Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

As Fry points out, there's a thing called "theodicy", the attempted squaring of the existence of an undeniably cruel world, with the circle of an infinitely beneficent deity.

The undeniably cruel world is the product of judgement. That much appears in the Bible. I'm not sure the concept "infinitely beneficent" (in the sense: "no matter what happens, I'll be beneficent") makes an appearance.

Is this not just a variation on the notion that 'omnipotent' means that God need be capable of doing anything, even squaring circles?

Fry might have a problem with judgement

Anyhow, would you like to explain how the two can be reconciled? Perhaps you will succeed where generations of the world's most profound religious thinkers have failed!

Beneficent within the bounds set by other aspects of his character. Not sentimentally beneficent, for example.

shruikan2553

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is this not just a variation on the notion that 'omnipotent' means that God need be capable of doing anything, even squaring circles?

He cant be that powerful if he cant.

The being can create an entire universe and create the rules and make changes but thats his limit?

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

He cant be that powerful if he cant.

Can't what? Act contrary to his own character. I'm not sure how that impinges on his power

shruikan2553

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can't what? Act contrary to his own character. I'm not sure how that impinges on his power

He is God, he should be able to do anything. He can create a universe, manipulate it.

If he cant what is the limit of his power?

challengemaster

antiskeptic wrote: »

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all.

Just so we're clear on this, "God":

• Is capable of being not 1 but 3 omnipotent beings all at the same time
• Made the earth (in 6 days) and populated it, and apparently heaven
• Is capable of curing: blindness, leprosy, death, etc.
• Can raise people from the dead at will
• Can turn water to wine
• Can walk on water
• Can make infinite amounts of food at will
• Can make talking animals
• Can part a sea
• Can flood the entire earth at will
• Can turn inanimate objects into a snake
• Can punish sin at will (see plagues of egypt, etc)

But no, you must be right. There must be sensible limits to these magic wand capabilities.

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

He is God, he should be able to do anything. He can create a universe, manipulate it.

He is as he is (and is powerful enough to create and manipulate a universe). There is no higher authority to say what should be the case (that isn't already).

Which is not to say you can't create a god in your own image.

Anyway, the point isn't what you reckon should or shouldn't be the case. The point is God not acting contrary to his own character permits him to be benevolent and Judge.

If he cant what is the limit of his power?

I'm not sure not being able to act contrary to character is lacking in power. Is it more powerful to be able to make square circles than not be able to?

shruikan2553

challengemaster wrote: »

Just so we're clear on this, "God":

• Is capable of being not 1 but 3 omnipotent beings all at the same time
• Made the earth (in 6 days) and populated it, and apparently heaven
• Is capable of curing: blindness, leprosy, death, etc.
• Can raise people from the dead at will
• Can turn water to wine
• Can walk on water
• Can make infinite amounts of food at will
• Can make talking animals
• Can part a sea
• Can flood the entire earth at will
• Can turn inanimate objects into a snake
• Can punish sin at will (see plagues of egypt, etc)

But no, you must be right. There must be sensible limits to these magic wand capabilities.

I knew he was a bit weak from letting Lucy walk all over him but I'm not seeing much reason to worship him.

Worship our god! He can do stuff like disapprove of your sexual activities.

antiskeptic

challengemaster wrote: »

Just so we're clear on this, "God":

• Is capable of being not 1 but 3 omnipotent beings all at the same time
• Made the earth (in 6 days) and populated it, and apparently heaven
• Is capable of curing: blindness, leprosy, death, etc.
• Can raise people from the dead at will
• Can turn water to wine
• Can walk on water
• Can make infinite amounts of food at will
• Can make talking animals
• Can part a sea
• Can flood the entire earth at will
• Can turn inanimate objects into a snake
• Can punish sin at will (see plagues of egypt, etc)

But no, you must be right. There must be sensible limits to these magic wand capabilities.

