The Earthquake in Japan (Reflections on the Problem of Natural Evil)
In this episode, Jim discusses the earthquake in Japan and considers a number of responses to the problem of natural evil presented by the event. In addition, Jim addresses the importance of ‘character’ in online discussions with atheists, and answers listener email related to the value and rights of animals.
Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.
Posts
16 comments:
I will have to listen to the first part again because, frankly, it was a bit deep for me. But I liked the part about dealing with jerks on the Weblog. My rewording would add the word "focus". What I have been learning very recently (and this helped solidify the morass a great deal) is to lay out the views, avoid rabbit holes, clarify if needed. If someone want to fight, move on. This is one reason I moderate comments, because some people feel "it's hammer time", and I do not have time for protracted, fruitless discussions.
Thanks for the word of correction Jim. The book "Tactics - Gregory Koukl" really helped me to focus on etiquette and not try to "win" a debate, but rather talk it through with each person.
I have a few conversations going on Reddit.com right now and even though I am not doing the best at presenting the evidence in a clear way, all three people have expressed how they enjoy talking to me. I consider that a "win" in itself.
Hi Jim.
I admit I have only listened to your podcast a few times now and I have to say I was very happy to hear your view on blog commenting.
I am an agnostic fence sitter who has been involved in a few blog debates about various Christian topics and I have seen these debates degenerate into pig headed name calling.
I like your line, as "Christians we are to be fishers of men not hunters."
If we all engage in rational conversation we may just learn something about each other.
Thanks for the rational podcast.
I succumbed to the temptation to carry on listening when I should have gone to bed earlier.
Thanks for the comments on on-line behavior. Having been on the receiving end of some harsh posts recently, I can't say how much I agree with your concern with "good behavior".
The problem with the angry posts is that those on the receiving end are more likely to ignore the content, and simply hear the anger. And that's a shame when Christians aspire to hold forth a "Good News" story.
You don't build the Kingdom of God with ungodly means.
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/
I succumbed to the temptation to carry on listening when I should have gone to bed earlier.
Thanks for the comments on on-line behavior. Having been on the receiving end of some harsh posts recently, I can't say how much I agree with your concern with "good behavior".
The problem with the angry posts is that those on the receiving end are more likely to ignore the content, and simply hear the anger. And that's a shame when Christians aspire to hold forth a "Good News" story.
You don't build the Kingdom of God with ungodly means.
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/
Oops,
Sorry for the double port
Martin! Nice to see you over here. I hope you stick around :)
I listened to your podcast, and if I have gone over the line then I'm sorry.
I don't know about police officers, but in the science and engineering fields conversations have a certain etiquette. If you are going to point out flaws in an argument, you are expected to fully explain what your position is. Simply stating that someone is wrong without being able to explain exactly why they are wrong and why you are correct is a fast way to professional suicide.
It isn't unknown when the rules of logic and civilized discourse is repeatedly breached, that engineers can become condescending jerks. I don't know if it is training, or the the natural disposition of those who enter those fields.
Either way, if you were referring to me I apologize.
Trent,
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your post made me laugh.
You wrote..."engineers can become condescending jerks. I don't know if it is training, or the the natural disposition of those who enter those fields."
I'm an engineer.
I try really hard not to be a condescending jerk, though I will leave it to others to judge whether I am succeeding or not. Anyways, I'll keep a watch on my training and natural disposition in any case.
Actually, I'm an engineering technologist. In Canada, it is a separate profession although in many countries like the UK I'd be called something like an Incorporated Engineer. Similar occupational hazard. I don't think there is an exact analog in the US, so I often use engineer as a point of reference.
I specialize in Computer Networks. In my field there is a protocol called Spanning Tree. It is very important that you use it. It is important to understand the basics of how it works, how to use it, and how to troubleshoot it. It has been proven to work through experience. Can I explain every aspect of the operation? No. Can I answer any question that might be put to me about it? No. Do I know it works and can use it in my everyday life to clarify how the network operates? yes If I don't use it because I can't explain every detail, does the whole thing melt down into chaos? Yes, if not immediately it will soon.
In my physics classes, you could take time to examine possibilities of what happens when you do such and such, but in the practical technical world a lot of it comes down to do I know enough about this thing to trust that it will get me the outcome I need. As I've pointed out before, I've looked at the other product on the shelf and it was really poorly designed, although the graphics on the package was spiffy, and at the end of the day still doesn't do what it is supposed to do. This one may have a few confusing bits to it, but at least the overall operation seems to make sense and it does seem to produce the desired outcome.
After installation, then you may have the time to talk to other people to polish your understanding of some of the finer details. They are valuable is dealing with some of the intricacies that may come up, but aren't necessarily mandatory to conclude you have the right part.
Trent,
I'm new here, so forgive me if I don't know all the posters here, and I don't get all of the back story.
I'm not sure where you're going with your argument. If you were presenting an atheist position, I guess you'd be saying something like "I tried the 'God' model, but although it was nicely packaged, it didn't do the job so I swapped it out for a better technology"
If that's the case, you may be surprised that, as a believer, I'd actually give this argument some qualified support.
