What has God done in past century?

[marco]

If we are to assess how good a man is as a father we would perhaps list the various good things he has done for his children. Let's look back over the past century to see what good God has done for humanity. Of course we could say he's given us RAIN; he's given our cattle GRASS; he has supplied OXYGEN over the Earth's lifetime. But what has he done recently? Some would say he's not been too good, having sent hurricanes, floods and tsunamis and famines.

Are there ANY good things we could say God has done in the last century?
Has he stopped being good?
Would it be right to conclude there is no evidence of goodness, so it would be best to consider there is no God rather than there is a bad God?

[marco]

but they didn't see the heroic measures the physician took to try to save his/her life. The only thing the family witnessed is the outcome, but those in the surgical suite can testify to the surgeons skills.

If God is like the surgeon, just doing what his limitations allow, then I am surprised he achieved the not-too-small task of building the planet Jupiter. No surgeon could do the likes of that! In challenging the God that many believe in I have to assume he's a bit more capable than a surgeon and if he's not, if he's just trying his best against storms and waves and wayward stars, then I think I'd rather he wasn't there at all.


Go well, nurse.

[Mithrae]

And likewise as you brushed past in your OP, god gets credit for the planet, the sun, the oxygen; for every life and every scrap of joy we see in this world.

I am accepting, for the purposes of debate, that God engineered things. It is his flawed handiwork I am dealing with. When we call a plumber and afterwards discover a leak we do not usually give a list of all the benefits the plumber has bestowed on us.
So God made oxygen, hid it and Priestley discovered it. Wonderful. He made the San Andreas fault in his 6-day labour.

without any baseline for comparison you have no grounds for concluding whether or not god has been active on this world, but it was this would-be picture of misery which got my attention as being particularly fallacious.

The basis for comparison is the booming of God in the Bible and his silence now. One mentions the misery to call to attention the engineering flaws.

The one who sent floods and plagues gaping holes in the earth to consume the wicked? And you're pretending that hurricanes and earthquakes are evidence that this God does not exist?

As I said originally, some religious folk make a very similar argument from misery to prove that we're in or approaching the 'end times,' the worst time in human history; that those events explicitly are God's warnings to turn from sin and evil.

So while I personally withhold judgement for now, a believer certainly could argue that humanity's progress over two thousand years has been alternately hindered and helped by how poorly or closely God's will has been followed.

Well you've defended yourself into error here. That scientists came from a largely Christian system, even though they may have been atheists, does not allow one to take belief in God as a contributing factor to their successes. They may have worn white coats - does the colour white improve their science? You seem to be arguing along these lines. Scientists in the past have been hounded by Biblical beliefs; and recently we effectively murdered Alan Turing because of some idiotic Bible story. When we put God in his tabernacle and lock the gold door, we get on much better.

That's lovely poetic imagery, but it seems to be little more than a smokescreen: You have neither refuted the argument, nor offered any plausible alternative explanation for the observation that since the Reformation it has usually been countries with predominantly Christian backgrounds which have been at the leading edge of scientific and democratic progress and the even more phenomenal Jewish presence in the sciences. I didn't suggest that atheists can't be scientists or that any country has been a completely optimal place for scientific advancement, but it seems all but indisputable that the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage ended up being noticeably more advanced than most of the rest of the world, and there are coherent reasons why that may have been produced at least in part by both the egalitarian ideals and the emphasis on literacy and personal study of scripture.

The implication that the Judeo-Christian deity might be credited as a major influence in this being the best time in human history is an unfortunate one, but not one I am willing to dismiss quite so easily.

[marco]

The one who sent floods and plagues gaping holes in the earth to consume the wicked? And you're pretending that hurricanes and earthquakes are evidence that this God does not exist?

You have simply misunderstood the point I was making. The Biblical God makes personal appearances and interferes dramatically.... in contrast to the situation today. Your remark about hurricanes here does not account for any view I have expressed.

it seems all but indisputable that the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage ended up being noticeably more advanced than most of the rest of the world, and there are coherent reasons why that may have been produced at least in part by both the egalitarian ideals and the emphasis on literacy and personal study of scripture.

I'm not disputing this irrelevance. The point I made was that background music does not account for scientific leaps and bounds. Progress arose despite Christianization, not because of it. Jewish progress probably rose from relief. If you think that religious servility produces Einsteins we shall see how many emerge from modern theocracies under Islam. You are lumping all types of Christianity and Judaism together and concluding that civilisation arose because of the religious base. It didn't. Civilised people fought against religious harshness and progress was made despite Church censure. But I concede that through the Dark Ages, monasteries kept the light of learning burning.

But as I say, all this is an irrelevance. God is silent today.

