|
Carico -> RE: Why Won't God Heal Amputees/Ten Questions (7/24/2008 10:25:34 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eric B
It seems no one has discussed this here. At least, I did a search for both titles, and didn't find anything.
www.whywontgodhealamputees.com He also has a YouTube video.
After seeing this, and remembering the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" mockery that surfaced after the ID debates, I sometimes feel ready to shake the dust off my feet.
Anyway, here is a response.
On the site, one question that stood out was "who is this guy? Where is he coming from? What is his agenda?" (because it is certain that there must be one, if religion needs so badly to be invalidated and removed).
There is absolutely no clue on the site, and the contact info is an anonymous e-mail address.
It was on the site's blogs that people were also asking this, and then one person pointed out that is was Marshall Brain, who also does the howstuffworks site. On that site you can find a link to Brain's own site, but on neither do you find anything about WWGHA. It's on the Wikipedia article on Brain that you can find that he is behind both HSW and WWGHA. You right away wonder why he would try to hide behind anonymity like that. Just what is he up to? It also mentions that he is into a science known as "transhumanism", which will aim to learn how to grow body parts, and thus truly "heal amputees". So it starts to become evident that this is his agenda. On the Amputees site, you do see what his ultimate goal is, and that is a "real Heaven On Earth" as opposed to the "imaginary" Heaven of religion he takes such pains to debunk. Science and "new social structures" replacing the "delusion" of religion are what would create this world of peace, where man would evolve to possibly live forever or at least, much longer than he does now.
So NOW it becomes clear what this assault on religion is about. The agenda is a utopian vision! God cannot heal amputees because He is imaginary, but we can, one day! So religion then is impeding progress to this brave new world, such as [supposedly] fostering bigotry and opposing cloning and stem cell research, which are repeated themes of his "questions" that only make sense if God is imaginary.
Unfortunately, religion, especially Christianity, has brought a lot of this on ourselves, for one, by arguing issues like this that the Bible is totally silent on (even in principle. Cloning is nothing but a genetic duplicate of physical flesh. Where does one even get any sense that you're duplicating the soul, which seemed to be the primary fear regarding cloning?)
He also NAILS us on the ridiculous responses we come up with to justify our beliefs. Most notably "we can't understand what God is doing" or "maybe God is testing the person who does not get healed". It's all the stuff I have been concerned about over the years. All this time, we walk away thinking we have answered the questioners, but all we have done is deflected the questions. And now it's going to come back to bite us.
Christian responses were basically predictable. The first one I come across is CalvinDude, which uses the occasion to take repeated swipes at Arminianism. Only Calvinism can answer these questions, because only Calvinism "takes sin seriously". Yet Calvinism is the epitome of what Brain is talking about. With its much prided "hard doctrines about God", which naturally raise more "why" questions, Calvinism more than any other doctrine has as its only recourse, the "we just can't understand God's plan" response. But it should be becoming clear with this that the world is fed up with bold assertions that cannot be backed up, and thus rely exclusively on deflectionary tactics.
The site also appears to take the Lordship approach in judging others by denying that all the divorcing Christians are really Christians. And this, using superficial criteria such as church attendance and Bible reading. But many of the people being referred to do both things.
The other sites I saw used typical clichés such as "all the lives that have been changed", "God heals us by making us cope with the problems instead of removing them" and "everyone knows inside that it's true; that's why they're only picking on Christianity" (which is not true, as Brain is attacking all religion). But all of this was answered on Brain's page, and thus fits right into his caricature of Christians!
While Brain thinks he has finally come with the ultimate refutation of God, his vision faces the same ontological problem as all other utopian schemes. It is predicated on getting people "educated" and changing their views, as well as getting along in peace and harmony, as all utopian visions desire. (And also making religion the main scapegoat, like if we could just get rid of that, then our Heaven On Earth will arrive).
Problem is, how does he plan on accomplishing this? He even gives us a neutralized version of the Ten Commandments, as well as steps to achieve this future paradise. Yet, after making such an argument that we are nothing but chemical processes, and even that the "soul" is "imaginary". What he fails to take into consideration is man's natural proclivity to act and act on the premise of "What's In It For Me?" If we just live 80 or so years and then cease to exist, then most people will be more concerned with "getting mine while I'm here" and by any means necessary, after all, "you only have one shot", and not the future. For most people, what good will it do to build some paradise that they won't be around to see? I'm Man's first focus is on his own immediate temporal existence, and not all will have this hope for the future. And how does he plan to get all people out of their religion? Many may be convinced by his reason, but of course, not all. Now, if you heatedly identify it as so "dangerous" and important that the "delusion" be addressed and eliminated, because it's such an impediment to progress, then what should be done about it? Perhaps some sort of "push"; maybe through legislation? Or maybe worse. Brain may not advocate persecution, but he cannot answer for everyone who comes after him, or even those who might join his cause now, with the common goal of eradicating religion. Especially when religion is made the "bad guy" of the world. Then, all sorts of measures will seem justified to people; "for the greater good".This is why utopian schemes have always ended up producing just as much violence, even with their oft cited referrals to slavery and the Crusades, and now, 9-11 as the horrors of religion.
This goes to support the notion that man falls short --even of our own utopian goals. We have high ideals and aspirations that we don't live up to. Where do these come from?
He also assumes to have disproven an afterlife, but has not explained how a "combination of chemicals" creates a conscious entity.That's what he would need to answer to support his conclusion that there can be no more existence as an entity once the chemical proceses of the body cease. All it means at best is that you can no longer receive sensory signals from the physical realm. But 'what' is it that does the "receiving" in the first place? Likewise, naturalism has never explained where the laws of nature that guided the supposed evolution of the universe and life came from. In one debate I had, the anti-ID crowd admitted that, and tried to throw it off onto a whole other theory called abiogenesis.
So with all of the logical argument, we still have an underlying agenda, which generates a lack of objectivity. Brain "needs" for God to be imaginary, for his agenda to work. But this skews the logic, as we see in these assumptions and fallacies.
Sorry but Calvinists are the only ones who do understand God's plan! That's because we believe and understand Romans 8:20 and 11:32 and Arminians don't. [;)]
|
|
|
|