Dear CB,
I regret not being able to see you when you last came home to visit. It’s been almost a decade since you left the country and we had somehow lost touch, and surely I could have spared a few minutes – a few hours, even – to meet with an old friend.
But the reason I didn’t see you had nothing to do with time. I did not come to see you because I figured the topic of Faith would most likely be brought about in our conversation, and I didn’t want to lie to you even as I didn’t want to tell you that I no longer have it.
I remember several years ago there was this Q & A being circulated via email. One of the questions was, “What is most important to you?” As I had expected, you answered “Jesus.” Back then I still considered myself a very spiritual albeit not a very religious person, but I wrote down “Truth.”
I realize I’ve been a truth seeker ever since my childhood days. I remember feeling uncomfortable in Sunday school when the teacher told us that Jesus chose the dumb people for his disciples because the bright ones had too many questions. Whether that was biblically accurate or not is beside the point; she was implying that one should simply follow and not think. But I realized that no matter how I tried, I simply could not not think. And there I was struck by the irony of why our God-given intelligence would be the very thing to hinder us from getting closer to Him. I could not understand why the same God who gave us reason would prohibit us from using it.
Still, I managed to stay on the path and maintain a personal relationship with the Lord throughout my adolescence and early adulthood. You might have noticed, however, that I was the liberal type of Christian who always tried to find a rationale for our beliefs instead of just taking them by blind faith.
One of the things I tried to ponder was the presence of evil and pain in a world supposedly created and cared for by the loving and powerful God. I even opened that up to you and you were able to conveniently answer it with the explanation that we are not omniscient, hence, we cannot fathom God’s purpose in His infinite wisdom.
That explanation kept me going for a few more years, but the Problem of Evil had been an eternal bug up my theistic ass. I lived with cognitive dissonance as I struggled to rationalize gratuitous – unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjustified – suffering as part of God’s divine plan. And I do not mean only human suffering; even before our species walked the earth (and long before Adam and Eve supposedly committed Original Sin), countless animals had already suffered and died, some more excruciatingly than the others, like the caterpillar whose body was being leisurely eaten alive from the inside by a growing wasp larva that would soon emerge from the caterpillar’s empty shell as an adult wasp ready to mate and lay an egg on another unlucky caterpillar, and the cycle continues as the egg hatches into a larva that digs into the caterpillar’s flesh. Now unless there is a Caterpillar Heaven where all their sufferings will be recompensed, it just didn’t make sense to me to suppose that there was actually a loving Creator.
We were both lucky to be born to middle-class families in a civilized society, so gratitude comes naturally to us for all of “God’s blessings, goodness, and mercy.” But we had no idea what it would be like to live in Afghanistan, North Korea, or Africa. Gratuitous suffering exists elsewhere, and we were not constantly aware of them as we focused on our “blessings” like passing an exam when there were children who never had a decent meal or access to medical care. Our pastors have come up with sophisticated theodicies like man’s “free will” and divine punishment, but when I reminded myself that this was supposed to be a loving and all-powerful God we were talking about, I realized that the apologists were running out of excuses for God’s indifference and/or incompetence.
And so I clung back to the assurance that God has a “grand design” which is just beyond our finite minds’ ken. But then I wondered, how do we know that God indeed has a beautiful plan for His most beloved creation? Unfortunately, I only had the Bible to tell me so, the Holy Book we revered as the true Word of God. However, the Bible contains many major contradictions and divinely commissioned atrocities that I either had to skip those verses or suspend my reason in order to continue believing its divine origin. But my biggest problem with the Bible was its lack of authenticity considering its stories were accounts of humans passed from generation to generation without the use of a printing press, and that it was only the Bible that proclaimed itself as the “Word of God.”
When I realized this, every belief I held sacred suddenly became fair game – including my belief in the divinity of Jesus. It also dawned on me how absurd is the notion of God’s ultimate “sacrifice” for the salvation of mankind: God created man imperfectly so God now plans to punish man severely and eternally because of the fatal imperfection that God caused in the first place, but because of God’s “love” for man, God bore an only Son, who was actually God Himself, to be offered as a sacrifice – to Himself – in order to satisfy God’s craving for blood and so that man does not have to suffer God’s eternal wrath as long as he believes in the Son. And even the “sacrifice” is not a sacrifice at all considering it was only about thirty years as a man and less than three days as a “dead” man that an eternal Being had to endure. That’s not even a cent to the world’s richest man, and yet Christians consider it to be the greatest gift.
Now you might shudder at my utter blasphemy and invoke Pascal’s Wager to make me reconsider believing, but all I can say is that the teachings of Christianity contradict those of the two other major religions, Judaism and Islam, and if either of them turns out to be the “true religion” then all Christians will burn in hell for believing and blasphemously proclaiming that Jesus was not just a prophet but God Himself.
And what does it mean to “believe” anyway? Is it something one can force upon himself even if every part of his rational mind screams incredulity? I don’t think so. Belief is not a personal choice; rather, it is the product of knowledge and understanding, both of which are not personal choices either.
And then I was left with the ultimate question: Where did everything come from? For quite some time after I left Christianity I considered myself a deist, believing in a Creator who simply caused the cosmos into existence but never intervened afterwards, allowing the universe to evolve according to the natural laws embodied in it. While I still do not discount the possibility of such Creator to exist or have existed, I am now equally open to possibilities that the universe – or at least the initial singularity from which it expanded – has either existed eternally in some form or another or came from nothing as an accident in nature via quantum fluctuations, negating the need for a creator. But more importantly, I highly doubt that a Being powerful enough to be able to create an entire universe would be that petty or insecure to give a damn if I believed in Him/Her/It.
While I consider myself a skeptic, I do not wish to be called an atheist mainly because of the stigma and misconceptions associated with the word, but for all practical purposes I might as well be an atheist because I no longer believe in an intervening god – loving or otherwise. While it cannot be proven without a doubt that such god does not exist, reason dictates that the Abrahamic God’s existence is very highly unlikely, and so I live my life on the assumption that this life is all there is and that the future of our world and the welfare as well as the suffering of our fellow humans – and of the ‘lower’ animals, or at least the ones we domesticate – rest mostly in our hands.