Control over the physical world could be a mere trifle in the scheme of things. Acting contrary to own character might just be impossible.

shruikan2553

antiskeptic wrote: »

He is as he is (and is powerful enough to create and manipulate a universe). There is no higher authority to say what should be the case (that isn't already).

Which is not to say you can't create a god in your own image.

Anyway, the point isn't what you reckon should or shouldn't be the case. The point is God not acting contrary to his own character permits him to be benevolent and Judge.





I'm not sure not being able to act contrary to character is lacking in power. Is it more powerful to be able to make square circles than not be able to?

What is his own character? He's a bit bipolar at times. One minute everything is fine, you eat an apple and he throws you out, after awhile he doesnt like things so factory resets and tries again but then decides to let us off with the whole fruit thing if we worship his son who is also him.

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Worship our god! He can do stuff like disapprove of your sexual activities.

Which was my original point: this is the kind of grade school level viewpoint that Stephen Fry would appear to be shielding himself with.

Sorry, but the likes of this proliferates..

shruikan2553

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which was my original point: this is the kind of grade school level viewpoint that Stephen Fry would appear to be shielding himself with.

Sorry, but the likes of this proliferates..

Its the false advertising. People are lead to believe this god is all powerful.

IamtheWalrus

Gay is getting a surprising over-reaction here. If you watch any of the other Meaning' episodes, Gay is always pulling faces at his guests answers, especially if they say something slightly controversial. I've never seen it as judgemental in the slightest. Gay would be living under a stone if he didn't know Fry is very vocal in his opposition to religion, so his reaction wasn't one of surprise at Fry's response.

His 'longest answer' quip was actually very witty and in keeping with the tone of the show (Gay doesn't question his guest's beliefs, he just wants to hear them).

If Gay was on QI and said he believed in God, then you'd see plenty of smug and condescending eye-rolling.

I'm an atheist and a somewhat fan of Fry by the way.

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fry might have a problem with judgement

The "judgement" is evil, punishing the innocent. That was Fry's whole point.

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

The "judgement" is evil, punishing the innocent. That was Fry's whole point.

Federal headship refers to the representation of a group united under a federation or covenant. For example, a country's president may be seen as the federal head of their nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world.

If Adam is a federal head of mankind then his decision brings consequences for all under that headship. There wouldn't be any innocents as such since you are not dealing with individuals - the judgement is laid upon the nation.

Take our recent bailout. Although I didn't borrow the money we've to pay back, I as an innocent, undergo the suffering laid upon the nation. And whatever you might think about the right or wrongs of our signing up for same, it is something which we sign up for as a nation or not. Not as individuals.

I'm not sure Fry is thinking beyond simple God vs. baby

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Its the false advertising. People are lead to believe this god is all powerful.

Certainly on the likes of the athiest forum you'd come to that conclusion. The sense that God can (or should be able to) do simply anything at all (anything else not-equal omnipotence) is shockingly prevalent here.

A quarter of an hour theology lesson on Wikipedia would divert you from that view but for some reason, folk seem all that interested in informing themselves.

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

If Adam is a federal head of mankind then his decision brings consequences for all under that headship. There wouldn't be any innocents as such since you are not dealing with individuals - the judgement is laid upon the nation.

An out dated and evil system. No one thinks like that any more except terrorists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take our recent bailout. Although I didn't borrow the money we've to pay back, I as an innocent, undergo the suffering laid upon the nation.

That is a false analogy. The money owed in the bail out is not punishment, nor is taxes required to pay it back punishment. You are not being punished for the crimes of the state. The idea that any innocent individual would be punished for crimes committed by a nation state is not held as moral. Even the Nazis governments were tried as individuals based on their actions. No innocent Germans were arrested and sentenced for the crimes carried out by the Germany (or if they were it was not considered a just act)

If the ECB decided to arrest random Irish individuals as an act of punishment for the actions of the "nations" fiscally irresponsible behaviour there would be up roar.

