Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Proceed.

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a total of 227,898 people died.[1] Measured in lives lost, this is one of the ten worst earthquakes in recorded history, as well as the single worst tsunami in history. Indonesia was the worst affected area, with most death toll estimates at around 170,000.[100] An initial report by Siti Fadilah Supari, the Indonesian Minister of Health at the time, estimated the death total to be as high as 220,000 in Indonesia alone, giving a total of 280,000 fatalities.[101] However, the estimated number of dead and missing in Indonesia were later reduced by over 50,000. In their report, the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition stated, "It should be remembered that all such data are subject to error, as data on missing persons especially are not always as good as one might wish".[6] A much higher number of deaths has been suggested for Myanmar based on reports from Thailand.[102]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a total of 227,898 people died.[1] Measured in lives lost, this is one of the ten worst earthquakes in recorded history, as well as the single worst tsunami in history. Indonesia was the worst affected area, with most death toll estimates at around 170,000.[100] An initial report by Siti Fadilah Supari, the Indonesian Minister of Health at the time, estimated the death total to be as high as 220,000 in Indonesia alone, giving a total of 280,000 fatalities.[101] However, the estimated number of dead and missing in Indonesia were later reduced by over 50,000. In their report, the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition stated, "It should be remembered that all such data are subject to error, as data on missing persons especially are not always as good as one might wish".[6] A much higher number of deaths has been suggested for Myanmar based on reports from Thailand.[102]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami

I would say you are incorrect here in the number who died of natural causes that year, your numbers are vastly conservative. Why have you only included these?

[Enki]

You seem to have an exoneration problem.

Nope. I find myself in agreement with the general principles and standards of good and bad behaviour which are held by most people. Given that extenuating circumstances should always be examined, I would hold that such behaviours are the responsibility of the person concerned.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. I find myself in agreement with the general principles and standards of good and bad behaviour which are held by most people. Given that extenuating circumstances should always be examined, I would hold that such behaviours are the responsibility of the person concerned.

I did comment earlier about our cultural moral theory leading us to think about a division into good guys and bad guys. You've revealed another aspect, a moral majority of decent people.
Of course we are going to submerge our personal moral pondering into moral group think.
All we get from your analysis is that bad people are those who are not part of this moral majority.

[Enki]

I did comment earlier about our cultural moral theory leading us to think about a division into good guys and bad guys. You've revealed another aspect, a moral majority of decent people.
Of course we are going to submerge our personal moral pondering into moral group think.
All we get from your analysis is that bad people are those who are not part of this moral majority.

Well, I wouldn't use the word 'submerge' but rather 'align with'.

It's your idea that 'our cultural moral theory(is) leading us to think about a division into good guys and bad guys' not mine. It is not my analysis that 'bad people are those who are not part of this moral majority'. What I did say was about good and bad behaviours. This is a complex subject and there is no reason why you cannot have good and bad behaviours within the same individual or even within the same organization. Stop misrepresenting me.

From my point of view, this particular conversation is now at an end.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I would say you are incorrect here in the number who died of natural causes that year, your numbers are vastly conservative. Why have you only included these?

The tsunami killed 227,898 people, and was caused (or not prevented) by a God who we're told had the knowledge and power to prevent it. That sounds like genocide to me.   

[Sriram]

Vlad,

The tsunami killed 227,898 people, and was caused (or not prevented) by a God who we're told had the knowledge and power to prevent it. That sounds like genocide to me.

Not if death is not the end. If the soul gets liberated from body and bondage, at death...it could even be seen as a blessing....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Not if death is not the end. If the soul gets liberated from body and bondage, at death...it could even be seen as a blessing....

That's a particularly disgusting piece of casuistry that some theists try  - "it's actually good that babies dies horribly and in pain, because that way they get to meet god sooner".

Why then would a benign god have them born in the first place, and why too bother with all the pain and suffering that "his" chosen method of, in this case, a tsunami entails? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The tsunami killed 227,898 people, and was caused (or not prevented) by a God who we're told had the knowledge and power to prevent it. That sounds like genocide to me.