And so, CB, while you might be aghast with my revelation, I simply cannot bear to live in pretense just to avoid disappointing you. I can no longer force myself to suspend reason for the sake of my faith. As Daniel Dennet said, ”There is no future in a sacred myth. Why not? Because of our curiosity. Whatever we hold precious, we cannot protect it from our curiosity, because being who we are, one of the things we deem precious is the truth.”
But if you really believe that God is the Truth, please pray that He will reveal Himself to me in an unmistakable manner and prove me wrong before it’s too late. With all His power and mercy, surely He will make a way.
[…] A Former Christian’s Letter to an Old Friend […]
"Problem of evil" boils down then on justified suffering against gratuitous suffering. For me I've seen suffering or experienced suffering that took years before seeing good that came out of it(justified?) I believe the answer to the question if a suffering is justified or gratuitous is personal(subjective) based on experience. Another way to put it is when is enough enough which depends on the tolerance of a person.
Suffering though allows people to show empathy. Do we show empathy if an adult is bitten by an ant. What about a toddler bitten by an ant. You said it best actually in your post…
"I live my life on the assumption that this life is all there is and that the future of our world and the welfare as well as the suffering of our fellow humans – and of the ‘lower’ animals, or at least the ones we domesticate – rest mostly in our hands."
Sympathy is the most mundane justification I could use for the gratuitous sufferings. The question really is subjective and does not disprove the omnipotence of God. As the level of goodness/evil of an act is subjective so is the level of sufferings from being justifiable to utter gratuitous. And if we can have our own standard on these then if there is God then it is logical that his standard is higher than ours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&fe…
//Sympathy is the most mundane justification I could use for the gratuitous sufferings.//
But there have been instances of gratuitous suffering that no person had seen and so sympathy is out of the question here. Let me quote from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/:
"It is relevant that animals suffer (like a deer suffering a slow and painful death because of a forest fire), and that they did so before there were any persons to observe their suffering, and to feel sympathy for them."
//The question really is subjective and does not disprove the omnipotence of God.//
Yes, I agree, it does not disprove the omnipotence of God, but it does compel one to become skeptical of such omnipotence when coupled with claims on omnibenevolence. I highly doubt that an omniscient deity would lack the imagination to come up with more effective and less painful ways to teach sympathy and compassion to its most beloved creation.
//As the level of goodness/evil of an act is subjective so is the level of sufferings from being justifiable to utter gratuitous.//
There exist extreme animal sufferings not seen by any human. There are no lessons in sympathy to justify that, hence nothing is subjective in this case.
//And if we can have our own standard on these then if there is God then it is logical that his standard is higher than ours.//
The evidence says otherwise. Look at the world. Imagine if only you had a fraction of God's power. You're not omnipotent, just very powerful, like Superman. You're not omnipresent, but let's say you can multiply yourself up to a billion times so you can be in a billion places at the same time. Don't you think you could dramatically reduce the evil and sufferings in this world?
Couldn't it be that you have answered your question…
“I live my life on the assumption that this life is all there is and that the future of our world and the welfare as well as the suffering of our fellow humans – and of the ‘lower’ animals, or at least the ones we domesticate – rest mostly in our hands.”
I mean if we have to believe what is said in the bible on the creation of man…
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in The Image Of God created He him; male and female created He them." (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV)
If God created man special(in His own image), and God being omnipotent isn't it logical that man would be created as a complex, intelligent and powerful being instead of a manipulable one? Are miraculous acts the criteria of being omnibenevolence? You asked if only we have the fraction of God's power. But don't we have that? I bet we have the power to fix the caterpillar's issue with the parasitic wasp. I even bet we have the power to make that wasp survive without being a parasite. I bet we have the power to reduce if not end hunger in Africa. It was once a problem in US(obesity is now their current problem).
We are not Superman. But our accomplishments are better than his. Our mind is able to create things that surpasses most of his powers(except for the outrageous ones like able to carry an entire planet). Don't you think we have already dramatically reduced the sufferings due to natural causes?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0932661.html http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Decade/genome-hormon…
Which is better, a God like Superman that works to satisfy His creation(this is actually illogical. God should create beings to serve Him and not the other way around) or a God that create beings with powers like Superman.
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands. You have put all things under his feet" (Psalm 8:3-6).
//I bet we have the power to fix the caterpillar’s issue with the parasitic wasp. I even bet we have the power to make that wasp survive without being a parasite.//
Maybe, but this hasn't happened yet for the thousands of years we have walked this planet as the most intelligent creature, and we definitely could not do anything for all the animal suffering that happened before we walked this planet.
//Don’t you think we have already dramatically reduced the sufferings due to natural causes?//
Perhaps, but this doesn't say anything about the animal sufferings that happened before our time. What I'm saying is, gratuitous suffering has already existed even before our watch, and it makes one wonder if there was an omnipotent and loving Creator watching over those poor prehistoric creatures.
I'm glad we both agreed that humans have the power and have already dramatically reduced suffering in this world. And yes, animals who existed before our time did not benefit from us.
Here are amazing facts about human and animal bodies…
1. Endorphin – natural pain killer <a href="http://(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin)” target=”_blank”>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin)
When a nerve impulse reaches the spinal cord, endorphins are released which prevent nerve cells from releasing more pain signals. Immediately after injury, endorphins allow animals to feel a sense of power and control over themselves that allows them to persist with activity for an extended time.
…study shows for the first time that natural marijuana-like chemicals in the brain have a link to pain suppression. <a href="http://(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4119346.stm)” target=”_blank”>(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4119346.stm)
" Rather than just reacting to pain, your brain actually sends messages that influence your perception of pain. Your brain may signal nerve cells to release natural painkillers, such as endorphins (en-DOR-fins) or enkephalins (en-KEF-uh-lins), which diminish the pain messages."
<a href="http://(http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pain/PN00017)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pain/PN00017)
2. Placebo effect in human – belief as powerful medicine
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=… http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html
Placebo effects can arise not only from a conscious belief in a drug but also from subconscious associations between recovery and the experience of being treated—from the pinch of a shot to a doctor’s white coat. Such subliminal conditioning can control bodily processes of which we are unaware, such as immune responses and the release of hormones.
3. Fainting or loss of consciousness is also the way of our body to dissociate from extreme pain or pain continues for a long time.
http://www.health.com/health/library/mdp/0,,stv53… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasovagal_response
Some believe that people succumb to comatose when pain is intolerable.