[Mithrae]

The one who sent floods and plagues gaping holes in the earth to consume the wicked? And you're pretending that hurricanes and earthquakes are evidence that this God does not exist?

You have simply misunderstood the point I was making. The Biblical God makes personal appearances and interferes dramatically.... in contrast to the situation today. Your remark about hurricanes here does account for any view I have expressed.

On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what you argued in the OP: That given "hurricanes, floods and tsunamis and famines" and assuming "no evidence of goodness," you think it is "best to consider there is no God rather than there is a bad God." But since you have appealed to the Bible as your basis for comparison, it is clear that both its portrayal of most of the big actions of God - the ones which were seen by whole nations or regions and you might have some reasonable expectation of hearing about - and its portrayal of the 'end times' are 100% consistent with natural disasters being caused by and indeed signs from God.

But as I say, all this is an irrelevance. God is silent today.

Tell that to the thousands of people who have claimed miraculous healing at the shrine of Lourdes. While you use the word 'silence,' a more accurate description would be that you personally don't think it's loud and clear enough to matter - a subjective criterion which has been pointed out by others throughout the thread.

If you want to view the last century as the best times of human history, a strong case can be made that the Judeo-Christian deity was a major influence in making it so. If you want to view it as a terrible time, a Biblical case can be made that this also is attributable to the Judeo-Christian deity. Whether you want to look at the big picture or at individual anecdotes, God's hand and voice are clearly evident to those who choose to perceive them.

And of course 'silent' for those who choose that perspective instead. As I originally said, this simply is not a valid argument.

[marco]

On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what you argued in the OP: That given "hurricanes, floods and tsunamis and famines" and assuming "no evidence of goodness," you think it is "best to consider there is no God rather than there is a bad God."

I am NOT stating that earthquakes and hurricanes indicate the non-existence of God. I am saying that we have NO signs of God's goodness, which is the subject of the OP. We might want to say, yes, there are signs of God because people die in hurricanes and earthquakes and people didn't cause these. But I state it's possibly better to accept that God isn't there rather than there's a fiend there. There is no deduction about non-existence. I don't believe one can ever deduce that God does not exist.

But as I say, all this is an irrelevance. God is silent today.

Tell that to the thousands of people who have claimed miraculous healing at the shrine of Lourdes. While you use the word 'silence,' a more accurate description would be that you personally don't think it's loud and clear enough to matter - a subjective criterion which has been pointed out by others throughout the thread.

Are you presenting subjective opinion on God's miracles and accusing me of using subjective opinion to dismiss them? Mary came dressed in the clothes that Renaissance artists gave her - the image Bernadette saw in churches. There is no point to her appearance although cures are effected among some believers. If this is God interacting with man then he's terribly shy and rather self-effacing, doing a turn now and then. Reason rebels against considering superstition as the basis of proof of God's existence; believing Lourdes or Fatima illustrate God is a subjective view. I agree it points to some psychological power to heal.

God's hand and voice are clearly evident to those who choose to perceive them.

If we admit the evidence of Uncle Tom then of course we can say God's been busy. I find it amusing you accuse me of using subjectivity, when I am appealing to reason, and admit the most ludicrously subjective bits of evidence to make your own point.


Let me re-iterate. The Biblical God is NOT silent. He is angry, he is jealous, he makes covenants, he demands foreskins, he commands total obedience, he makes threats, he screams from the sky. Today we have none of this. So I am right -objectively - in saying we have silence. Somebody saying God got him a box of cigars for Christmas is not evidence. I am surprised you accept it.

[Mithrae]

But as I say, all this is an irrelevance. God is silent today.

Tell that to the thousands of people who have claimed miraculous healing at the shrine of Lourdes. While you use the word 'silence,' a more accurate description would be that you personally don't think it's loud and clear enough to matter - a subjective criterion which has been pointed out by others throughout the thread.

Are you presenting subjective opinion on God's miracles and accusing me of using subjective opinion to dismiss them? Mary came dressed in the clothes that Renaissance artists gave her - the image Bernadette saw in churches. There is no point to her appearance although cures are effected among some believers. If this is God interacting with man then he's terribly shy and rather self-effacing, doing a turn now and then. Reason rebels against considering superstition as the basis of proof of God's existence; believing Lourdes or Fatima illustrate God is a subjective view. I agree it points to some psychological power to heal.

God's hand and voice are clearly evident to those who choose to perceive them.

If we admit the evidence of Uncle Tom then of course we can say God's been busy. I find it amusing you accuse me of using subjectivity, when I am appealing to reason, and admit the most ludicrously subjective bits of evidence to make your own point.

