If God has some reason that He doesn't do it, then that would show
that God doesn't really want what's best for everyone.
JG: Well, I know there's a scripture that says, without faith it is
impossible to please God, so I think that there may be a faith issue.
DK: No, this has nothing to do with pleasing God. It's, look, does God
want everyone to believe that Jesus died for their sins, or not? What
do you think?
JG: Can't you see that there's some kind of element of atheist who
simply wants signs and aren't necessarily receiving them? Some do, and
I recently read about a guy named Jordan who converted to Christianity
from atheism, it was kind of interesting, but I think there's obviously
an element of these atheists requesting signs for impure motive, and
not getting them. You do see Christians praying and getting things.
I've got ten or eleven pages of prayer, or things that God has awesome
done in my life that have been awesome.
DK: Well, we have ... I can find tens of thousands of examples of
Christians who have prayed for something, and it didn't do anything.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Look at all the ... Every ... Look how many children are missing.
All the parents, and all their family are praying for them to return
safe and sound, most of the time, they don't. So, are you going to try
to talk about the efficacy of prayer?
JG: Oh, I well ...
DK: It's done. It doesn't work.
JG: It really just kind of piggy tail, piggybacks on the suffering
issue. God is sovereign, and He is (Doug laughs) bigger than us, and He
knows why things happen, and He has reasons for them, and sometimes He
says no to our prayers.
DK: Well, you don't know that there are reasons these things don't get
answered.
JG: But I do have faith.
DK: That's speculation. The evidence is that prayers don't get answered
at any rate greater than chance.
JG: Hmm. I don't think that's true.
DK: There's no evidence otherwise. The Bible gives you specific ways in
which you could prove otherwise, and in fact, you could do it right
now, and you won't. Ok. Because I think you and I agree, that there's
no evidence that prayer works that you could point to on any kind of
objective or scientific basis. Right? You have some stories, but yeah,
there are also a lot of other stories. So, I mean, ten thousand people
pray that they don't die of starvation in a day, maybe one survives and
the rest die, and you're going to look at that one person and say, see,
prayer gets answers? But look at all the other people whose prayers
weren't answered. You're just committing the fallacy of selective
evidence. There's plenty of evidence that prayer doesn't work, and that
happens all the time.
JG: But your evidence, of prayer not working, is things not going the
way Doug thinks they should go, and that's poor.
DK: Well no, it's things going the way that we think a good being would
want them to go.
JG: Right.
DK: We have certain things we expect of good beings. If God can do
anything, then there's no point in calling him good. There's certain
things that if God does them, then He's good. If He doesn't do them,
then He's not good. And if you don't believe that, then you have no
standard of goodness, and you may as well admit that you're worshipping
an evil demon.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Right?
JG: I think this really goes back, and I see it more now than ever, how
this problem, this issue with your unbelief, is really around the
suffering that people have, and the lack of God's intervention, and
it's ...
DK: No, it's a lack of evidence. I mean, God doesn't have to alleviate
suffering for me to believe that God exists. I told you how God could
convince me, God could perform a miracle, make my TV fly in the air,
make the stars form a word ... There's any number of things that
wouldn't have anything to do with suffering, that God could do, to
convince me that there is a supernatural realm and that He's there, and
so forth.
JG: Well, I think ...
DK: None of those things happen. (Crosstalk) ... love to know you.
Return To The Existence of Non-Believers 01:12:43
DK: There have been many other people, oh in fact, some of the people
that you know of, that are prominent in free thought, used to be
ministers, such as Farrell Till, such as Dan Barker. Now these people
were heavily invested in the Christian worldview, and the would have
loved nothing more than to stay in that worldview, and be comfortable
with it, but, they asked for evidence. And, let me tell you, you can't
deny that these two men prayed very sincerely when they were having
doubts, and they wanted to be shown that certain things were true.
There was no such evidence forthcoming. If God did exist, we would
certainly expect that God would want people to continue in certain
beliefs. Especially if this had everything to do with their eternal
salvation.
JG: Hmm.