The only groups that still consider the mistreatment of innocent individuals a valid punish for the acts of nation states are terrorists groups, who will happily blow up a bus of school children in order to teach a nation such as Israel "a lesson"

I think once your benevolent deity is using the same tactics as terrorists groups you have some what lost the "God is good" argument.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure Fry is thinking beyond simple God vs. baby

I think Fry would consider your argument above to be ill conceived and a false analogy.

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

An out dated and evil system. No one thinks like that any more except terrorists.

The federal idea hasn't gone anywhere. It's everywhere.

That is a false analogy. The money owed in the bail out is not punishment, nor is taxes required to pay it back punishment. You are not being punished for the crimes of the state. The idea that any innocent individual would be punished for crimes committed by a nation state is not held as moral. Even the Nazis governments were tried as individuals based on their actions. No innocent Germans were arrested and sentenced for the crimes carried out by the Germany.

Who says the war is over? During the war the German nation was pummelled: men, women and children. And not necessarily for punishment of individuals but to bring about a particular goal: the defeat of that nation.

I'm not of the view that God is punishing an individual child with disease. Rather, mankind is at war with God and is suffering the consequences of doing battle.

Bristolscale7

The thread's first Westboro baptist has arrived

antiskeptic

"Against what, Stephen, did you calibrate your sense of what is just, evil, monsterous, stupid etc, if not something brought about and enabled by the very God you'd be standing in front of "at the pearly gates" wagging your finger at?"

How does he figure to detach himself from his diabolical Creator in order to stand above him in moral judgement?

The alternative, requiring somewhat more humility than is necessary to sustain a belief in whatever bootstrap argument arrived at if embarking on the above question, is to accept that you might well have grasped the wrong end of the stick. Occam's Razor and all that.

Certainly Stephen doesn't seem to be wrestling other than with the most basic of caricatures. Which is a bit disappointing from a man of his smarts

challengemaster

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who says the war is over?

So it's still WWII is it?

Just when you think you've heard every possible fallacy on the existence of a god....

antiskeptic

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

The thread's first Westboro baptist has arrived

Oh for 0.1 Zombrex.

antiskeptic

challengemaster wrote: »

So it's still WWII is it?

Just when you think you've heard every possible fallacy on the existence of a god....

Nothing to see here folks..

Brian Shanahan

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If god did exist, how do we know he/she/it demands worship? Because the church says so? The bible is not a valid source by the way.

That's the problem, not one single god thought up by human agency exists. Yet it was one single fictional personage who Mr. Fry was asked to give a response to. And that fictional personage is characterised as most definitely craving our worship and adoration, almost as if he were Jonesing bad for it.

Brian Shanahan

aidanleahy wrote: »

What Fry doesn't understand is that the hardships we face are a test set for us by God. We all have a different path to walk.

Fcuk it, I wasn't going to post this, but the sheer unthinking idiocy of your post persuaded me to:

Terry Pratchett, in Unseen Academicals wrote:

I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs, a very endearing sight, I'm sure you'll agree. And even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior

If god exists, how could you possibly ****ing demean yourself as to go and try and excuse his utter and absolute evilness? It is unconsionable.

antiskeptic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yet it was one single fictional personage who Mr. Fry was asked to give a response to.

It was notable how he really warmed to the task - you could see the anger he had for this fictional God. And it was God he was angry with - not the religions that propagate from God (which would be detested on other grounds).

Curious that: that you can have quite that much personal dislike, nay, hatred, for a God you don't believe in. Romans 1, the very outset of the book which details the need for and working of the gospel makes that very point;

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

guitarzero

Was Frys response really all that impressive? Has it not gotten to the point where conveying there is no god is like explaining how the planets and stars dont circle the earth? People are constantly patting this guy on the back for spouting what the vast majority already know. He just does it with a bit of eloquence and pompousness and suddenly everyone gets excited.