There is even debate if nonhuman animals experience "conscious" pain.
From Daniel Dennett(of course you know him)…
"For such states to matter — whether or not we call them pains or conscious states or experiences — there must be an enduring, complex subject to whom they matter because they are a source of suffering. Snakes (or parts of snakes!) may feel pain — depending on how we choose to define that term — but the evidence mounts that snakes lack the sort of over-arching, long-term organization that leaves room for significant suffering. That does not mean that we ought to treat snakes the way we treat worn out tires, but just that concern for their suffering should be tempered by an appreciation of how modest their capacities for suffering are.
Maybe there really is a huge difference between us and all other species in this regard; maybe we should consider "radical" hypotheses. Lockwood says "probably" all birds are conscious, but maybe some of them — or even all of them — are rather like sleepwalkers! Or what about the idea that there could be unconscious pains (and that animal pain, though real, and — yes — morally important, was unconscious pain)?
In order to be conscious — in order to be the sort of thing it is like something to be — it is necessary to have a certain sort of informational organization that endows that thing with a wide set of cognitive powers (such as the powers of reflection and re-representation). This sort of internal organization does not come automatically with so-called "sentience." It is not the birthright of mammals or warm-blooded creatures or vertebrates; it is not even the birthright of human beings. It is an organization that is swiftly achieved in one species, ours, and in no other. Other species no doubt achieve somewhat similar organizations, but the differences are so great that most of the speculative translations of imagination from our case to theirs make no sense."
//I’m glad we both agreed that humans have the power and have already dramatically reduced suffering in this world.//
Ah, perhaps you might want to read my previous post. Or let me just repost it here for your convenience:
* * * * *
Christian: I bet we have the power to fix the caterpillar’s issue with the parasitic wasp. I even bet we have the power to make that wasp survive without being a parasite.
Innerminds: Maybe, but this hasn’t happened yet for the thousands of years we have walked this planet as the most intelligent creature, and we definitely could not do anything for all the animal suffering that happened before we walked this planet.
Christian: Don’t you think we have already dramatically reduced the sufferings due to natural causes?
Innerminds: Perhaps, but this doesn’t say anything about the animal sufferings that happened before our time. What I’m saying is, gratuitous suffering has already existed even before our watch, and it makes one wonder if there was an omnipotent and loving Creator watching over those poor prehistoric creatures.
* * * * *
So I did not really 'agree' to your statement that "humans have the power and have already dramatically reduced suffering in this world". What's tricky about that sentence is that it's actually made up of two separate claims seamlessly molded into one. So now let's try to break it down and I'll answer each segment separately:
1. "humans have the power" – in your previous post, this refers to fixing the caterpillar’s issue with the parasitic wasp. And my answer here was 'maybe'.
2. "have already dramatically reduced suffering in this world" – in your previous post, this was meant to refer to "sufferings due to natural causes". I agree to this one.
As for endorphins, the placebo effect, and fainting or loss of consciousness, I hope you were not planning on using these as excuses for all the slaughter and torture throughout the history of our planet – not just the history of humankind. As I have said before, I highly doubt that an omnipotent, omniscient deity would lack the imagination to come up with more effective and less genocidal ways of achieving his purpose.
And as for the "radical hypotheses" that other animals might feel less pain than humans or experience pain differently, like "unconscious pain" – all I have to say is this: Since we still don't know for sure, on which side would you rather err? Does this 'possibility' justify the suffering of the animals we farm? And does this same possibility justify the suffering of the prehistoric animals including the dinosaurs and early mammals?
[Christian quoting Dennet: In order to be conscious — in order to be the sort of thing it is like something to be — it is necessary to have a certain sort of informational organization that endows that thing with a wide set of cognitive powers (such as the powers of reflection and re-representation). This sort of internal organization does not come automatically with so-called “sentience.” It is not the birthright of mammals or warm-blooded creatures or vertebrates; it is not even the birthright of human beings. It is an organization that is swiftly achieved in one species, ours, and in no other. Other species no doubt achieve somewhat similar organizations, but the differences are so great that most of the speculative translations of imagination from our case to theirs make no sense.”]
Question: Is consciousness (as defined by Dennet) necessary for an animal to experience pain?
p.s. sorry for sounding really preachy & the many spelling/grammer mistakes I just made!… just wanted to get to my point without mincing words for sake of grace.
Philosophers were able to formulate the 'problem of evil' but stopped there and failed to think on ways God should use to eliminate evil and sufferings. Their logic is that if evil exists then God does not exist. That is why it is difficult for them to accept the idea of God creating humans to have relationship with them and them reasoning that the ‘free will’ theodicy is just a tiny part of all sufferings.
Which I beg to disagree. For example, the deadliest natural disaster is the 1931 China floods with estimated casualties from 1,000,000 to 2,500,000 while estimated casualties for World War 2 is from 40,000,000 to 72,000,000.
Here is the list of man-made and natural disasters ranked based on death tolls for comparison. And I wonder why some would use the parasitic wasp as prime example of sufferings(Crusades were included in the list btw, Inquisition though was not but it should not be mistaken that the two were not evil works).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_dis… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disa…
Going back on how to eliminate sufferings…
The Haiti earthquake this year is considered to be the worst earthquake in 200 years in terms of 7.0 magnitude. Now here is an evaluation of the first engineer who arrived in the scene…
http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/engi…
This is what the engineer concluded…
"This was not an earthquake disaster.[This] was caused by people that didn’t know how to use codes, that built things in bad shape. These were the people that caused the tragedy."
Another said that "Earthquakes don't kill people… Bad buildings do" <a href="http://(http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/01/20/earthquakes-dont-kill-peoplebad-buildings-do-more-on-haitis-building-codes/)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/01/20/earthquakes-dont-kill-peoplebad-buildings-do-more-on-haitis-building-codes/)
Given this context the following can be said to be ways to eliminate the sufferings in Haiti.
1. God being omniponent should have prevented the buildings from collapsing when the earthquake struck. Of course there are better fix than this.
2. God should have compelled the Haiti government from implementing and enforcing building codes so God won't bother himself holding the buildings every time earthquake strikes. Or preventing developers from being greedy(evil). Of course it will violate their free will.
