The pointlessness of thanking God.
Something that has always irked me, when debating with theists, is their constant insistence on crediting God for good things, but insisting that evil is due to Man. Two objections are as follows.
1. The infinite regression
When good things happen, theists will thank God for the blessings he has given them. Here, I will hopefully demonstrate the inherent silliness of such an action.
Does it make sense for me to thank a single indirect cause which led to something good? And the indirect cause which led to that indirect cause? And the indirect cause which led to that? An infinite regression simply doesn't make sense here. You'd have a virtually infinite number of circumstances to thank, for event A happening.
Yet, this is what thiests do every time they thank God for something good that happens in life.
To illustrate, imagine that a person helped me up, after I had fallen down. Naturally, I would thank him for helping me. He would be the direct cause, leading up to event A (In this case, him helping me, but event A can be changed to anything suitable). Now, here's where it starts to get complicated. Should I then be thankful that his parents inculcated in him a charitable nature and a willingness to help others? Assuming I do, should I then thank his grandparents for raising his parents to be good parents? This process can go on forever. Does it make sense whatsoever, from a practical perspective? I would highly doubt so.
Another scenario would be the hypothetical 'butterfly effect'. Under chaos theory, it is possible that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China, would eventually lead to a hurricane in New York. Now, technically speaking, victims of the hurricane should then blame the butterfly, for starting it all. In fact, it could be charged with genocide! But this simply does not make sense!
In the first place, why complicate the issue, by crediting an indirect cause? Bring in one, and you'd have to bring in all of them. After all, each indirect cause was equally important in the build up to Event A happening. The initial cause is of no special importance in this respect, merely as significant as any of the other infinite indirect causes along the way. Thanking God, then, would be ignoring every other cause along the way, placing one indirect cause above others.
2. The free will argument.
Theists claim that evil is not God's fault, because man, as a result of free will, chose to sin against God, and thus brought evil into the world.
With this logic, can I not then claim that man also brought good into the world, as a result of free will? It does not make sense to argue that evil is from free will, but good is not. The one who opines that evil came into the world from man, must also agree that good came into this world from man. Similarly, the one who opines that good came into this world from God, must also agree that evil came into this world from God. After all, was evil not created indirectly by God when he made the angel who would eventually become Satan?
1. The infinite regression
When good things happen, theists will thank God for the blessings he has given them. Here, I will hopefully demonstrate the inherent silliness of such an action.
Does it make sense for me to thank a single indirect cause which led to something good? And the indirect cause which led to that indirect cause? And the indirect cause which led to that? An infinite regression simply doesn't make sense here. You'd have a virtually infinite number of circumstances to thank, for event A happening.
Yet, this is what thiests do every time they thank God for something good that happens in life.
To illustrate, imagine that a person helped me up, after I had fallen down. Naturally, I would thank him for helping me. He would be the direct cause, leading up to event A (In this case, him helping me, but event A can be changed to anything suitable). Now, here's where it starts to get complicated. Should I then be thankful that his parents inculcated in him a charitable nature and a willingness to help others? Assuming I do, should I then thank his grandparents for raising his parents to be good parents? This process can go on forever. Does it make sense whatsoever, from a practical perspective? I would highly doubt so.
Another scenario would be the hypothetical 'butterfly effect'. Under chaos theory, it is possible that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China, would eventually lead to a hurricane in New York. Now, technically speaking, victims of the hurricane should then blame the butterfly, for starting it all. In fact, it could be charged with genocide! But this simply does not make sense!
In the first place, why complicate the issue, by crediting an indirect cause? Bring in one, and you'd have to bring in all of them. After all, each indirect cause was equally important in the build up to Event A happening. The initial cause is of no special importance in this respect, merely as significant as any of the other infinite indirect causes along the way. Thanking God, then, would be ignoring every other cause along the way, placing one indirect cause above others.
2. The free will argument.
Theists claim that evil is not God's fault, because man, as a result of free will, chose to sin against God, and thus brought evil into the world.
With this logic, can I not then claim that man also brought good into the world, as a result of free will? It does not make sense to argue that evil is from free will, but good is not. The one who opines that evil came into the world from man, must also agree that good came into this world from man. Similarly, the one who opines that good came into this world from God, must also agree that evil came into this world from God. After all, was evil not created indirectly by God when he made the angel who would eventually become Satan?
posted by benisonp at 7:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home