But why single these people out as victims of natural death. If you aren't murdered or suffer an accident you have a natural death. Why aren't you including them? God has the power and the knowledge to prevent those far more numerous deaths. The question is why does God not suspend the laws of nature or climatic or geomorphological or astronomic processes?

How are you defining Genocide since you are putting God in the Dock, surely the defendent needs to hear your charges.

And finally a reminder. I am not the one in the dock here.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

That's a particularly disgusting piece of casuistry that some theists try  - "it's actually good that babies dies horribly and in pain, because that way they get to meet god sooner".

Why then would a benign god have them born in the first place, and why too bother with all the pain and suffering that "his" chosen method of, in this case, a tsunami entails?

The point is that...if a God exists and has created the world...we cannot possibly expect him to think like us and have the same values and priorities as we have. We will not be able to even comprehend his point of view.

He would know why he has created the world along with all its features....and he would know how to handle it.

So.....superimposing our mindsets on to a God and judging him on that basis, doesn't make sense at all.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is that...if a God exists and has created the world...we cannot possibly expect him to think like us and have the same values and priorities as we have. We will not be able to even comprehend his point of view.

He would know why he has created the world along with all its features....and he would know how to handle it.

So.....superimposing our mindsets on to a God and judging him on that basis, doesn't make sense at all.

Then anyone worshipping a god is wrong in your opinion?

[Dicky Underpants]

But why single these people out as victims of natural death. If you aren't murdered or suffer an accident you have a natural death. Why aren't you including them? God has the power and the knowledge to prevent those far more numerous deaths. The question is why does God not suspend the laws of nature or climatic or geomorphological or astronomic processes?

How are you defining Genocide since you are putting God in the Dock, surely the defendent needs to hear your charges.

And finally a reminder. I am not the one in the dock here.

So prior to 'The Fall' there were different natural laws? Don't quite know how you view The Fall, but you do refer to it. Perhaps on the lines of "Mankind was involved in some terrible aboriginal calamity"? (T.S. Eliot?)

[torridon]

The point is that...if a God exists and has created the world...we cannot possibly expect him to think like us and have the same values and priorities as we have. We will not be able to even comprehend his point of view.

He would know why he has created the world along with all its features....and he would know how to handle it.

So.....superimposing our mindsets on to a God and judging him on that basis, doesn't make sense at all.

Similarly, just as we cannot know the mind of God, we cannot really know the mind of another person.  People who were devoted followers of Saddam Hussein no doubt deployed the same sort of apologetics when he attacked villages with indiscriminate chemical weapons, managing to convince themselves that he was doing the 'right thing' somehow.  It is a case of being blinded to the truth by emotional attachments.

[Sriram]

We can't compare God to Saddam Hussein. For one thing Saddam is a human like all of us and is bound to conform to social norms and rules like all of us.

God is the creator. He sets the rules. He decides 'why' and 'why not'.  So...within that context, we cannot impose our rules on him. 

We are the 'gods' as far as computers and robots are concerned. (Some one has reported sometime back that a robot has indicated fear of death). This means that if any of us scrap our computer or destroy it, we are morally liable.  But from our point of view that is ridiculous.

[Sriram]

Then anyone worshipping a god is wrong in your opinion?

Worshiping God is not the same as superimposing our mindset on him.... 

[Nearly Sane]

Worshiping God is not the same as superimposing our mindset on him....

You worship something because you think it worthy of worship. That is precisely impising one's mindset on it. If you cannot judge god bad, you cannot judge it good either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then anyone worshipping a god is wrong in your opinion?

I don't think they are wrong but then I'm not one of the antitheist good guys.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So prior to 'The Fall' there were different natural laws? Don't quite know how you view The Fall, but you do refer to it. Perhaps on the lines of "Mankind was involved in some terrible aboriginal calamity"? (T.S. Eliot?)

I never said there were different physical laws. The fall changes our attitude to death and introduces the consciousness of loss, separation and judgement.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think they are wrong but then I'm not one of the antitheist good guys.

