I found this a very ironic phrase in an exposition of a very non-standard cosmology given that it is the same one many atheists use arguing against God’s existence!
Ptahlis
Yes!
That’s the same thing that recently dawned on me as well. In an uncanny way, I find the inability both to prove and to disprove God’s existence to be the most compelling evidence in His favor. That’s because His essential attribute, Love, must remain undefined (just like our essential terms in our axioms), and His existence can only be induced empirically.
If we could disprove His existence out of hand, we wouldn’t be having these debates. On the other hand, our inability to prove His existence speaks directly to our relationship with Him vis-a-vis His gift of life and free will. Our inability to prove His existence is the delicious irony that makes free will work!
Given equal intellectual ammunition, when theists and atheists debate, the result is always a stalemate. And that is as it should be.
In the end, we each must weigh the evidence as we see it, and make the greatest moral decision that can be made: will we love?
Polycarp, I think it’s proper to separate human-caused evil and suffering from “naturally”-caused suffering, as you have done. I can’t speak for others, but I have the sense that most agnostics and atheists on this board accept the explanation that human evil is a necessary outcome of free will. At least, you won’t get an argument from me on that subject. The real sticking point, as I see it, is “natural” disasters, diseases, and other things that cause suffering, but can’t be blamed on humans.
I agree, although I’m not sure why you say “only.” And I’ll concede that you can find a silver lining in almost any natural disaster if you look at it the right way. The question is, “Can’t God restore fertility to the land or end a drought without causing human suffering?” He’s got omnipotence and omniscience on His side, after all.
Libertarian
Well, let’s not be so hasty in ruling out my denseness here. Everyone else seems to be doing a Vulcan mind meld with you. But if you keep posting, I’ll keep reading. In the future, though, I may be a bit more circumspect in announcing my understanding. And me hitting you isn’t something to worry about, even if I wanted to do it. I may be a strong agnostic, but I’m not a strong agnostic. 
Love—at least Christian love—is volitional. So my reading of your post indicates that intention is relevant to my morality or immorality. If my intention is love, that is moral; if it is not, it is immoral, regardless of what happens in the physical context. Am I close?
The more I read your posts, the more I think you’re a closet Buddhist. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! 
But here is where I’m thinking “mysterious ways” comes in. You would say that we cannot judge another based only on their actions in the physical world. Thus, when an atheist makes the argument that God is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent based only upon observations of the physical world, you would say that he does not have all (or any) of the information necessary to make such a judgment. To the atheist, though, that’s all there is. Therefore, to him, God’s ways are mysterious.
Dumb Ox
Almost. To intend one thing while deciding another is to fall short. But merely change “intention” to “decision” and you are exactly on the mark.
Thus, Jesus was speaking to the religion politicians (Pharisees):
[/quote]
"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
"‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
[/quote]
Well, yes, but I think that condescends a bit to the atheist. It puts him in league with those who assign fire to the gods because they find fire mysterious. Anything is mysterious if we ignore its essential nature.
I have begun to think that the OP’s summary dismissal of the so-called Mysterious Ways argument is unwarranted. Specifically:
The fact is that the Mysterious Ways argument doesn’t have to explain everything. MW isn’t used by theists as a proof for the existence of God. It is merely used to allow for the existence of God. Since the atheist is making a positive claim, (i.e., the presence of evil in the world absolutely precludes the existence of a being who is all-powerful and all-good), the atheist bears the burden of proof. To be effective, MW doesn’t have to prove anything; it merely has to allow for a reasonable alternative.
The reasonable alternative: Atheists no longer propose the argument that God’s power must be limited because He can’t create a square circle or make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it. If God could do those things, it would mean that logic is corruptible, and therefore any proofs against the existence of God would be worthless. To be omnipotent, God need only be able to do those things that are physically and spiritually possible. What MW boils down to, in my eyes, is the claim that it may be impossible for spiritual maturity to be simply “zapped” into someone, regardless of God’s powers. Suffering, including apparently meaningless suffering, may be a logically necessary part of the path of spiritual development.
