Conversation - part 4

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

Commentary:

His second post in response to me was interesting and demonstrated that he was still trying to clarify several things. There seemed to be many misunderstandings related to my ideas. I felt that either I did not express myself well enough or that there was just a real difficulty in finding common definitions for terminology. For example, his comment about justice seems to miss my point entirely. I was not trying to express a desire or wish concerning justice but rather a larger understanding of the term in order to prove a point about the quality and scope of what we know true justice to be. Without this fuller understanding of the term, we would never need to improve our application of justice. An incomplete understanding of justice results in very poor applications of it in everyday life. Words are tricky things!

Derek wrote:

You seem to still be dodging my entire issue with the existence of hell. I understand that to raise a child, or to have a pet, etc... you have to correct them and help them learn to do the right things. However, the part I fail to understand is why eternal torture needs to be a part of this process. How does eternal damnation help a human being to grow as a person, exactly? And the only correlation that I fail to understand is that between eternal damnation and love, which is something you still haven't actually explained. Would you ever sentence your students or your children to eternal damnation for a mistake that they made? Would doing this help them grow?

I am confused about your paragraph relating to "Justice". Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it has to be true. Moreover, what's just for you might be unjust for me, so this is very subjective.

One thing I've found is that Christianity, and other such theistic religions, make it incredibly easy for con-artists with anti-science agendas to work their way in, and use their money to support the religion, infiltrate it, and teach people to deny and misunderstand science. Religion doesn't have any need for logical coherence, so this makes it a perfect platform for the people who profit from science denial. In this case it is a direct consequence of the inability to distinguish between logical and rhetorical arguments, which is again immediately derived from religions such as Christianity, and the teaching thereof. This is why I believe christianity itself is a major part of the problem, rather than just a good set of beliefs in the wrong place and wrong time. If there were no christianity, then there would be no major channels for bad information to find its way into misguided minds, let alone no misguided minds to begin with (save those from other similar religions).

Explain to me how believing in something such as materialism is dangerous, because I think I've made my case quite clear.

I haven't made the claim that we understand all about the universe because obviously we don't. I just want one of the millions of people who claim "Science can't explain the entire universe" to actually back it up, that's all. Give me an example, or explain to me why it is you have come to believe logical reasoning has limitation to what it can explain. That's all I ask, yet I never receive a coherent answer.

The bible defines faith many times, and it defines it differently than you do. In the bible it is apparent, and I can fetch verses if you want me to, that "faith" means something closer to how I chose to define it. The bible speaks of "faith" as being belief in god's existence, despite evidence not being available to confirm it.

Commentary:

This opened up a few more topics but first I had to take more time to further clarify definitions for him. I had no reason to attack any of his ideas, only to address his questions and try to provide a bit more perspective for him. There is a primary question here: Is God good or not? This seems to be the heart of our different viewpoints. If Derek is not convinced of God's goodness, then there might be no reason to accept the historical or logical evidence of His existence. Thankfully we have so much evidence in the person of Jesus and we also have evidence in the lives of those who demonstrate His love to others in the way they live.

My response:

Thanks so much for taking the time to write again. I really appreciate your thoughtful and polite engagement on these topics - quite refreshing! Unfortunately, there's too much to cover...

We're still not connecting on the purpose (or even a definition) of hell even though I am doing my best to be clear. I see that your primary concern is the "why" of hell, which shows that you believe purpose to be essential to the understanding of an idea - I'll return to this later...

But you are right, hell is not for growing! I certainly don't want to go there and I don't want anyone else to go either. That is one reason I'm having this conversation with you (and because I enjoy discussing big ideas). I do want to engage in these types of conversations every day through opportunities to serve others and to build relationships, hopefully demonstrating God's love for every person. God gives each of us the light we need to come to Him but He doesn't force anyone. You have another choice even now - what a gift!

Dangerous - you may have misunderstood my meaning. Materialism may not be dangerous for you now but, when taken to an extreme, as in the case of Dialectical Materialism, it demands violent opposition and aggression toward anyone or anything which suggests that it may be wrong. A materialistic worldview also denies the value of love, grace, hope, forgiveness, joy, and such, as meaningful or essential to human nature. Most people (to leave room for special cases) are not able to function emotionally or socially outside of a deeper meaning and purpose to life and, if you take the time to talk to those who have lived under Communism, they are not able to do so either. This brings us back to your concern with "purpose" and the question of "why" in our exchange on hell. The "why" is central to understanding anything. Materialism all but ignores this, at least from my understanding of it.

We might get some help from a debate I found this week at youtube.com/watch?v=fSYwCaFkYno -

I'm sure you can follow the arguments of both Peter and John. Even the first 20 minutes are helpful to clarify the Christian perspective on why science can't explain everything. My reduction of John's argument here is that science can and does beautifully answer "what, when and how" but is never able to really address "why" - the issue of intention. (NOTE: I don't appreciate the condescending and unkind comments toward Peter below the video. Peter is simply acting on his beliefs.)

I agree that illogical conclusions and even misguided and dangerous consequences seem to be the norm when dealing with humans like us, even with those who claim to be "free of religious beliefs". But this doesn't disqualify truth from being true. We must be careful to sort truth from error in every worldview, all of which have some elements of truth. Are you suggesting that Muslim extremists are not misguided nor dangerous? Islam is a theistic religion but with a very different worldview and understanding of god! So, there are plenty of "major channels for bad information to find its way into misguided minds"!! I'm not defending those who use Christianity as a cover or a tool to deceive and hurt others, but I'm just trying to provide you with some perspective.

You say "Religion doesn't have any need for logical coherence", but in order for something to be true, we both agree that a belief system (including yours) would have EVERY need for logical coherence. Science (meaning the natural, applied and pure sciences) must supply corroborating evidence for any theological or philosophical perspective in those areas where they have something to say. But philosophy, psychology, history, art, theology and other areas of the humanities (social sciences) make truth claims that are outside the purview of those sciences but not in opposition to them.

Logical reasoning is certainly limited to our current understanding of the world. But I sense that you still have an incomplete definition of faith. We can look at Hebrews 11 as a prime example (which you might also choose to quote in support of "belief without evidence"). Faith is not simply a set of beliefs, but rather actions that result from evidence that those beliefs can be trusted. More specifically, acting on the knowledge of a person (or idea), which we have reason to trust completely. Take a look at the examples in Hebrews 11 and you will see that each person depended on evidence, but not the type of evidence that you can test in a laboratory - rather evidence based on a relationship and knowledge that extends to realities beyond the material world. Look at the examples in John 4 and you will see I define faith correctly. We are back to the question "Is God good?" If he is, then we have every reason to trust Him and act on that trust. If not, then we should not trust him. I am convinced (in faith supported by evidence) that He is good and there is no possibility for me to become truly good outside of a growing relationship with Him which sets a pattern and purpose for all I do.

Please let me know if something is not clear or I missed an important point from your last post. In the meantime I'll try to clarify my thoughts on justice for you. Thank you Derek! It is a real pleasure to talk with you. Again, I don't have all the answers, but your questions demand a thoughtful response. There are real answers found in the person of Jesus. I would encourage you to look more closely at his life, real evidence of God's goodness and love for you.

Questions for you:

What evidence do you have of God's goodness? How do you employ both faith and reason in your understanding of God's character and activity? How should God's goodness transform your life and your interactions with others?