DK: If Dan Barker and Farrell Till, who used to be ministers and are
now atheists, if they are going to burn in Hell forever because of
their beliefs, then if God could have seen to it that they maintained
their beliefs and not went to Hell, if God is good, God would have done
that.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: That's what we would expect of a good being. If I would die
tomorrow and burn in Hell, if God were good, then we would expect that
God would see to it that I had certain beliefs. And God could see to it
right now, and every day that I'm alive, God could see to it that I had
certain beliefs, God could do something.
JG: Alright ...
DK: [He could] give me unequivocal evidence that He's there, and I
should believe certain things, but that evidence is not forthcoming.
That's the evidence that we would expect, if God were to exist. So, the
fact that it's not there, the lack of this evidence, is very telling.
There can't be a good god who wants people to believe things, because
he could get people to believe things, not interfere with their free
will, not interfere with people's suffering, if He really wants people
to suffer, but He could do it in other ways, but that doesn't happen. I
think that's very good evidence that there is no such being.
JG: Ok, well I think there's three answers I have to that. One is, I
think if Jesus was on the Earth that he would tell you exactly what He
told the Pharisees in Matthew 12:38-40. And I also think that the
scriptures say to believe, and not to pray if these things are true. So
if you have Farrell Till or Dan Barker, or whoever, praying and going,
dear God, is the Bible true? That's a Mormon belief, that you can read
that in the introduction to the Book of Mormon, and it says, pray over
these scriptures and see if they're true.
DK: Why couldn't Christians do that too?
JG: That's not a Biblical principle that God says ...
DK: Well, so what?
JG: God says believe, and I will show you. He doesn't say I will show
you, then you will believe.
DK: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. I asked you if you believed
that this verse, in Mark 21:22, that if you believe, you will receive
whatever you ask for in prayer, so presumably they believed, they
weren't non-believers, they asked for signs ...
JG: Yeah, I'm not talking to you about that verse anymore. And the
third point is that you were indicating something that's false by
saying that if God was good, then He would send all people to Heaven.
Does a judge in a courtroom, is he unjust for giving somebody the death
penalty?
DK: No, no, that's not what I said.
JG: That is essentially what you said.
DK: (Crosstalk) [If a] God did exist, if He were all-good, then if it
were required that you have certain beliefs in order to be saved, then
God would see to it, if He's all-good, that people had those beliefs.
Perhaps an analogy would help. Suppose that my four children were
trapped in a building, and the were on the top floor, and there was a
fire in the rest of the building. And, suppose they were on a floor, in
a room, that only had one fire escape, but it has a secret code that
you have to punch in the code to open the fire door. Now, suppose I
show up and I see that there's a fire, and I know that my kids are up
there, and I have a cell phone, and there's a phone in the room where
they are, should I call them and tell them the code to the door?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: If I'm a good person, the answer should be very obvious, that yes,
I should call them and tell them. On the other hand, suppose that they
not only did not know the code to the door, but suppose that there were
ten thousand codes, all of them but one is false, that are on the door
and on the walls, and so forth. That's analogous to the many different
religions that also claim that there's, that they can provide
salvation. Should I just say, well, they should just know which one is
the correct one by faith, or, I'll just wait and see if they believe,
and so forth. That doesn't cut it. That's not what a good person would
do. I would certainly be considered a negligent father if didn't call
them and tell them, and tell them unequivocally. I could just, in fact,
if I could even go up there and punch the code myself, and tell them,
look here's the number, 1-2-3-4, or whatever. That's what a good person
would do.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: But what you're describing, where the Christian religion, as far as
anyone can tell from the evidence, from the archeology, from the study
of the Bible, it's no different than any other religion. There are a
bunch of claims, none of them provable, and you have lots of excuses as
to why there's not going to be any evidence for it. Right?
JG: Hmm.
DK: And that just doesn't cut it. That's not what a good being would
do. Because, not only would a good being provide evidence, but a good
being would see to it that there aren't false codes, on the doors and
so on, that is false religions, that are going to get people to burn in
Hell. Right? And God doesn't do that either.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: In fact, the opposite is true. Do you know that Islam is about as
popular as Christianity right now? They're running neck and neck, and
there's about as many believers of one as the other. And if your view
is right, I mean according to you I'm sure, Muslims will burn in Hell.