At this point, the atheist usually says, “Prove it.” But again, since the atheist is offering a positive proof of God’s non-existence, it is up to the atheist to prove that suffering is not logically necessary. The claim that, “Well, God should be able to figure out a better way because He is omniscient,” won’t do, for the same reason that this argument fails in the cases of the square circle and the big rock—there isn’t a better way. And so, in the end, we are left with no logical proof either way.
Criticisms?
I see nothing significant to criticize (except as noted below), but quite a bit to praise. It is always a treat to see the thoughts of a good thinker. Thanks, Dumb Ox. Good work.
(Physical suffering need not be necessary, but merely irrelevant.)
Excellent post, Dumb Ox, worthy of your namesake!
To me there is always a temptation to hubris in discussing what God could do. We do not know his characteristics and limitations if any well enough to speak meaningfully of this. Could God build a universe in which the strong nuclear force was precisely equivalent to the graviational force? Probably, but what would be the point.
Far more useful in such discussions, IMHO, is to attempt to grasp what God **did[/d] do, allowing for the sake of argument his existence and creativity a la the general theme of “there is/was a creator God” without insisting on the literalness of any particular account. This leads to intelligent conclusions on the interplay of God and Creation. And I would start from identifying what characteristics we can understand in God. It would seem likely to me that what we can comprehend of him is going to be anthropomorphized, simply because we must think as humans and not as God. I am not capable of simultaneously smiting Golden Calfs, rescuing a baby from the North Sea, and observing the fall of 3,754 sparrows and another 1,276,831 that are not presently falling. He, by all accounts, is, with room left over to note the fusion or lack thereof of every atom in a given cubic mile of the core of the Sun.
The three primary humaniform characteristics that I would understand to be attributable to God are love, pure undemanding love, something so wholly divine in its essence that Libertarian has seen fit to equate it with god; a desire for perfect justice (tempered with perfect mercy, and see Gaudere’s posts to FoG on C&L II for an exploration of what this does and does not mean); and a wry sense of humor generally expressed as irony. His chosen role vis-a-vis humans, according to Jesus (who I at least credit with the role of expert witness in this regard) is that of Father. The high and distant royal monarch character appears to be either the creation of ancient hierophants or a role adopted in earlier days to “scare some sense into us.” (I note that these are my impressions; YMMV.)
The problem of suffering is one that appears irresolvable with any presently conceivable state of knowledge. The only working answer is one that is sadly lacking, the “in Adam’s fall we sinned all” theory of conservative Christianity. And that presupposes that God’s idea of perfect justice is one several notches lower than the average poster here would adopt in his place. I find that enormously hard to swallow.
But given the ideas that God loves individual humans, does not wish to dominate them by forcing his majesty upon them unwillingly, values free will enough to make room for evil to allow it free rein, approves of justice, and has created an ironic world, one can begin to get a handle on what he was up to. Then consider the Passion Stories in the light of what high tragedy does to human emotion, and if you can why it has that effect. And you arrive at a theistic worldview that does make some sense despite the existence of evil and seemingly senseless suffering.
I do not claim that this is an absolutely logically perfect interpretation. It’s an exploration from the point of view of a committed theist. It has holes you can drive a Behemoth through. But it’s a start at unscrewing the inscrutable.
Lib said:
No prob. See how much easier it is when you post more than just a couple words and explain it? 
BTW, of course you know this but I want to make it clear: Just because I understand what you’re saying in no way means I agree at all. In fact, I don’t. At all.