Let me re-iterate. The Biblical God is NOT silent. He is angry, he is jealous, he makes covenants, he demands foreskins, he commands total obedience, he makes threats, he screams from the sky. Today we have none of this. So I am right -objectively - in saying we have silence. Somebody saying God got him a box of cigars for Christmas is not evidence. I am surprised you accept it.

Eh? Whatever else may be said of it, I thought this thread at least had the virtue of being an interesting and somewhat novel approach. But now it's starting to look like you were just going for yet another "no evidence for biblegod" statement of opinion. Please tell me it ain't so.


You seemingly tried to paint a picture of misery on page one of the discussion to maintain the bad god/no god dichotomy raised in the OP: So I pointed out that we're actually living in the best period of human history.

You claimed that this has nothing to do with god, and I pointed out to the contrary that a strong case can be made for definite correlation and plausible causation between reformative Judeo-Christian culture and scientific accomplishment.

You then insisted that this is simply irrelevant, that you were talking about more definite 'acts of God' in the biblical mould, so I showed that in both the more personal (healings etc.) and public spheres (natural disasters as punishment and warning) as outlined in the biblical stories, your argument would be utterly unpersuasive to anyone who didn't already share your view. Many of the alleged healings at Lourdes - particularly the couple of dozen which have been documented and scientifically scrutinized enough to eventually be dubbed official 'miracles' - are very much of the same sort outlined in the bible; the blind seeing, the lame walking and so on. That you personally are not comfortable with a conclusion that they were actually acts of God is irrelevant: You invoked the biblical paradigm, and these fit it.

How much further are you going to move this goalpost, I wonder?

On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what you argued in the OP: That given "hurricanes, floods and tsunamis and famines" and assuming "no evidence of goodness," you think it is "best to consider there is no God rather than there is a bad God."

I am NOT stating that earthquakes and hurricanes indicate the non-existence of God. I am saying that we have NO signs of God's goodness, which is the subject of the OP.

As I've already suggested - if you're going to dismiss more private/small-scale incidents out of hand - the best and arguably only measure of whether the reality behind our world is 'good,' bad or uncaring is to estimate whether there's more joy or more suffering.

How many days of your life have you been glad to be alive, as a percentage, compared to those you've wished you weren't? I suppose even this more joy or more suffering estimate is going to be highly subjective, and perhaps you're a pessimist who would lean towards the latter, I don't know.

For my part, I would say that this definitely is a good world with more joy than suffering, more pleasure than pain. And for what it's worth, I thank you for the opportunity to remind myself of that (being occasionally quite pessimistic myself!)

[marco]

Eh? Whatever else may be said of it, I thought this thread at least had the virtue of being an interesting and somewhat novel approach. But now it's starting to look like you were just going for yet another "no evidence for biblegod" statements of opinion. Please tell me it ain't so.


I pointed out that we're actually living in the best period of human history.

You did, irrelevantly. Your "strong case" is nothing more than baseless attribution to God.

Many of the alleged healings at Lourdes - particularly the couple of dozen which have been documented and scientifically scrutinized enough to eventually be dubbed official 'miracles' - are very much of the same sort outlined in the bible;

I concede this point with the reservation that the author of these "miracles" is not obviously God, whereas the Biblical miracles give him the honours. Lourdes falls outside of the century timeline but that's an unimportant quibble; the point you make, stated in the way you present, is a fair presentation of evidence that God acts miraculously today. The problem here is authorship; Mary is a product of Roman Catholicism and one would suppose that her appearances depends more on psychology than heaven. But the inexplicable seems to have happened and I am hardly going to oppose learned medical opinion. I don't know.

As I've already suggested - if you're going to dismiss more private/small-scale incidents out of hand - the best and arguably only measure of whether the reality behind our world is 'good,' bad or uncaring is to estimate whether there's more joy or more suffering.

How many days of your life have you been glad to be alive, as a percentage, compared to those you've wished you weren't?

Now you are returning to the question: Is the world a relatively good place? I'm afraid that is not in question. Science has brought amazing comforts - not God.
The conclusion is that some thank God for their benefits. In a life where the word IF plays an important part I am more inclined to thank chance. Others can blame chance for their misery.

You talk of the "reality" behind the world. That takes us a few steps away from God's door. I'm not averse to that proposition, but we are examining God, as a sensitive agent. If one believed in a God encompassing all, then certainly the progress humans have made is attributable to that presence. I don't see how this advances us in any way: it is rather like saying happiness is green and winter grey. The OP was about the live-and-kicking God who announces himself so vibrantly in these columns but outside, seems to be quiet.... except in the areas of Southern France and Portugal.

Thanks for your intriguing contribution. Go well.