Then well, God should see to it that people start deconverting and
start believing something else. There are many Muslims that don't
really have much of an idea of what your beliefs are, as a Christian.
Right? They have a view that's kind of filtered through the Koran, and
so forth, about Jesus, and about virgin birth and so on. According to
you, God could just provide unequivocal evidence that the Koran is
false, that Christian fundamentalism is true and so forth, and all
these people could convert overnight. But God doesn't do that.
JG: Uh-hmm. Ok, well.
DK: And these excuses, they just don't ring true. Just like some ... If
I were a father and I saw this building burning, and I didn't do
anything, what possible excuse could I come up with to justify allowing
my kids to burn?
JG: Ok, well let me ...
DK: There's, oh well, they just need to believe by faith, or it's too
bad they didn't pick the right code, they picked one of the ten
thousand that was wrong. None of those excuses work, and I think the
analogy is a pretty good one.
JG: Ok, well let me respond to that.
DK: [Alright.]
JG: Now I never said that there wasn't evidence, and in fact, I have
argued that there is plenty of evidence, and that it is your bias that
contaminates the evidence. But back to that ... Let me address the
issue about your analogy about the burning building. Now, this
relationship between you and your children is different than our
relationship with God. We have sinned against God, the holy God, you
Doug, you have sinned against God. God gave you the way of redemption
and salvation, and you rejected it. Therefore as a righteous judge, He
will send you to eternal suffering, and nothing less would be required
of a righteous judge.
DK: Well that just sounds like a bunch of nonsense. I don't know what I
could have done, or what any human being could possibly have done to
merit the kind of torture that you're talking about. I mean, that's
just not ... That isn't just. That's not justice. That has nothing to
do with being a good being. Good beings don't send people to torture
for eternity. That's just a matter of fact. That's the opposite of
being a good being. What you're describing, is the sort of world that a
demon would create.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Where a demon would create a perfect world, and then put a tree in
there, knowing that human beings are going to pick of it, and then damn
everybody to Hell. And then, drown the whole world. And then, send,
thousands of years later, after a bunch of people are presumably going
to Hell, then send His only son to get tortured. His own son, He sends
him to get tortured, and somehow this is supposed to save everybody.
But then again, there's not any good evidence that any of this
happened, and so, people get damned anyway. In fact, the vast majority
of the human race ends up going to Hell. Well that's the kind of world
a demon would create.
JG: Hmm. Ok, so what ...
DK: That's not the kind of world that a good being would create. You
know what, I'm a finite being, and I'm not the most moral person in the
world perhaps, there's certainly a number of people that might outshine
me in that respect, but I could do a whole lot better. If someone were
to come up to me and say, hey, why don't you design a world that has a
bunch of goodness, or something a good being would create, I could do a
lot better. I think any one of my kids could do a lot better.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Most people could do a lot better. I could certainly design a world
in which it wasn't true that most people go to Hell.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: And it wouldn't be because they didn't sin, or something, it be
because I would have a different way of going about it.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: I wouldn't say, oh well, so you went and stole something, you're
going to burn for eternity, or whatever. Or you didn't believe in a
certain event that happened in Palestine in the first century, that
there's no good evidence for, therefore you're going to burn in Hell.
That's not what a good being does.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: If my kids had done something that really made me mad, and so then
I decided I'm not going to call them and tell them the code to the fire
door, well I would still be a bad person. It wouldn't matter what they
had done, that's just not what a good person does. A good person helps.
A good person is opposed to suffering. A good person is someone who
makes sure the best things that can happen to people, tend to happen.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: And, going to Hell is not anywhere near the best thing that can
happen to somebody. That's, in fact, the opposite. If what you're
describing is true, it sounds like you're worshipping an evil demon.
JG: Umm.
DK: That's because that's exactly the sort of scenario, the sort of
world an evil demon would come up with. In fact, you could hardly do
any worse. Right? Where most people are tortured, for eternity.
JG: Ok, well you touched on a question that I was going to ask you. Now
you don't like the Christian God and how He is described and what His
character is described like, so can you tell me, what is a good being,
a good god to you? How should he be, or what characteristics should he
have?