Well, the difficulty is that Mysterious Ways is an explanation that explains nothing. Since the statement is that this is simply a limitation, with no attempt at evidence or logic for why it is a limitation, this is not a good refutation of the atheist claim. The ball is not back in the atheist court. It is as if (to borrow the old analogy) I made the claim your dragon did not exist because I could not see him, and neither could all the experts I brought in with me. You then claim that the dragon is incapable of revealing itself to unbelievers. It is true I have made a positive claim, but I hardly see how a theory that operates on completely hidden principles with no explanation given is an explanation of the dragon’s existence. It is hardly the job of the skeptics to prove why the dragon must show itself to unbelievers. Furthermore, with no explanation of why this is so, it is impossible for the skeptics, since the claim is unfalsifiable.
Polycarp, Libertarian, I thank you for your kind words. High praise from respected posters. Nowhere to go but down from here. So let’s get started.
Kyberneticist
The atheist claim in this case is not that God doesn’t exist because we don’t have evidence of Him, it’s that He can’t exist, by definition (all-good, all powerful, and all-knowing), because we do have evidence of evil.
If you’re claiming my dragon doesn’t exist because you can’t see him, that’s only a valid argument if dragons are known (or defined) to be visible to everyone all the time. If they can become invisible and choose to reveal themselves only to believers, then your positive claim of their non-existence on those grounds is invalid. You could object based on parsimony, however. After all, it isn’t logical for you to believe in dragons, since you’ve never seen one, and including dragons in your worldview doesn’t help you explain the world any better. But you can’t prove to me that they positively don’t exist if I have seen them.
Regardless, Mysterious Ways is more like claiming that my dragon doesn’t exist because there are damsels in the town. You tell me, “As everyone knows, dragons eat as many damsels as they can. And they always know about all damsels within their domain.”
These are the characteristics of dragons, and I fully admit it, as one of their believers. “But,” I tell you, “they don’t always abduct damsels immediately.” [Even as a believer, I don’t understand why this is true, because I’ve never spoken directly to a dragon. But it turns out that dragons sometimes allow damsels to live long enough to produce more damsels, so in the long run there are more for the dragon to eat.] My argument doesn’t prove that dragons exist, but it allows that they might for those who have seen them.
Lib and Poly: I want to respond to your earlier comments in more depth, but don’t have time now. Also, I have my hands full with all these dragons.
It is true that you have provided a logical reason for why dragons would not eat all the damsels (to allow more damsels to be produced).
Now since you say Mysterious Ways is a similar argument, surely you could provide a logical reason for why God would be unable to provide spiritual growth without suffering?
David
That is eminently fair.
Dumb Ox said:
I’m struggling a bit to find where the particular claim that the evidence of evil precludes the existence of an omnibenevolent Deity has been adequately refuted. Although we can certainly theorize the existence of all sorts of Deities, even One possessing ultimate control of the Universe yet lacking a disposition toward goodness for humanity, the OP was expressing dissatisfaction with “Mysterious Ways” as an apologetic for a benevolent God. Since, as Lib reveals to us, context is everything, I’m still waiting for someone to explain this inconsistency in the context of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The dragon analogy (as defined so far) is much too simplistic and incomplete to be workable as an explanation for Mysterious Ways. If it is to be useful at all, the dragon must reflect the particular dogmatic beliefs of the Religion being examined.
Yahweh/Jehovah Considered as an Omni-Dragon
The Dragon is the Creator of all things. The Dragon is Perfect Love. The Dragon is all-powerful and all-knowing. The Dragon has given His children free will. The Dragon requires His children to be moral, and to strive for perfect morality in all their choices. The Dragon allows but one mortal coil for each of His children. The Dragon stands in Judgement over all His children at the end of their days, and rewards the good and moral ones by allowing them to sit in His Presence for eternity (Reward). The Dragon condemns the bad and immoral ones to an eternity of torment/denies them His Presence (Damnation).
There are various requirements and qualifications for the Reward. One is required to have lived a moral life, according to the Rules of the Dragon as written by desert nomads several thousand years ago, or as interpreted by various disciples of the Dragon’s Messiah between 20 and 200 years after the Messiah’s death some two thousand years ago. If one has never seen nor heard the Rules of the Dragon, one is disqualified. If one died before having the capacity to understand the Rules, one is disqualified.