3. Or why not prevent the earthquake from occurring in the first place.
4. But the best I could think of is that God should have created man free from pain, suffering and death. 🙂 Because as long as there is pain and death, suffering will always exist. Which I think is the "problem of 'problem of sufferings'". Sufferings will always exist as long as there is death.
First of all let me emphasize that I'm not using the Problem of Evil to prove that God does not exist; I am simply saying that the Problem of Evil makes it logically impossible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent at the same time.
Are you saying that just because man-made disasters killed more people than natural calamities we can now excuse God for all the suffering caused by the latter? Please remember that God is supposed to be omnibenevolent (while people are not) and such omnibenevolence is expected to benefit all creatures great and small – including the lowly caterpillar.
//“Earthquakes don’t kill people… Bad buildings do”//
I disagree. Earthquakes and bad buildings both share the blame. It takes two to tango. Moreover, the people who constructed the buildings are not omnipotent or omniscient and their funds are not unlimited, so you can't expect them to build earthquake-proof homes. Couldn't we expect an omnipotent creator to make an earthquake-free planet?
//4. But the best I could think of is that God should have created man free from pain, suffering and death. Because as long as there is pain and death, suffering will always exist. Which I think is the “problem of ‘problem of sufferings’”. Sufferings will always exist as long as there is death.//
The "problem of suffering" is not the existence of suffering per se, but of 'gratuitous' suffering. Some suffering is justified, particularly those that force people to grow up emotionally and psychologically. But gratuitous suffering exists in the world, undermining either God's omnipotence, omniscience, OR omnibenevolence.
This entire arguement revolves around two misguiding concepts.
1. God it a omnipetent deity, seperate from ourselves and nature in both conciousness and physical form. A being that judges, rewardas & punishes us from a higher plain of thought.
2. Good & evil are are entirely seperate entities that are in permanent schism with one another & intend to provail against thier rival counterpart.
This is the whole problem on monotheistic religions. They are all misguided belief structures which feebly attempt to combine spirituality with social governence & morality.
God is an entity NOT a deity! When it is depicted as a father figure in the way modern western religions do, its purpose and wisdom becomes distorted. God is the spiritual web that connects all things throughout the universe. God is everywhere and is everything, it binds all energy & matter together.
God brings order from chaos. Chaos is a fundamental part of all existence, without it there would be no impetous for possibility, change and evolution. We are all part of a system tha evolving and bringing order from the chaos. We are not human beings having many spiritual experiences. We are spiritual beings having many human experiences.
Depictions of god are simply metaphors that have lost thier meaning. The original intent of which was to help us understand these philosophies. Unfortunately through history humans have lost thier roots with spirituality and fail to see thier connection to the greater plan.
Good and evil are merely two sides of the same coin. evil (as we call it) is a reflection of good. Light & dark, on & off, day & night, energy & matter, form & void, ying & yang, chaos & order. One cannot exist without the other.
The idea that God is a loving being that cares for us is rediculous. Time and history have shown us this. We believe it only because it heritical not to and it is comforting to do so. The truth is that we are the imagination of god experiencing itself subjectively. We (in effect) are the consciousness of God and control our own destiny.
The many tragedies & catastrophic events that occur on this plant are merely chaos opening up new realms of possibility for us to evolve. Although this is a brutal and indiscrimantate system as a species it ultimately makes us stronger and enriches our life experience.
Well beside the philosophical play with words and evaluating what are the differences in the chain of reasoning between Epicurus and some later philosopher (here Tooley) – the main topic is the content of this ‘problem of evil’ or ‘problem of suffering’ !
And there was not a single really sufficient explanation brought forward from theist, but empty theodicy’s e.g. theology don’t know, means finally all are ending up somewhere like ‘god is beyond human ken’, ‘god must have a plan’, ‘god moves in mysterious ways’ but I poor apologist have no clue.
For anyone interested in the ‘problem of evil/suffering’ from a Biblical scholarly and theological perspective a good read is : Bart Ehrman : ‘God’s problem’
For anyone interested from a more philosophical perspective and broader than ‘the problem of evil’ e.g. including the evaluation of omni-everything attributes : the collection of discussions and writings about the topic from Michael Martin ‘the impossibility of god’ and the ‘improbability of god’ both books together somewhere around 900 pages.
Dear Innerminds,
I already resolved to stop commenting in the Filipino Freethinker blog, but I think I should clarify some things:
(1)I have no intention of disrespecting you. The "With due respect" seems not be enough for you, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. I suspected that you focused your gaze only at the question “do you really understand these propositions?” and omitted the term “well” which connotes the degree of level of understanding. I did not imply that you cannot understand the argumentation of the article you'd selected. I simply bring out a caution that the selected article, written by professor Tooley, is a sophisticated argumentation of the classical problem of evil as notably outlined by Epicurus and Hume.
(2)When you selected the “logical argumentation from evil” of Tooley, I immediately made a mental comment that this “logical argumentation” has been abandoned in favor of the “evidential argument”. I thought that you used this “logical argument” as a preliminary discussion but move to the evidential problem of evil latter on. So, I accepted.
(3)I really don’t know if you see the merits of Tooley’s reformulation of the classical formulation of Epicurus on the problem of evil. Here is the complete summary of Tooley:
1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2.If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3.If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5.Evil exists.
6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7.Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Here you intentionally delete (1) and (6). But you have to remember that the point of contention here is the “logical incompatibility” which is outlined in (6) that is why, you can logically state (7). The importance of (1) cannot be neglected for it supports (2), (3) and (4). Otherwise, Tooley will not include (1) and goes directly to (2), (3) and (4). For Tooley (1) is as important as (6), which you intentional delete in your own sequence of logical argument from evil.
(4)Noting this, I still forwarded the dialogue by using your propositions. Before going to the central contention of the logical incompatibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God in the existence of evil, I found it helpful to make some working definitions of important terms we'll be using in our discussion. I think that is fundamental. The best way then was to clear about your understanding of the proposition (1). Why? Because understanding “power” is crucial. For example, Is God’s omnipotence be understood as “absolute power” that is, God can do anything and everything absolutely? If yes, then we ask again: Can God, with absolute power, do the logically impossible? This is problematic. Should God, with absolute power, be able to actualize anything that can be formulated in human language, for example, giving meaning even to the incoherent and nonsense syllable like a married-bachelor? This is problematic as well. That what is contradictory in human language (like square circle) can be reconciled by an omnipotent God whose power is absolute? Again, this is problematic.