DK: Well, I think I just described it a few minutes ago. A good being
is one who tries to have everyone be the best kind of person they can
be, to have the sorts of things happen to them that tend to be good for
them, that help people to develop and grow and live together in
harmony.
JG: Hmm.
DK: But, if you were to look at the Bible, that's not what happens,
that's not what happens at all. In fact, for example, when God wants
Moses, and then later some of his other later representatives, to have
certain bits of land, He doesn't say, Ok, go over there, here's some
money, and buy the land from the people. And he doesn't say, I'm just
going to, by divine will, relocate these people somewhere, He says, go
slaughter all those people and don't spare any of them. Kill everything
that breathes.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Why would a good being do something like that? That just isn't what
a good being does. The description of God in the Bible is not that of a
good being.
JG: Well it seems like you've got an inadequate definition of what you
think a good being should be. All I have is, tries to have everyone be
the best, and growth and harmony. Is that really all you would expect
from a good being?
DK: Well, it's certainly more than we get from the God of the Bible. I
would be willing to admit that I don't have a perfect understanding of
what a good being would be like, and maybe I don't have a perfect
understanding of what exactly what sorts of things should be happening
in the world if there were a good god.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: But, I do have a perfectly good grasp of the sorts of things that
wouldn't be happening if there were a good being. And those are the
sorts of things that, unfortunately, that we find all over the Bible.
JG: Hmm.
DK: We find people being slaughtered for their land. We find people
being enslaved. We find people engaging in all sorts of barbarities
that we wouldn't tolerate at all in our societies now. We, as a
society, the United States, in the twenty-first century, are doing
better than your God in the Old Testament, in terms of the laws. We
have much better laws. We have more moral laws, and I think this is
obvious to anybody who takes a look and compares the two laws. We've
eliminated slavery, your God didn't. We're just much more
compassionate. You're certainly right to point out that I might not
have a perfect view of what a good being is like, but I have good
enough of an idea to know, for sure, that the being that you describe,
as the sort of thing that you worship, is not a good thing.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: In fact, I would say that it's a good thing that the being you
worship doesn't really exist. Because probably the worst thing that
could possibly befall humanity would be that there actually would be
such a being. That would be just a disaster. Right? Because your being
is indistinguishable from an evil demon. I'm proud to be an atheist,
and I'm glad there isn't any such being as yours.
JG: Now ...
DK: ... I think it's a good thing. In fact, then what should we do as a
society? Well, we can help each other, be compassionate, help people to
develop their abilities and contribute to society, provide for
education. None of that stuff is the sort of thing that your God did in
the Bible. Show me where your God ever founded a school, or started
some sort of educational system. Nowhere, nothing. Right? Drown the
whole world, without even providing the Bible. Right? Nothing. So, your
being is not a good one, and in fact, your being ... You're right,
we're kind of off the topic, but if He did exist, not only should we
expect that He would provide evidence for his existence, we would also
expect, boy, this God has a lot of explaining to do. Right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: He's going to have to come clean and explain what is going on.
Right? And we don't get any of that.
JG: Ok. Now I'm all for compassion and health and love like you
mentioned, those are all excellent things. There was a school of the
prophets that was designed by God and the prophets in the Old
Testament, and I think you kind of hit on a fallacy that some atheists
grab at, and that is the Bible has every word and every action ever
done by God, and that's just simply not true.
DK: Well, I didn't make that claim. There's no evidence that there were
schools or anything that your God ever founded.
JG: No, there was a School of the Prophets there with Isaiah.
DK: Ok, so you got one group, an elitist group, and that's not even all
of the Jews. Right? So, that's hardly of any help.
JG: I wouldn't say God is anti-education or anything of that nature.
There's Christians that are doing education things all the time, and
forming schools and foundations and such.
DK: But doesn't the Bible say wisdom is foolishness?
JG: Wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
DK: Yeah, well, there you go. Education that someone would do in a
school, isn't that wisdom of this world?
JG: Not necessarily.
DK: Why would you have a school for foolishness?