There are certain decisions which will result in Damnation. If one has knowledge of the Rules of the Dragon and denies their authority or fails to abide by the Rules in the exercise of one’s free will, one is assured of Damnation, UNLESS before one’s death, one sincerely repents of one’s transgressions and accepts the Dragon’s Messiah as one’s personal Saviour.
NOTE: Disqualification (see above) makes one ineligible for the Reward, but does not necessarily result in Damnation. Depending on which of the self-appointed referees of the Dragon’s Rules one consults, one is told that there may be a third state of afterlife existence between eternal Reward and eternal Damnation.
Mysterious Ways
The only directly observable (to Believers and nonbelievers alike) phenomena attributed by Believers to the Will of the Dragon are those instances where natural forces of the Universe result in the death of individuals or the infliction of terrible suffering upon them. The Believers attribute these occurences to the “Mysterious Ways” of the Dragon, and say that they are beyond the understanding of mortal men and women. Suffering, they say, is immaterial to the health of the Soul, and if people meet their death from an “Act of God” then it must’ve been time for them to die.
This Atheist’s Assertion
This atheist (yours truly) regards the claim that a Dragon with the expectations for human behavior of the Dragon defined above is inconsistent with a Dragon Who both possesses the attributes defined above (particularly Perfect Love for His children) and exhibits Mysterious Ways.
If I’ve fumbled in my attempt to flesh out the Dragon analogy, I hope that some of the respected Christian or Jewish posters will correct me. Also, no disrespect for any religion is intended by my analogy; I merely strive for clarity.
If you don’t mind reviewing the thread, I believe I explained the Orthodox Jewish position on the matter. My stuff was in the early parts of the thread…probably all on the first page, maybe a little bit into the second. However, I understand that it’s easy to get lost in a thread this big, so I’ll repeat it:
G-d’s “omnibenevolence” is the fact that he gives a gift of the most enjoyable experience he knows of.
This gift is the experience of reward that results from one’s own free choices.
This would be impossible in the absence of:
a) the ability to freely choose evil
b) the temptation to freely choose evil
and these, in turn, would be impossible in the absence of unexplained (though not necessarily unjustified; merely unexplained) “badness” in the world.
However, the existence of said badness does not contradict the concept of omnibenevolence, because it is a necessary precondition for the existence of the greatest possible benevolence.
Chaim Mattis Keller
When atheists claim that God can’t have all the omni-attributes it is because they are mutually exclusive by definition. Even in the above dragon example, your Dragon is defined as “eating all the damsels he can” which by definition would preclude his allowing some to live long enough to reproduce. The fact that he does allow them to live for a time means that he, in fact, eats “all the damsels he chooses to.” The existence of damsels does indeed preclude the existence of dragons as you have described them.
Likewise, the existence of evil and other things that are given a pass by Mysterious Ways, are indeed evidence that God does not exist as he is described. It may very well be that all the omni-attributes can exist together in some way we are utterly inequipped to comprehend, or perhaps our definitions or expectations are completely askew in some way. (Some define ‘good’ to be whatever God desires, and if this turned out to be true, there certainly would be no need for a Mysterious Ways apologetic.) No matter how it’s phrased, the Mysterious Ways argument boils down here to “We don’t really understand why, can’t really understand why, but choose to believe anyway.”
For the record, I realize that not everyone believes that God has the omni-attributes with their usual definitions. They don’t believe that God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just at the same time, nor perfectly loving yet willing to allow eternal damnation. They feel that God is limited by logic, and therefore they redefine God in such a way that only his motivations, not abilities or existence, have to be defended by the Mysterious Ways argument.