  What are you havering about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  What are you havering about?

I'm disagreeing with you. Nearly Sane.
Judging as good is not the same as being aware of holiness.
IMV.and the claim is that god is holy.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm disagreeing with you. Nearly Sane.
Judging as good is not the same as being aware of holiness.
IMV.and the claim is that god is holy.

What do you mean by that? And thinking something is worthy of worship is judging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by that? And thinking something is worthy of worship is judging.

You linked judging good with imposing one’s mind set with worship.
Worship of God may not start with the act and effort of judgment but with the experience of God’s holiness which tells you exactly where you stand in the moral landscape.

[Sriram]

You worship something because you think it worthy of worship. That is precisely impising one's mindset on it. If you cannot judge god bad, you cannot judge it good either.

We worship God because he is all powerful and all knowing. We worship because we want to appeal to him to protect us.

We don't pray to impose our mindset onto him.....

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Vg,
A late response to your post:
I have read the article you linked to and, apart from probably emphasising the importance of the natural emotions more than the article does  I find no strong points of disagreement.  For my own part, as I have mentioned in other threads on morality in the past, I see the idea of morality having a strong evolutionary basis. I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. For me, this is probably driven by such traits as empathy, sympathy, and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach, for me, superimpose upon those feelings. You might be right about not being able to care about the bad things if one is not exposed to them in some way but there again humans have very creative imaginations which could easily invent bad scenarios and empathetically respond to them.

Hi Enki

I'm just expressing my thoughts rather than making a definite argument. Human offspring need care for a relatively long period until they mature sufficiently to look after themselves. So developing the ability to care for others seems to have been selected for. If there were no problems in the world would we really need the large brains we have? And if we didn't have large brains, we wouldn't need the level of care we currently need and we also we wouldn't be able to articulate abstract concepts including the supernatural.

You could certainly argue that a god could have created a world where we did not require care because there was nothing bad in that world to harm us. In theory we could have only feelings of love for other people. Not really sure how choosing family units, spouses, preferences for any individuals works in such a world where everyone is equally amenable and pleasant? My feeling is that in order to have the ability to appreciate the good stuff in life you have to have the bad - such a world makes sense to me. Whereas a world where bad things don't happen because no one has the freedom to do anything bad or there are no natural disasters to care about seems a bit like agreeing to becoming a post-lobotomy McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) before he is euthanised by Chief Bromden, as an act of what Bromden believes is benevolence for the good of McMurphy. Yes such a world is a form of living and many people might choose it but many people might not. And the dynamics, interaction and outcomes of such a world would be different from a world where bad things are allowed to happen.

I am not sure that any god I believe in includes the promise of no individual pain as part of benevolence. My understanding was that the benevolence was in relation to human benefit collectively, rather than to individuals not feeling any pain. 

So, it seems valid to me to believe/ worship a god that allows the moral complexity of bad things happening, but given the moral complexity of such a world it also seems valid to not believe such a god exists, leaving you with just moral complexity.

I was originally taking a particular Christian viewpoint(God of the omnis) and trying to show some of the problems which result from that. Didn't God make Eden as a good place without such things as earthquakes, cancer or poverty?  And was it not Aquinas who said, "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good"? Hence, from such a Christian viewpoint, it was supposed to be human beings who let loose the bad things in the world, whereas I would put the responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of this God.

My view in such a story is that a God of the omnis can make a place like Eden, but having decided that the point of humans is to give them the freedom to choose from right and wrong,  I'm not really seeing it as going against the logic of such a story or against omnibenevolence if humans choose bad sometimes and therefore occupy a habitat that reflects that same complexity of good and bad as their freedom of choice gives them.

[Nearly Sane]

We worship God because he is all powerful and all knowing. We worship because we want to appeal to him to protect us.

We don't pray to impose our mindset onto him.....

Saying something is all knowing and all powerful id exactly imposing your mindset. What's this god protecting you from?

Oh and saying something is all knowing is a claim to being all knowing oneself else how could you make such a claim with any validity.