JG: No, I would say wisdom of this world would be like, uh, well, is
not that. In light of eternity would you ... Say for a second that you
believe there was eternal life after we die. Would that help you
understand suffering any better?
DK: It might help me understand it, but I don't think that would
justify it. Even if it were the case that people who suffered when to
Heaven, I don't think that would justify having them suffer. That's a
very paternalistic, and I think immoral, way of going about having
people go to Heaven. And I, uh ... For example, if I thought that you
would be a better person if you were to lose your leg, and sometimes
people that take a lot of things for granted, and the lose a limb,
sometimes they do feel that they're better off afterwards. They
appreciate life more.
JG: Hmm.
DK: They appreciate doing things more. And so, suppose I were to know
that you would be better off if you were to lose your leg, would that
justify me in going up to you and, without your permission, cutting of
your leg?
JG: No.
DK: Ok, well there you go. So, even if, people might in some cases be
better off if they suffered, by the same token, that doesn't justify
they're suffering.
JG: I never presented a case that it was alright for humans to make
other people suffer. All I was ... But anyhow, why don't we move on to
number, what we call number five, and you had mentioned about the Judeo
God being contradictory?
DK: Oh, that was number two, but I think you postponed it to number
five? Ok, fine.
JG: After you listed the first four things, you mentioned something
else that I called number five, I don't know.
DK: Oh, ok. I thought you were kind of postponing it and calling it
number five. But yeah, that was my argument from contradictory
attributes.
JG: Ok, ok, ok.
Argument From Morality 01:30:24
DK: There are other arguments that some philosophers have given against
a belief in God. Well, what about the argument from morality?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Some philosophers have argued that if the divine command theory is
true, then that would reduce all morality to just arbitrariness.
Because God, if God is the one who creates morality then what standard
does God use? If God has no standard, morality is arbitrary if He's the
one that does it, creates it. But then if there is a standard, God
isn't the origin of morality.
JG: Hmm.
DK: So, where does God get his morality? If morality is not arbitrary,
then God can't be the origin of morality. And if by definition He is,
then He doesn't exist.
JG: Well Doug, you know, that sounds like an excellent question, and
what I think we should do since we've already been talking for an hour
and a half is make that the topic of our next debate.
DK: Ok, well perhaps we could do that.
Closing Statement 01:31:20
JG: Can you go ahead and give me about a little thirty second, or one
minute closing statement?
DK: Uh, sure, go ahead.
JG: No, no, no, I was asking you if you can.
DK: Oh, oh, you want me to provide one.
JG: Well, yeah, if you want to sum up your arguments in thirty seconds
or a minute, please do, and we'll keep this on the tape for everyone to
hear, and I can do a little summary too I suppose.
DK: Ok. Well no, I'm certainly content to give you a little summary,
and it would be this. That, I think, on the presumption of atheism
argument, we would be justified, just as you reject the leprechauns,
rejecting the existence of God, if there isn't good evidence in favor
of God's existence. And I think there isn't, and I've been looking for
many years and I've found none. In addition to no good evidence in
favor, we have some good evidence against. We have the contradictory
attributes argument, we have the existence of suffering, and we have
the existence of non-believers. So all of these things combined, I
think, make it not only rational, but commonsensical to be an atheist.
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: So there you go.
JG: Very good. Very concise. Very concise. I appreciate you coming on
today, and ...
DK: Thanks for having me, I always enjoy it.
JG: Yes sir. And I will talk to you soon and this will be posted on the
web within a couple of hours after I do the editing of the little
break.
DK: Ok, good deal, and have a good day.
JG: You too Doug, take care and thanks.
DK: Ok, bye.
JG: Bye bye.
.
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich interviews Doug Krueger, Round 2 Transcript |
26 Jan 2005 01:42:34 AM |
|
|
I haven't checked this for accuracy, but nonetheless, who is taking the time
to type these transcripts? Or does a robot do them? I'm just curious.