(5)If you think that I simply asked you to test your intellectual prowess (or lack of it), I think you are wrong. I decided to engage with you because I know that you’re the kind of person who is reasonable and open to dialogue.
I'll be reading this blog for sure in my free time, but refrained from posting comments anymore. Thank you for your time.
Apology accepted, and I'm sorry too for misinterpreting your statements.
As for the Problem of Evil, I deleted (1) and (7) because what I wanted to emphasize was that God cannot logically be all those "omnis" at the same time – not necessarily that he does not exist. And when I posted the link to that article, it was simply to credit the source of the outline I presented and not to discuss the article itself. Perhaps I should have made that clear.
//Because understanding “power” is crucial. For example, Is God’s omnipotence be understood as “absolute power” that is, God can do anything and everything absolutely? If yes, then we ask again: Can God, with absolute power, do the logically impossible? This is problematic. Should God, with absolute power, be able to actualize anything that can be formulated in human language, for example, giving meaning even to the incoherent and nonsense syllable like a married-bachelor? This is problematic as well. That what is contradictory in human language (like square circle) can be reconciled by an omnipotent God whose power is absolute? Again, this is problematic.//
Now that's more like it. Thanks for stating your position. 🙂
I got this from Wikipedia under "Meanings of omnipotence":
1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do.
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
I'd like to call your attention to #1 – "A deity is able to do anything that is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for it to do." This alone excuses God if, in all his power, he cannot make a married bachelor or a square circle. But is wiping out all evil, pain, and suffering (or not allowing them to exist in the first place) a logical impossibility for an omnipotent deity that supposedly created EVERYTHING? Are you trying to make God's inability to create a married bachelor or a square circle an excuse for his inability to end human and animal suffering?
A note in case you asked:
Obviously, the Epicurus formulation is focused only in the willingness of an able and benevolent god to eradicate evil. Here's the short sequence:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he able and willing? Whence then is evil?
If you compare this Tooley's formulation to epicurean formulation, you will notice his addition of God's knowledge of the emergence of evil. This is an epistemological problem. For this I wrote: "Sound epistemological knowledge is highly needed here."
In a philosophical book review, you will notice that a reviewer (usually, a professor of philosophy) will highly recommend such a book to graduate level students. Meaning, it is a difficult reading for the college students. Of course, the college students can read it, but there are terms or arguments or philosophical systems that are properly discussed by philosophy majors in the undergraduate studies and no need for detailed discussion in the book. For example, textbooks written for the introductory courses. But some books are intended for the experts in the field of studies.
[ christian says: "I find it difficult to explain the sufferings caused by natural phenomena for those who do not believe in God as I will be quoting the Bible which atheists don’t believe in the first place.
For example… “Cursed is the ground because of man.” ]
So that means that you truly believe and have faith that all natural disasters occur only AFTER the initial sin, ‘The Fall’ because a talking snake seduced Eve and indirectly Adam to eat an apple around 4004 BCE ?!?
Even most Christian’s do not believe in the literal truth of this story, but you want to spread this weird idea as reason for volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, flash floods, draughts, forest fires ….etc…. All only occurred AFTER ‘The Fall’ in 4004BCE !!
This also would mean, that the suffering of all animals (the example of the mud-digger wasp using caterpillars as life food supply) are caused by human sin.
This also would mean, that all the nasty microorganism like Prions causing BSE (mad cow disease), viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, flukes, parasites …etc… affecting all animals by the way, are all only occurred AFTER ‘The fall’ in 4004BCE !!
And this weird idea is not covering all the later evolved viruses, developing in animals like the AIDS virus originated in monkeys, eaten from chimpanzees and jumped over to humans just a century ago.
And as mentioned several times before the ‘free will’ theodicy is just a tiny part of all suffering and only considering the will of the perpetrator, never the will of the victim.
[ christian says: "I believe that science and logic are things that atheists and theists can share and adhere to." ]
Sorry Christian, but as just shown above, you have thrown out the entire scientific knowledge of the last centuries from areas as wide as geology (plate tectonics), microbiology, history, archeology, biology …etc…. for the ancient myth invented from primitive Bronze age goat herders – to which you are obviously 'adhering to'.
Just rephrase the ‘problem of evil’ to which what is actually meant: the problem of suffering.
An omnibenevolent deity would not let all the suffering occur on our planet. There is still suffering ergo god is not omnibenevolent (all good) , or he is not omnipotent (impotent to stop suffering), or not omniscient (don’t know that there is so much suffering).
So the theist apologist sad excuse attempts called ‘theodicy’ are hopeless attempts to explain all the suffering in the world which is contradicting the alleged omni-everything predicates of their imagined deity .
This results in strange attempts of ‘free-will’ defense not covering the suffering of all sentiments beings (mostly animals) on the planet or of small children, only excusing the perpetrator never consider the victim of ‘free will’ actions, even hailing barbaric acts like the holocaust as spiritual enhancing for Jews. Theodicy’s so weird like blaming of natural disasters (quakes, tsunami, storms) on Yahweh’s wrath punishing human sin, or the outright I don’t know e.g. the likes of god moves in mysterious ways, god is beyond human ken, god must have a plan …etc…. apologies.
And Nomadic Gadfly (Godfly ?) seems to be a Troll, who is frequently attacking the authors of articles or the entire FF community, usually solely with ad hominine without providing a rational counter argument like in this case “do you really understand these propositions” “Now, explain it in your own words” e.g. suggesting that the author of the article is a complete idiot or just a cut & paste monkey .
I really hope you have the authority to say that the 'problem of evil' really means the 'problem of suffering' and if that is the case I hope they really change its name to avoid confusion. 🙂
I find it difficult to explain the sufferings caused by natural phenomena for those who do not believe in God as I will be quoting the Bible which atheists don't believe in the first place.
For example…
"Cursed is the ground because of man."
"Do not fear those who cannot kill the body but cannot kill the soul."
For atheists, this is preposterous and I, quoting these, would be considered weird, ignorant, ludicrous. Which is understandable coming from those who question the existence of God. But for Christians these are logical, given the premise that there is God.
