This blog is in response to a philosopher named Stephen Law:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/intellectual-black-hole.html
You've convinced me Mr. Law. There is an evil God of hate.You arguments are sound, in that you are taking the general arguments of theists, who themselves only have a small grasp of the God they believe in, and applying them equally to an evil God. Just as effectively, I might add. Since it is possible to apply the same agruments equally to both a good and an evil God, your are stating that the argument is illogical, therefore neither a good or an evil God exist. At least, this is my understanding of your argument.
I propose an alternative explanation...Both arguments are true. There exists, simultaneously, an evil and a good God. There are rules dictating what each God is allowed to do (which might fly in the face of traditional views of God as omnipotent. This is obviously not compatible with the idea of a loving God and the mess we see around us. In the same way, an omniscient God is incompatible with free will), rules we can call 'universal principles'. The insane evil we see around us is not a result of the good, kind, and loving God, but the evil, deranged, and hating God. Both god's must also allow for human free will, bringing in the third player, the individual. Each action is a decision by the individual, but influenced by the efforts of both good and evil.
For example: you say "“Ah, but you are taking me far too literally. When I say God is evil, I don’t mean what we normally mean by 'evil' but something far deeper and ineffable, so that his transcendental evilness is really, in some mysterious way, compatible with these things you consider good.” This is a mirror image of a believer's argument that would go something like this "The evil you see in this world is actually good, in that it is part of the divine plan of God, so these evil things are compatible, in some mysterious way, with a kind, loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God." This argument is flawed in both situations, which is why the existance of both gods resolves the problem. The good things are from the good God, the bad things are from the bad God.
Another argument you mention is "So there are good reasons why we struggle to recognize his existence, or even make sense of him." This is true for both gods. I am proposing, however, that the reasons are different that what most people argue. Many Christians think that understanding God is beyond our ability. One reason for this is that most people, Christians and Muslims alike, only have a very basic understanding of God. They don't actually have a first hand experience with God, only second hand experience and what Maslow called 'peak experiences'. They then conclude that the kind of personal relationship they have with real people is impossible with God. I believe they are wrong. I think the reason that we struggle to recognize the existance of both gods is that in order to have the qualities of a god, both gods must be immaterial. In order to survive from generation to generation without deteriorating, they must exist of something non-material, since all material things eventually deteriorate.
Even so, I believe human beings have the ability to experience non-material phenomenon. In other words, it is possible to engage in communication with God in a way that is equal to the kind of communication we have with other people. It just isn't easy...
In fact, I know people personally who have seen and experienced non-material phenomenon. These close friends and family have talked with people who have passed away, seen visions, and have had other such 'spiritual' experiences. All of these people are completely normal and functional in everyday life. It seems almost impossible to me that they are lying or that they are partially insane.
In conclusion, I think it is possible to know God. I just think most people don't. I think a few do. I think these few try to educate the rest of us on how to get to the point where we can also know God. I think this is what Jesus, Muhammad, and other great religous leaders were trying to do. I think people, with their limited knowledge, have often misunderstood these great leader's teachings, and also have misunderstood the nature of God. In so doing, they've also misunderstood the nature of Satan.
I believe in a suffering God. A God who cannot intervene on the suffering of His children because of the free will he granted them. The evil and pain we see around us is not a part of some mysterious plan to save a few of us, but a tragedy that breaks God's heart every single second of every single day. This God does everything within His power, in accordance with His own universal laws, to lead us back towards an ideal society. Satan does everything within his power to stop this. Satan spreads ignorance and confusion, and religions are not immune from this. Which is why religions have constantly had to be reformed throughout history.
Athiests help this process. Their critiques and frustrations help break down the ignorance of the religous community, forcing them to rethink their faith and try something new. Athiesm, however, will never destroy religion.
"By such means, it is possible to construct an impregnable fortress around ones belief system, rendering it utterly immune to any sort of rational criticism." Actually, that is impossible. No one is immune to rational criticism. Some people are just very very resistant to it. Including a lot of atheists I know...
"Occasionally, one of these little bubbles will grow huge, perhaps encompassing an entire civilization (like Islam, or Christianity), before dividing or deflating or popping or being subsumed by another bubble."
This is a funny statement, since neither Christianity nor Islam have really 'divided', 'deflated', 'popped', or have been 'subsumed by another bubble'.
That's my two cents for now.
-Youngil Ely Loew