God bless,
Jason
Grinder wrote:
Jason Gastrich interviews Doug Krueger, Round 2
May 13?, 2003
Introduction 00:00:00
JG: Ok, well this is Jason Gastrich and JCSM, and we're happy to have
Doug Krueger on the show today. And Doug and I are going to debate
some issues like what is the existence of God, or does God exist. And
he has written a book called "What is Atheism?", and he's going to
tell you a bit about himself, and then give the opening statement and
we're going to jump right into it. So Doug, how are you doing?
DK: I'm doing well. Thank you for having me on your show.
JG: Thank you for coming sir. So, go ahead and tell us about yourself.
DK: Well, I'm an instructor here at a couple of local colleges here in
Arkansas, the Northwest Arkansas Community College as well as the
University of Arkansas, Fort Smith. I've been an atheist for a number
of years, and the reason I got into dissenting atheism is that ...
When I was asked to explain my beliefs on one occasion for a forum
that someone was planning, there wasn't really a book on atheist, an
introductory book, that I thought I could heartily recommend. Most of
them were either too long or too complicated, so I wrote a book that
you've taken a look at called What is Atheism? A Short Introduction.
And it's published by Prometheus Books, out of Amherst, New York, and
it's been out now for a number of years and it's doing quite well, and
I'm pleased with the response I've gotten to the book.
DK: In that book, I deal with a number of subjects, and today you've
asked me to talk specifically about arguments for the non-existence of
God. Or that is just ... Since atheists don't agree with the theist
that says God exists, many times I'm asked, well on what grounds can
you make that claim? How can you say that God doesn't exist, or why is
it don't you agree? Now, one of the things that's sometimes confusing
is that there's a couple of different definitions of atheist. There's
simply the person that doesn't agree with the theist that God exists,
and that would embrace both those who deny that there's a God, and
also those who are agnostic, as they say. The definition I tend to
use more often is the one that's a stronger definition of atheism,
and that is someone who says that we can be justified in knowing that
there's no God, and those are the type of arguments that I tend to
give. So, if you'd like, I'll give you a few of the arguments that I
use in my book?
JG: Ok.
Four Arguments 00:02:25
DK: Ok, well the first one ... There's four of them that I tend to
prefer over others. There are other arguments for atheism, but the
ones I like most of all are first, the presumption of atheism
argument. Now this is the argument that trades on the fact that it's
an accepted principle that if someone gives you an extraordinary
claim, that is if someone says that there's a leprechaun, or a fairy,
or a god, or whatever it is, some sort of supernatural entity, this
is in the category of an extraordinary claim. That is, it's something
that's outside the boundaries of our common, scientific, empirical
experience. And so when someone gives this type of claim, they're
expected to be able to support it. In the absence of extraordinarily
strong evidence, in favor of that proposition, whatever they're
claiming, then in the absence of such evidence, we're justified in
rejecting that claim and saying, no, I don't feel that I'm justified
in believing it and, in fact, I believe it's false. So, for example,
if I were to tell you that right now that I'm talking to you on a
cell phone from a flying saucer that's on Venus, not only would you
not be agnostic about that proposition, (Jason laughs) you would
probably say, well, I think that's just not true. Ok? Now that's the
sort of thing I'm talking about. So, when someone claims that there
is a being, who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, and exists
outside of space and time, and is the creator of the universe, well,
in the absence of strong evidence in favor of that proposition, then,
I feel justified in saying, I don't believe it, it's false, the
burden is on you to show that it's true. So, that's the presumption
of atheism argument. In fact, it's very common for people to agree
with that, because, after all we do know that there have been
thousands, or actually tens of thousands, of gods in human history
and people, at least in this country, tend to reject, disbelieve, in
all of them but one. I simply treat the Christian god, for example,
in the same way people treat gods of other religions. They just
aren't there.
JG: Hmm.
DK: The second argument that I usually give ...
JG: Well hold on, let's ...
DK: ... is the argument from contradictory attributes. That is, if the
concept of God is incoherent, [if] there are certain parts of it that
don't fit together, then it can't be that there is such a being.