Again it is difficult for a discussion to progress when there is no common ground between arguing parties. Atheists does not believe in God and theists will always believe in the infallibility of their holy books and the two will never meet.
I believe that science and logic are things that atheists and theists can share and adhere to.
I will not pursue the argument of sufferings caused by natural phenomena as my explanation would not be within the belief of those who do not believe in God.
But there are also sufferings due to the wickedness of humans which can be answered logically. That to prevent the sufferings caused by humans, their free will should be sacrificed.
"Atheists does not believe in God and theists will always believe in the infallibility of their holy books and the two will never meet."
Actually, we do "believe" in the existence of theists. In fact, we are very certain you exist because of the fact that we're talking to one right now.
And if I may add, I've really appreciate it if you stopped pretending to know everything about non-theists and who we agree with. I happen to have several friends who are Catholic, and while we do get into disagreements regarding religion, we do agree on matters on at least human decency.
"But there are also sufferings due to the wickedness of humans which can be answered logically. That to prevent the sufferings caused by humans, their free will should be sacrificed."
If you mean following certain laws to keep society stable, then I agree with you. You do end up having to sacrifice some liberties as a means of upholding the rights of other people (taxes for example, or waiting in line).
@Christian
My question to you regarding this line:
"Atheists does not believe in God and theists will always believe in the infallibility of their holy books and the two will never meet."
When a member of your religion commits a crime, for example murdering a family planning doctor, and claims that they were simply acting out their infallible belief in the bible, does that still make them evil by your definition, given that they acted out of a genuine sense of "good" morals?
I usually have the aversion of commenting to an open letter especially when I’m not the addressee. Thank you for inviting me here.
This is a well-written piece which I leisurely read with gusto. This may not be a typical letter intended to communicate to a friend, but more likely of a collection of arguments from the “religion’s cultured despisers”. It covers almost every aspect of “losing the faith” ranging from the philosophical problematic concerning the existence of God and the problem of evil, naturalism, divine intervention, biblical revelation, and alike.
I will not address all the entire topics in this letter but focus only in which I consider the most problematic: why does God allow evil.
As you describe caterpillar’s agonizing journey, I can’t help but recall some butterflies in our backyard. This is no different from the story of a pearl.
You write, “… the Problem of Evil had been an eternal bug up my theist ass. I lived with cognitive dissonance as I struggled to rationalize gratuitous – unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjustified – suffering as part of God’s divine plan.”
This boils down to the unavoidable question about the role of suffering in the economy of salvation. For believers, the idea of salvific suffering comes to the fore and the book of Job is most likely quoted as its reference and even talk about the death and resurrection of Christ. Others will recommend some popular books like “Why Bad Things Happen to Good People” by Harold Kushner, “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl, or “The Brothers Karamazov” by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Before we go further, can we engage ourselves in clarifying terms? Let us start with the “problem of evil.”
Since I read in your other thread a line of Jean Paul Sartre, I assume that you’re familiar with him. In his celebrated play, “The Devil and the Good Lord” we see the protagonist Goetz doing evil to provoke God. As a ruthless warrior living for conquest and destruction, he takes great pride in his evil deeds. One day he meets a pessimist priest Heinrich who told him that there is nothing special about doing evil because the world is so permeated with evil. To this Goetz resolves to do otherwise – to do good. Instead of burning the “City of Worms” and kill its inhabitants, the reformed Goetz builds a “City of the Sun” where no evil exist – drinking, violence, stealing, and even spanking of children are forbidden. He gives his wealth and land to peasants who were dying of hunger. But Nasti, the leader of the peasant, urges Goetz to take back his gift for it will cause a revolt of which the peasants are not yet ready. Despite Nasti’s begging, Goetz proceeds with giving his gift and builds a community based on fraternity and common ownership. As a result, the premature revolt breaks out. Nasti asks Goetz to salvage the situation by becoming a leader of the revolution, but he refuses claiming that he already abandoned the way of violence. Death tolls almost a quarter of a million in the said revolt. Here Heinrich criticizes Goetz’ action as objectively evil, even though they were done with good intentions. For Heinrich, God will not make a damn whether humans torture the weak or die in deprivation. Believing that all he did was evil and that God had nothing to do with it, Goetz realizes that he alone decided what is good or evil. God is disinterested with human affairs. Here is his famous cry:
“I supplicated, I demanded a sign, I sent messages to Heaven, no reply. Heaven ignored my very name. Each minute I wondered what I could BE in the eyes of God. Now I know the answer: nothing. God does not see me, God does not hear me, God does not know me. You see this emptiness over our heads? That is God. You see this gap in the door? It is God. You see that hole in the ground? That is God again. Silence is God. Absence is God. God is the loneliness of man… God doesn’t exist.”
This reminds me of Nietzsche’s concept of good and evil: what was called good by the powerful is called evil by the weak and powerless.
That was quite a "clarification" for the Problem of Evil you got there. 🙂
For the sake of simplicity, let me post the outline for the Problem of Evil presented in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/:
1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
2. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
3. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
With due respect, but do you really understand these propositions well? This article is so sophisticated than the presentation of Epicurus or Hume on the same subject. Sound epistemological knowledge is highly needed here.
Okay, both of us are reading the same source. Let us start with your first proposition.
You quoted: "If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil."
Now, explain it in your own words. Of course, you can refer me to the article cited above. For the sake of genuine dialogue, let us exchange our understanding of the said propositions and comments in our own words. Of course, we can quote but then we have to explain. I think that is fair enough.
//With due respect, but do you really understand these propositions //
Now I feel disrespected. Are you deliberately trying to insult my intelligence? What part of those propositions do you think isn't simple and clear enough for a person of average intelligence to understand without further explanation? Is this your way of starting a genuine dialogue?
If you want to start a discussion, please state how you think I might have misrepresented the Problem of Evil in my article/letter, or perhaps how the Problem of Evil is not actually a problem at all.
@ innerminds – i think you should not dignify his comments by answering them seriously as you did…unless he throws a real argument next time. I'd be glad to read another post from you. why not write a blog on something more relevant like "The Christian Freethinker"??? 😀
It is not possible to fix what is outlined in the "Problem of Evil" and for people to have free will as well. Free will is the ability to choose without constraint. If God will move ahead of our every step and prevent us from doing things that He thinks is evil then he have removed from us the ability to decide and think freely. Which is what precisely He has created in human being. A special being that is not only intelligent but can think freely for himself. As most can observe, the evil we see is the result of abusing that free will. Of not choosing good over evil.