Xenophon, I do not have the slightest problem with your D&D extended metaphor for traditional Christianity as popularly understood, barring two points, one a minor quibble and the second a major flaw:
-
Quibblage: The Rules of the Game were not composed by desert nomads and followers of the Son of the Dragon, but were either dictated directly by the Dragon in his role as Spirit Guide, or were fleshed out by the nomads and followers based on his instruction, depending on whether you allow for literal or constructive inspiration.
-
Flaw: The Rules are not as outlined. The sole rule is to enter into a fealty relationship in which one takes the Dragon as Lord and becomes a Knight of the Dragon, carrying out its instructions. A detailed set of rules was set forth to demonstrate to those who would prefer an alternative that it is impossible to adequately carry out another set of rules to the satisfaction of the Dragon. These rules may be uncharitably seen as persiflage but are actually the Dragon’s kind proof that it is impossible to play a winning game other than as a Knight of the Dragon.
-
In the damsel-eating dragon scenario being debated which gave rise to the God as Omnidragon metaphor, it would be simple to demonstrate that “eating all the damsels he can” can be understood clearly in two ways, depending on the wisdom and volition given to the dragon. If the dragon is conceived of as monstrous beast, it has no intelligence and no motivation but to eat damsels, and hence will eat every damsel on which it can lay its talons, and after extinction of damseldom will die of malnutrition. On the other hand, if the dragon, as many dragons are, is viewed as a fearsome but wise beast, it will recognize that its destiny of “eating all the damsels it can” is best fulfilled by maximizing the available damsels by leaving some “seed damsels” to reproduce and produce a fresh crop of damsels to consume.
“Gee thanks, Mr. Dragon. You tell me to save myself from eternal torment I can either become your knight or create a 2D triangle with four sides. How nice of you to give me a choice here.” (Anyhow, the rules being “impossible” does not seem to worry the Jews.)
Hey, Gaudere, we were discussing the traditional Xtian interpretation of things metaphysical in metaphorical format. Sorry if you don’t like the Dragon’s Rules; but it’s his game. Remember the fun we had with covenants over on another thread?
Me, I see a loving Father there (and that’s His metaphor, not my own). And I totally reject the idea of “rules” – the Law of Love is what you want to do when you’re encompassed in His Love, not a set of rules to bind you.
But of course, this assumes you recognize He’s there in the first place. And that’s the crux of our debates on the subject.
cmkeller:
Thank you for reposting your summary of the Orthodox Jewish position; I had read it earlier, but I’d forgotten it was there. (You’re right, it’s easy to get lost in these threads, particularly when you’re bouncing around several similarly themed threads!) I agree that if the reward is contingent upon free choices one makes, without the condition that one must embrace an unclear and not universally communicated system of belief before one dies, then omnibenevolence is not contrary to natural disaster (and other unexplained “badness”). According to Orthodox Judaism, is there equal Reward for those who virtuously follow other religions or those who are “virtuous pagans”?
Polycarp:
As far as the quibblage goes, I apologize; I meant “written” as in “transcribed”, not as in “composed”. (Nice word, quibblage; I’m gonna use that and “Old High Libbish” alot, I think.)
Are those who die without having received word of the Dragon eligible to receive their Reward? How about those who have lived according to the instructions of the Dragon but who die before deciding to enter into fealty? How about those who love the Dragon but have been indoctrinated into a “false” game and sincerely believe that their pursuit of such is pleasing to the Dragon?
Specifically, if the Dragon loves me absolutely and wants me to spend eternity in the Glory of His Presence, will He allow my death before I am able to make the decision to receive Knighthood, if my inability stems from ignorance of Him or through acceptance of another path to Him, and will He then deny me His Presence because of this lack?
Ptahlis said:
If God is defined without the absoluteness of attributes commonly ascribed to Him, then “Mysterious Ways” need not be argued at all, as the assumption that He is in control of events need not be made.
xenophon41:
Yes. One can be virtuous and worthy of reward even if he’s not Jewish.
Chaim Mattis Keller