My Response To My Dad's Response Part 1

My dad responded to my post about God and my thoughts on him, which in itself was a response to my friend's post. Click here if you have no clue what I'm talking about, and read that post first.

This is part 1 of 2 because I felt that giving you all the information in one post would prove confusing. So in part 1 is his response, which he gave me via e-mail, and in part 2 is my response back to him, [which I will also prolly e-mail him and my friend too XD].

Before I give you his reply, let me clear this up. I just copied and pasted both my post and my friend's post, and he assumed that I posted both. So what he had to say in response may have confused you had I not cleared that up because he quotes both her and I as if it's just me. So to clear this up even more, I've color coded everything. The text in darker red is her words, while the text in green is mine. His words are in blue. Here's what he had to say in reply to both our blog posts:

I think your thinking is very sophisticated, and thought out. I respect it and appreciate it, that is a gift not many people have - to think, because it is hard work - but its real too and worth it. I am proud of you.

I think I find almost 80-85% agreement with your post. One of the most appreciateive things Dad has found in life is others willing to tell me where they think I could use some additional comment and thought. A couple parts are unrefined so I am not sure what your thought currently is. And a couple I might disagree with I'll tell you why.

"So I've been doing a lot of thinking about belief and God lately. As many people know, I'm very confused if there is a God or not, or if he is there for me or not. In my head I can't see how a God could let such crap happen to so many people, not once but over and over and over again in their lives."

You might know this, but what you're referring to is called "theodicy" or the problem of Evil and the Problem of Suffereing. It has been debated, discussed, and thought over for ever, Plato gave a dilemma called the "Euthyphro dilemma" you could read about. These are two of the most difficult problems the philosophy of religion has ever encountered - real love, objective moral values, the existence of real evil and some mystery are the answers I have accepted - althought this problem never recedes from our minds needing to give it the upmost respect just as you have.

"...Nor will I call myself a 'Christian' because that name has a bad rep, and most Christians are hypocrites."

You shouldn't try to tackle the question of Christianity until you have settled on the matter of "God" so this is OK. Your reasoning for accepting or rejecting Christianity will based on the reasoning you have accepted regarding God. You should reject Christianity for better reasons than what others have done to its reputation and how others have behaved. Whether Christianity is true or not - there are better reasons for accepting or rejecting it. Christianity's theology itself believes that people will act and behave just as you have pointed out because we are fallen and broken. Christianity askes what we ought or can do about that.

"I believe the universe has been here forever - not beginning, nor ending."

This could be true. The cosmological argument for the existence of God if presented at its strongest is a very strong argument and you should make yourself aware of it. Also, mainstream science, cosmology and astrophysics has poovided very strong evidence for what is called a singularity of the beginning of our universe, a beginning that there was no material, space, nor time prior to it. There are speculative theories presently in vogue called string theory that inslude the possibilities of multiverses or bubble universes that proceeded ours that could be considered without beginning or end but recently scientific findings have even refutated that idea. Even these universes would have to have a beginning. You would at least want to learn about these ideas.

"I don't believe the Creator has any standards it wants us to live by, and if it does then it must have embedded them into our lives as it is by giving us something such as moral values."

This is the question of objective morality vs. subjective morality and nihilism. Do there exist objective moral values (it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering - objective?) or are our moral values intuitions similar to our tastes in fine food, i.e. subjective? If they are subjective is there real meaning and purpose in life that isn't just our own subjective creation (nihilsim?). These are indeed grand and important questions. I believe the holocaust was objectively immoral that it was really wrong, not just a subjective opinion of a majority or people, not distasteful, not unfortunate, not in my opinion, but rather really, objectively, evil. That forces me to believe in evil and our innate ability to intuit it - a something that is real 'out there' something that exists. That leads me to believe morality, even if we struggle to get it perfectly right, is indeed innate, and our intuitions are what philosophers call 'veridical' to a real world. I don't think we live in a nihilistic world, I think we live in a moral and purposeful one - but that has rich meanings for other things we believe.

I would be happy to bounce critical ideas to help you refine your thinking if you want to e-mail further posts.

I love you, Dad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2 coming soon - link will be provided when it's finished!