Because if the attributes are contradictory, it's impossible for that
concept to be true. So, for example, if God is all-knowing then if I
know something that God doesn't, then that would mean that I ... Well,
God isn't all-knowing, because there's something God doesn't know. So,
for example, I can know from experience, with personal experience,
what it's like to make a mistake. But if God is perfect, then God
can't know that, so I can know something that God doesn't, so the
concept of God being all-knowing is incoherent. It doesn't cohere
with Him being perfect, a perfect being. If I can learn how to do
something, that's an ability I have that God doesn't, so how can God
be all-powerful? And if I can do something that God can't. Another
... Well, there's plenty of examples. I can know what it's like to be
an atheist, God can't. I can go out and sin, and presumably, God
can't. How can God be all-powerful if that conflicts with his
omnibenevolence, his being morally perfect? So if the concept of God
doesn't cohere, I say we're justified in saying there can't be such a
being.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Now, the other two arguments that I give are based on evidential
propositions about the world. The first one is that the existence of
suffering, in the amounts of suffering we see in the world, give us
good reason to believe that there isn't a being that is all-good,
all-powerful and all-knowing. So, for example, with the Jon-Benet
Ramsey case in, I believe that was Colorado ... Well, the police are
looking for the culprit here, and God knows who did it, if He exists,
if He's all-knowing. God could call the police and turn them in.
However, that doesn't happen. And why not, wouldn't God want to see
that justice is done? Well, the fact that this event even occurred,
that this poor little girl was killed, suggests to us that there is no
God, because God could have prevented that from happening. And, if God
were all-knowing, God would know that event was about to take place.
If God were all-powerful, then God would have the ability to prevent
it from taking place, and if God were all-good, then we think he would
prevent it from taking place. So, since there is suffering, or some
would call it sometimes, evil, in the world, then that shows us that
we have good reason to believe that there isn't a God that exists.
JG: Hmm.
DK: And then finally, and I'm going through these very briefly so that
we can talk about them, but the final argument that I like to give, is
the argument from non-belief. This is the argument that, if there were
a being who was all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, and, being
all-good, would want what is best for everyone ... Right? That's what
a good person does. A good person wants what's best for everyone.
Well, if what's best for everyone is that each person goes to Heaven,
then God would see to it that that happens. And if you go to Heaven by
having certain beliefs, like the belief that God exists, or belief
that there's a Heaven and things like that, you can assert whatever
particular beliefs you think God wants us to have in order to be
saved. Then, if God were all-good, God would see to it that everyone
had those beliefs, so that everyone could be saved. Yet, not everyone
has those beliefs. I, for example, don't have those beliefs. So if
God were all-good and wanted what's best for me, for example, then
God would give me clear an unequivocal evidence that these
propositions, that I don't believe, are actually true. But I don't
receive such evidence, therefore there is no such being. In fact,
there are millions of non-believers in the world, and God could
convert them all right now. And God could, being all-powerful, have
the ability to send clear and unequivocal evidence. Being
all-knowing, would know who's a non-believer and who's not, and know
what sorts of things would be required to convince them. So God could
convert everybody who's a non-believer right now. That doesn't
happen, and that, in itself, is evidence that there is no such being
that's all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, and who wants everyone
to be saved by believing certain propositions.
JG: [Good.]
DK: Ok, well those are my four standard arguments that I give, and uh,
what do you make of them?
Argument From The Presumption of Atheism 00:09:05
JG: That was very good. I'm interested in talking about each one of
them in turn here. Let's go ahead and get to the first one first
DK: Ok.
JG: Now the first one basically hinged on the extraordinary claim.
Now, do you believe anything that you've heard that is extraordinary?
I would tend to think that people do ... Well, first we have to define
extraordinary, because that's sort of a subjective term. People can
call, a person in Africa can call a car driving seventy miles per hour
extraordinary if he's never seen one before. So, first that's a little
subjective, but um, I would posit that people believe extraordinary
claims, certain extraordinary claims that they hear in every day
conversation ... Of course the ones you gave about the, I don't know,
the leprechauns, or pink unicorns or things, seem a bit out there. I
don't know if you can actually equate those to a belief in God,
because the seem kind of off the deep end. There are some
extraordinary claims, or claims that some may think are extraordinary
that aren't so extraordinary to others, and I think belief in God is
one of them.