My main reason is that the 'God model' that's often presented is pretty poor (even by churches who should know better), and its only loosely related to the Biblical vision of God. What I'm thinking of here is a pop-culture vision of a big bloke in the sky with a beard, who occasionally comes down and interferes with life on earth, because he can (like that crass joke about the proverbial dog). It follows, then, that if we suck up to him in the right way we can get him off our backs, or, if we're really good at it, we can get him to work for us.
Now, whilst its true that God responds to prayer (honestly, this is an issue that I find difficult to believe, let alone comprehend), this caricature of God misses the mark by a country mile.
One of the first things the Bible says about God is that the Universe exists within Him - He is the eternal Word (Logos) that was there before everything else had its being and the universe that we know comes about by His divine fiat, and nothing more. (There's a neat nexus with the Big Bang Theory here, but I'm cautious about offering it up as "proof".) This means that we exist "in" God, and that the universe we know (including us) is an "expression" of this transcendent reality.
The atheist might say that everything has a natural explanation, and I might respond by saying that may be so, but without God there is no nature. The "naturalistic" model must rest upon a Creator, because if there is no Creator, then there is no creation.
These ideas, I understand, were current in the 1st Century Greaco-Roman culture, so it's not unusual to see them reflected in the opening stanzas of John's Gospel, for example. What is incredibly audacious about what follows is John's claim that this eternal Logos "took on flesh" and dwelt among us (John 1:14).
Again, I'm not offering this as "proof", but what I hope to do is to open the door, just a crack, into a realm of thought that is profoundly different than some of the pop-culture 'God-models' we often encounter.
So, if you're arguing that the 'God-model' didn't work, I'm kind of nodding, but also thinking that you've been presented with a poor imitation of the real thing.
Here's my long overdue reaction to Jim's podcast...
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/03/god-and-japan-tsunami.html
What I am saying is I've looked T both sides of the argument. I did find what is often presented in church as simple and a lot of platitudes rolled up into a nice little weekly presentation.
I looked at what the Dawkins and the Hitchens of the world were putting out. I have looked at actual discussions of Reformed Theology ( being Presbyterian). I found that the faith that I should have been taught was deeper and more thought out than what I had actually been presented with and the works of Dawkins and Hitchens were less thought out than I was lead to believe.
As this point, I am saying that even without being able to answer all questions that might be put to me, I believe that this worldview is a better fit to reality than the alternative. This is opposed to those who are taking the view that if they can find a few objections that on the surface seem not to make sense, it is completely debunked.
We all use things in our daily life that we do not understand completely. That does not invalidate them.
As per the Big Bang as proof, I belive this comes from an old atheist position that the universe was eternal, and therfore the idea of a creator was a solution to a problem no reasonable scientist believed existed.
I think the arguement moved to the multiverse, which like String Theory, tells an interesting story but has yet to have empiracle proof.
Trent,
As I understand it, the "old atheist who believed in an eternal universe" could have been Fred Hoyle, who's theories got overturned by Stephen Hawking.
The "multiverse" inquiries might yield something, and they might not. However, if there is a "multiverse" out there, it's important for us to know that it cannot possibly be observed or proven. The "multiverse", if it exists, would be transcendent, by definition.
I hope you appreciate the irony. it appears that some scientists are all too eager to dismiss "God" because "it" cannot be observed or proven, yet the contender they put forward is equally elusive. This isn't faith verses reason, it's faith verses faith.
As I noted earlier there's a neat nexus between the "Big Bang" and a "Creator" (even if that "Creator" turns out to be a multiverse, or the "thing" that brings the multiverse into being). I hestitate to call it "proof" because, as you rightly point out, not everybody who looks at it infers a creator-God from it.
Also, I don't think it was what the authors of Genesis 1:1, John 1:1 and the other creation-texts in the Bible had specifically in mind. However, I do believe they were looking in the right direction, namely; everything had to start from somewhere and if you go back, and go back and go back, you must ultimately get to some "thing" that is uncreated, from which all else owes its being.
That "uncreated thing" is what I call God.
Personally, it's not the existence of such a "being" (if we can even refer to God as a "being") that taxes me. The really hard question is; what is he/she/it/they like and do my actions make any difference? Of course, I prefer to look to the person of Jesus Christ for the answer (the Incarnate Word, as in John 1:14), but even that raises its own riddles and mysteries.
Actually, I was thinking farther back than Hoyle.
I also find it ironic that many naturalists take the claims made about multidimensional physics, multiverses, and the Many-Worlds theory at valid explanations without knowing anything about how they work beyond what they've seen on a Sci-fi program or in the case of some more intersted an episode of Nova.
Somehow it is seen as gullibility to accept religion without absolute proof, but OK to accept certain scientific theorie as completely valid without uderstanding more than a kindergarten level of why the theory is considered plausible in the first place, simply because it sounds sciency.
The bible is the linking between general and specific revelation. Looking at the natural world, I can conclude there is a creator. If I accept Jesus as telling the truth, the creater is the Christian God as revealed in scripture trying to explain who he is in a way we might be able to understand.
Post a Comment