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was notable how he really warmed to the task - you could see the anger he had for this fictional God. And it was God he was angry with - not the religions that propagate from God (which would be detested on other grounds).

Curious that: that you can have quite that much personal dislike, nay, hatred, for a God you don't believe in. Romans 1, the very outset of the book which details the need for and working of the gospel makes that very point;

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I would have the exact same reaction as Fry if the question had been "Hypothetical scenario - You find yourself standing in front of the Emperor from Star Wars. What is your response to him?" I would have demanded to know just why he had to blow up Alderaan, etc.
Just because the character is deemed fictional doesn't mean we can't have an emotional reaction to it. After all, that's the point of literature.

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

The federal idea hasn't gone anywhere. It's everywhere.

Can you name one western democracy that uses it in the context of crime and punishment that isn't reviled for doing so?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who says the war is over? During the war the German nation was pummelled: men, women and children. And not necessarily for punishment of individuals but to bring about a particular goal: the defeat of that nation.

Yes, as you yourself say not as an act of punishment.

Fry would no doubt say that to punish an innocent child as part of a federal system of mankind, assuming such as system even exists, is evil. As evil as it would be to punish German children in WW2 for the actions of their Nazi government.

You seem to have skipped over the "it is evil bit" and go on to explain the some what convoluted set up Christians believe about the covenant between God and mankind. Can we stick with the "it is evil" bit. A covenant between mankind and God is not evil. Causing the suffering of members of that covenant through disease and parasites is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not of the view that God is punishing an individual child with disease. Rather, mankind is at war with God and is suffering the consequences of doing battle.

So cancer and parasitic worms are the "consequences" of doing battle?

Like before this analogy falls apart on examination. The allies pummeled the German home land for 2 reasons, they had no other method to stop German aggression and they wished to provoke the Germans into wasting resources attacking London.

Both of these were the acts of desperate men in desperate times. The morality of these actions is debatable, but it was precisely because England was so much on the back foot against the advanced military might of Germany that they resourced to such desperate measures that no doubt cost the lives of many innocent Germans. Historians can and do argue that German brought such actions upon themselves when they provoked a power such as England that had little choice but to fight tooth and nail for their freedom.

The idea that God is some how on the back foot against us in this "battle" of yours is ridiculous. What justification is there to say that cancer and parasites are the consequence of this battle? Who decided that was justifiable consequence of battling God (by that do you simply mean not doing what we were told?)

If England was an overwhelming military force that faced no physical thread from the Nazis and could simply walk into Germany and over throw the government there would be no debate about the morality of carpet bombing the country as they did it, as there would be not justification or excuse for such excessive force. If this vastly over powered English army decided to teach Germany a lesson by rounding up all the children and shooting them no one would say "just the consequences of starting a war with England" as if that was a moral justification. It would be evil, pure and simple.

No one would claim that this was simply the moral consequence the Germans provoking England, any more than one would expect the the moral response to shouting at a police officer to be shot to death. Such notions went out with the Romans.

stevejazzx

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not of the view that God is punishing an individual child with disease. Rather, mankind is at war with God and is suffering the consequences of doing battle.

This may be indeed be true.
I'm no expert on the flying spaghetti monster but the intricacies of its existence are not lost on me either. Religious people that write it off as an imaging are simply unaware of the vast complexity of is being. It may not exist on any material plain or even within any construct imaginable by humans however the millions of atheists that can call it up at will is surely proof of it's great cosmic interconnectivity beyond any reasonable doubt. We may not have any scientific data on it but I have great faith that millions of atheists will continue to access its great....ah screw it - that's probably enough for one rebuttal.

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not of the view that God is punishing an individual child with disease. Rather, mankind is at war with God and is suffering the consequences of doing battle.

so god thinks that giving a kid cancer is a valid response to what he sees as 'a battle' with humanity?

good luck with your god. he's an odious ****ing asshole. he has not got a single shred of honour worth worshipping.