DK: Well, let me ask you this. On what grounds would you say that
those examples that I gave were off the deep end?
JG: Well, people haven't seen these things, they haven't heard about
them. Well ok, we've heard about them, but no one's ever seen one.
DK: Well, some people claim that they did. Right? Like the Cottingley
Fairy photographs were, in fact, photographs taken by children who
claim to have met fairies.
JG: Well then I guess ...
DK: The leprechaun myth has along with it a number of stories of
people that caught a leprechaun, you know, and what do they say
happens if you catch a leprechaun? It has to give you three wishes,
right?
JG: (Laughs) I don't know.
DK: There are stories about that, about people that caught them and
got wishes, and things like that. So, it's not as if somebody just
came up with a concept and there's no claims whatsoever that any of
these things are real. There are claims that those things are real.
JG: Well, then I guess to be judicious, I would have to say, I don't
think that there's leprechauns because I haven't seen one, met one, I
haven't ... I don't necessarily trust the people who have claimed to
have met one or seen one, but I couldn't completely rule it out that
there aren't any.
DK: Ok, well, I can live with that. Would you agree then, if I have
not had any experience with God, and I have had, let's say,
interactions with people who offer evidence that seems inadequate,
then would I be justified in rejecting belief in God?
JG: I don't think you would be justified in rejecting God.
DK: Well, I was not rejecting God, but rejecting belief in God.
JG: No, I don't think that that would be justified, because you're,
because there still is a God.
DK: Well, someone could say the same thing about the leprechauns.
JG: Yeah but unfortunately ...
DK: Yeah, but there are still leprechauns, right? If there is a God,
and I reject belief in God, the question is not whether I would be
error, because if there were a God, yes, I was wrong.
JG: Right.
DK: But my question is, by the same reasoning that allows you to
reject belief in leprechauns, wouldn't I be justified in rejecting
belief in God?
JG: I suppose putting it that way, that you may be justified in
rejecting God. That is, of course, your choice, and you can justify
your decisions, but I think the risk of rejecting God is much greater
than the risk of rejecting leprechauns.
DK: Now that's an entirely different argument. That sounds like a
version of what's called Pascal's Wager, which is, you should believe
in God just as a sort of a safe bet, just to make sure nothing bad
happens to you. But what I'm talking about is whether or not one's ...
If you're going to base your beliefs on evidence, and that's as you
saw with your discussion with James Randi, that's the sort of mindset
I have as well, we should base our beliefs on evidence and not on
promises, or what if propositions because you can say that about
anything, right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Maybe someone would say that you should reject belief in
leprechauns because then you'll never be able to catch one and get
their pot of gold, or something like that. (Jason laughs) I think you
would agree that would be a pretty weak argument for a belief in
leprechauns, wouldn't you?
JG: Yeah, it's just the risk of ... Ok, I know like you said, this was
a slightly different subject, but I think you kind of went back to it.
If we do reject leprechauns then we may run the risk of not getting
their pot of gold, but, if we reject God ... (Crosstalk)
DK: ... goes into your claim. You said, that ... Since you hadn't had
any experience with leprechauns, then you had no reason to believe
people that said they had seen them, then you're justified in
believing there aren't any leprechauns?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Right?
JG: Uh-hmm.
DK: Well, can't I say the same thing about God, belief in God?
JG: Yeah, if all you're trying to get is the, I don't know if respect
is the right word, the ability to go ahead and reject God on the basis
of me rejecting leprechauns, I mean I'm sure that you can be granted
that, if that's all you're going for here. But I thought you were
actually going for more of a disproving of the existence of God based
on this kind of logic.
DK: Well, it's sort of a coupling of this particular argument, the
presumption of atheism argument, with two other facts. First, that, at
least as far as I can tell, there isn't extraordinarily strong
evidence in favor of the existence of God. And then second, there is
at least some evidence that God doesn't exist. So if we put those two
things together, then I think we're certainly justified in rejecting
belief in God, and in fact, in holding to non-belief in God.
JG: Hmm.
DK: Just as you, you're not agnostic about the leprechauns, you may be
open to evidence that there might be some, but right now, you believe
that there aren't any. Wel | |