The Devil is not the cause of evil(though he is now tempting humans). His being evil is also the result of him abusing the free will given to angels. He was perfectly made and sinned on his own.
God created humanity to have relationship with them. Imagine having a relationship with someone against his/her will. Or having a mail order bride/husband.
Again, to eliminate all evil we have to sacrifice our free will.
Yes, and the earthquakes and tsunamis and the sufferings experienced by non-human animals including those of the caterpillar who is slowly being eaten alive from the inside by a growing wasp larvae are all caused by human free will, right?
This is from the link I posted earlier: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
"The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable for anyone to believe in the existence of God."
The 'evil' in the Problem of Evil is not really exactly 'evil' in the general sense of the word like the definition you used; rather, it is the "undesirable states of affairs" and this involves gratuitous pain and suffering including those caused by earthquakes, tsunamis, and parasitic wasp larvae (in case you're a caterpillar).
I thought we are discussing about the "Problem of Evil". Earthquake, tsunamis and other natural disasters can cause suffering to human and animals. But are they evil?
From wikipedia…
"Evil is the intention of causing harm or destruction while threatening or deliberately violating morality. Evil is most commonly used to refer to any intention that is socially perceived as the antithesis of a morally right or good intention."
Earthquakes, tsunamis have causes but I don't believe they occur because they have the intention to cause destruction.
So does the parasitic wasp have morality? Is the tiger evil if it consume you when you cross its path? I think morality is for those who know what is good and what is evil. And do we consider ourselves morally wrong when we butcher cows and pigs for our consumption?
Again, the question is how do we eradicate evil without sacrificing free will.
@mr.christian: if I follow your line of reasoning, then doesn't that mean that "to eliminate all evil" in heaven, we also have to "sacrifice our free will" in heaven? so… zombie-heaven then? yuck. pass.
or apply your last statement to Jesus:
Jesus has no evil in him, because he has no free will of his own.
Obviously, there is no logical connection to either bad things happening or free will. They just both exist independent of each other or of supernatural causes. Bad things will always happen to good people because of random happenstance and man will always have free will, regardless if there's a magical man in the sky or not.
And I have to point out your version of the whole angel-devil scenario makes absolutely no sense. So you have this happy place where angels are all happy and perfect then this one angel turns bad, becomes the devil and spends the rest of his days tempting people to his side until Armageddon day comes and god wipes away all the evil in the world and everyone becomes perfect and happy again… but what's to stop the same thing from happening again and again? absolutely nothing. if any one of those happy perfect people in heaven (with *ahem* free will) can become another devil then the whole story can begin all over again, its only a matter of time. its like a bad case of the re-runs… Hinduism already has its cycle of creation-destruction with Brahma-the-creator and Shiva-the-destroyer so I guess this angel-devil cycle is Christianity's version?
Ironically, people commit all sorts of evil, such as bombing buildings, shooting innocent civilians, and attacking the LGBT community, under the notion that they're doing something morally right.
the difficulty, IMHO, reconciling the existence of God with the "problem of evil" lies on our understanding of God. it poses a great deal of problem if we are to think that God is an old white-bearded guy sitting on a throne somewhere in the universe looking at us like we are fishes in an aquarium-earth, who from time to time would shake earth like a snow-globe just to see how we will react…all for his divine entertainment. But the understanding of God requires a much deeper reconciliation of all things as is required if we are to believe that He is God and that He is the creator.
If we are to believe that He is God we have to consider the perfection of His being, the perfection of everything that we have encountered as imperfect, one who gives perfect justice, perfect love, etc…if He is the creator then there is to be, in His creation, as he is (supposed to be) perfect, as observed in nature, law and order in the nature of things.
(i.e./e.g universal gravitation, motion, energy transformation, matter, etc)
Then we have to add to that, the idea of human freewill given by Him. A freewill that He cannot take away from us and/or violate; so be it for the natural occurrence of the earth or human acts, it follows then that if ever he will interact with nature (in the context of such affecting people) then it has to follow the natural law and with human acts, in a way that the human freewill He gave will not be violated.
Now, if we truly think about the natural disasters, as its namesake, are nothing more than natural phenomenon. (e.g. earthquake and tsunami as a result of the shifting of tectonic plates) so for both believer and non-believer of God these laws, just the same, as science has observed, only acted in a way that they are supposed to act. It only becomes evil or disastrous as we would all described it, if their natural behavior results negatively affect human beings. We can say the same about the physical destruction of our body after dying. Why cant God stop it from decaying if there truly is a God? He can (as exhibited by the incorruptibles) but he does not because of the natural law and (for believers) the perfect justice. Justice, in the context of sin…now speaking as a Catholic, the problem of evil, is not really a problem in regards to reconciling His existence, as we believe that everything negative or “evil” came from the sin (sin being human freewill opposite to His will). A sin that broke the harmony and peace between human and the world/nature and the harmony and peace between all that is created.
Having said that, these also explain much of what the letter is talking about in regards to the “ultimate sacrifice”.
“When I realized this, every belief I held sacred suddenly became fair game – including my belief in the divinity of Jesus. It also dawned on me how absurd is the notion of God’s ultimate “sacrifice” for the salvation of mankind: God created man imperfectly so God now plans to punish man severely and eternally because of the fatal imperfection that God caused in the first place, but because of God’s “love” for man, God bore an only Son, who was actually God Himself, to be offered as a sacrifice – to Himself – in order to satisfy God’s craving for blood and so that man does not have to suffer God’s eternal wrath as long as he believes in the Son….”
Perfect love requires the gift of freewill. Sacrifice is required if there is to be perfect justice. The imperfection, disharmony, was initiated and introduced to the world by the misuse of freewill. And that the Son of God had to be human, following the natural law of things and without violating the human freewill, in order to bring salvation/the harmony and peace back.
(my apologies, scattered and very disorganized. time constraints and desperate attempt to squeeze everything in as short and concise as possible)
Good day Mr. Innerminds!
I will be direct to my intent:
"4. Evil exists."
Agree.
"2. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists."
Agree.
1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil."
Agree.
"3. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil."
Agree.
"5. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil."
Surely God has the power to eliminate all evil. He also knows when evil exists. But the last statement poses a question: How one could be so sure that He does not have the desire to eliminate it?
It is also an argument that:
1. If God created humans, then it must be for a purpose.
2. The most probable purpose is to have a creation that would glorify Him.
3. If we are to glorify Him, then He would make a way to make it possible, since He is omnipotent.
4. Evil makes it possible to distinguish the good.
Hello Tradcath.
//Surely God has the power to eliminate all evil. He also knows when evil exists. But the last statement poses a question: How one could be so sure that He does not have the desire to eliminate it?//
Because if he had the desire to eliminate evil, he could have done so a long time ago considering he knows where evil exists and has the power to eliminate it. But still, evil exists, so that compels one to question if God really is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect at the same time.
//1. If God created humans, then it must be for a purpose.
2. The most probable purpose is to have a creation that would glorify Him.
3. If we are to glorify Him, then He would make a way to make it possible, since He is omnipotent.
4. Evil makes it possible to distinguish the good.//
Could you please explain #4 and how it relates to nos. 1-3? Thanks. 🙂
Ahh.. I forgot to add:
Number 4, means that evil makes it possible to know the goddness, which is God. Since we detest evil, then that makes us praise God. So:
5. God may have let evil exist in order to make Himself distinguished, that is, He is guilty of letting it exist.
But I'm not saying He 'created' it.
But, you still have the point. I'm also starting to think about this…
//Number 4, means that evil makes it possible to know the goddness, which is God.//
//God may have let evil exist in order to make Himself distinguished, that is, He is guilty of letting it exist.//
Tradcath, if you were an all-powerful, all-knowing being, don't you think you could come up with more effective ways of letting your beloved creatures know you without resorting to "allowing" evil to happen?
//Since we detest evil, then that makes us praise God.//
Unless we realize that it was God who allowed evil to happen in the first place.
But who knows which is more effective?
If you do, then suggest something to me, assuming that I am God.
If I were God, I would arrange a couple of stars into a giant cross visible to everyone at night, and every few seconds I would rearrange the stars to spell the words "God loves you".
Or I could create humans in such a way that I can telepathically and unmistakable communicate to EVERYONE and not just to a few self-proclaimed "messengers".
OK.
There's no way to convince you.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patz, FilipinoFreethinkers. FilipinoFreethinkers said: New Post: A Former Christian's Letter to an Old … https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/07/17/a-former-christians-letter-to-an-old-friend/ […]
Again, I beg to disagree to what you claim the memorization is overvalued in our educational system as a whole.
– Again, here is the claim I posted above… that in a traditional educational system, memorization is overvalued in our grading systems.
It is just a part, I repeat a part for elementary students Grades 1 to 2. Do you expect kids to analyze Math at a very young age? Not everyone is Einstein.
– Try asking a child to buy candy from a convenience store. Give a certain amount that will incur change. That’s problem solving for a grade school student.
Is memorization of multiplication table included in highscool grading system? No.
– Of course not, that is why the example above is in gradeschool. Gradeschool – Math Subject; Highschool – History Subject.
I haven’t heard any teacher who have successfully designed math exams that measures the students’ memory than their analytical skills.
– Read the article above, the example is there.
What I mean is, memorization in Math is just a very very small part and I don’t believe with what you claim that memorization is overvalued in Mathematics subjects because I am a Math teacher myself.
– When a math test gives more bearing on the memorization of multiplication table than problem solving, memorization becomes overvalued. That is my claim.
Force fed? Didn’t you hear your teacher ask “Are there any questions”
– Again, this is not a rant about teachers. This is about the traditional educational system which bases rewards on memorization than understanding even though the subject matter is about analysis than memorization.
– You are right when you point out that there are only a few who dares to ask, “Are there any questions?” The question is why is this so? Is it because the system bases rewards on memorization? Is it because they are contented with the answer given, thinking that is better to memorize then understand because memorization yields more grades?
– When does it become force fed? When the grades come to play. When it showed that the system rewards those who memorize rather more than those who understand. When the student comes into the conclusion he is better off memorizing than understanding.
– It is sad to think that a student gets more points for memorization rather than understanding. It is sad to think that the system for grading is more on memorization rather than understanding. It is sad to think that a student didn’t even bother to ask the question.
Is it the failure of the educational system that not all of the students have inquisitive minds?
– When students don’t ask why, is it because they are not inquisitive? Or is it because they vicariously experience that the system rewards is not based on inquisitiveness. Isn’t it both? Isn’t education is a 2 way. Would it be better if all students are inquisitive? Would it be better if inquisitiveness is valued more than memorization. Can we do something if the student is naturally uninquisitive? Maybe or maybe not. Can we do something about tradition educational system? Yes, we can encourage students by putting more premium on understanding and less on memorization.
Memorization is force fed in science? Oh my!
– Science becomes force fed when “We are focused on the questions what, where instead of the probing questions how and why. In effect we are given better grades for memorizing than understanding even if science is a continous inquiry, discourse and study.” That is my claim.
– I didn’t put pure science in the article. But we both agree that science is more than memorization. However, if science grades are more based on what, where than how and why, its becomes force fed.
Again, do we expect everyone to do conduct his own study?
– Again, Science becomes force fed when “We are focused on the questions what, where instead of the probing questions how and why. In effect we are given better grades for memorizing than understanding even if science is a continous inquiry, discourse and study.”
– There is no mention that everyone should conduct a study.
Because individuals have different interests. We cannot expect everyone to be freethinking like us. Some are contented to what is put into their mouth. Some eat the meal themselves. And some took time to prepare their own meals.
– And those “who eat the meal themselves and who took time to prepare their own meals” should be given better grades than “those who are contented to what is put into their mouths.”
– Those who analyzed and understood should be given better grades than those who merely understand.
– It seems that you agree with me on this.
I am happy that you are passionate about the issue here being a math and science teacher. We both agree that understanding is more important than memorization. I assume that you also agree with me that tests should give more premiums on analysis than memorization.
Again, this is not about a rant on teachers.
This is about the traditional educational system which values memorization over understanding as implied in exams given as examples. This is also about asking the important questions how and why-the same questions that you are asking me. For that I am honoured. As a teacher I am sure you’d also be honoured when a student as you those important questions too.