Why Didn’t Jesus Introduce Simple Medical Practices?

Tom,

I think the questions (original and follow-up) about germ science and hand washing reflect a high degree of cultural naivete. The person who posed the question claims that Jesus should have encouraged “Christians” to engage in the ritual ablutions of Judaism and then criticizes him for the alleged “abandonment” of the same. Well, there were not “Christians” during Jesus’s lifetime in his society, only Jews and gentiles. So when Christianity spread among the gentiles, how could it be Jesus’ fault that they did not adopt the rituals and practices of Judaism?

Alvin Plantinga talks about the phenomenon of “chronological snobbery” in regard to critiques of the societies portrayed in the Bible. I think this line of questioning is an illustration of what he has so aptly labeled.

Nonetheless, thank you for so kindly and gently addressing all sorts of questions.

Jenna –

So when Christianity spread among the gentiles, how could it be Jesus’ fault that they did not adopt the rituals and practices of Judaism?

Christianity drew extensively from Judaism – can anyone honestly deny it? Why not washing hands before and after meals, too?

BillT –

Ray is raising this issue as a tactic to take the discussion off course and diminish the excellent apologetic that was being introduced and discussed.

Is there anything I could say or do that would convince you that I meant the question sincerely?

Jenna wrote:

Alvin Plantinga talks about the phenomenon of “chronological snobbery” in regard to critiques of the societies portrayed in the Bible.

Indeed, why the knee-jerk assumption that the ancients knew nothing about antisepsis? Certainly, the Jews, Greeks and Romans understood the importance of good hygiene. They may have even used, unwittingly pehaps, remedies that had good antinseptic qualities. Our know-it-all interlocutors should do a little homework (googling) before the begin throwing around accusations.

Frankincense and the other plant-derived treasure given to the newborn Jesus in the New Testament narrative—myrrh—have a long history dating back thousands of years. Though perhaps best known for their use in incense and ancient rituals, these substances—both of which boast proven antiseptic and inflammatory properties—were once considered effective remedies for everything from toothaches to leprosy…The ancient Egyptians bought entire boatloads of the resins from the Phoenicians, using them in incense, insect repellent, perfume and salves for wounds and sores…
http://www.history.com/news/a-wise-mans-cure-frankincense-and-myrrh

Try googling willow bark and see what you come up with. It appears that ancient physicians had aspirin long before it’s discovery.

Ray @6,

Interesting Wiki reference. Even more so given that it has no citation associated with it.

As for your second link, let’s hit the meat of your argument:

“Although we can only estimate levels and trends of infant mortality prior to the most recent centuries, it seems probable that through much of human history 30 to 40 percent of all infants born died before they could celebrate their first birthdays.” [Emphases added]

I know that you have been commenting on Tom’s site for a number of years and, if you are the same Ray Ingles, have commented on First Things for even longer. In my opinion while an obviously intelligent individual, your posts tend to the garrulous and usually to argumentation from the exception instead of from the rule.

Also, no, I haven’t been stalking you. I just happen to traverse some of the same sites as you.

Implicit in the original question appears to be the assumption that (at a minimum) hygiene is important. But it would seem that the original assumption was even stronger than that: (i.e.) hygiene is more important…(than other things that might have concerned Jesus). But let’s look at the things that concerned Jesus more closely?

It would appear that Jesus believed that suffering and death (i.e., precisely those things that Ray wanted to reduce via hygiene) were very much on Jesus mind. In fact, it appears that he treated his own suffering and death as his raison d’etre (see, for example, John 12:27).

But here’s the twist: Jesus taught that suffering and death were not a platform for moral imperatives. Rather, they are a means to a new life!! (see, for example, John 12:24, Mark 8:34, and a horde of other verses). After all, we can improve hygiene and medical science all we like, but human beings suffer and die anyway.

By demonstrating that suffering and death can be the path to resurrection, Jesus made his followers conclude “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Cor 15:55) and that “our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.” ( 2 Cor 4:17)

Surely the only possible way to quibble about Jesus’ priorities is to miss the point of his ministry, teaching, and life! Instead of focusing on the “band-aid” that Ray castigates Jesus for never addressing, perhaps he should consider the CURE that Jesus provided once and for all for the entire human population — past present and future!

Doug, RE: #11

Thank you so much for this enlightening and inspiring response to Ray. The CURE! I love it.

Bringing in Clarke’s third law is doggone clever, Tom. You could’ve just left it there and dropped the mic.

Upon reflection, a lot of objections I and other atheists raise could, it seems to me, be fairly paraphrased as, “Why didn’t the God of the Bible do it this way instead of this way?”

It’s like writing Bible fan fiction.

Tom – Cute with the graphs, acting as if they measure something that you admit is “unmeasurable in any real terms” and “not historically checkable”. I’m willing to grant that “science builds on science cumulatively”, but that doesn’t mean that a simple compound-interest model captures anything real about how that progress happens. It’s also not clear that the accumulation of knowledge in general is the same as the progression of science specifically.

it’s easy to look back at earlier centuries and say, “they were doing nothing!”

Um, why are those double-quotes there? Where did I say that?

Jesus came to cleanse us from our sin, not our germs.

Jenna, Kyle –

Please keep in mind that whenever atheists ask the question “Why didn’t the God of the Bible do it this way instead of this way?” it is making the assumption that the atheist has a better plan in mind than God’s. This is what is called chutzpah.

That’s a nice sound bite, but it’s mistaken. I’m not commenting on what God said or did. I’m commenting on what people say God said or did. That’s a different thing entirely, and less fraught with logical peril.

Doug –

But it would seem that the original assumption was even stronger than that: (i.e.) hygiene is more important…(than other things that might have concerned Jesus).

Not at all. What I actually said was: “Not once in ~33 years did the opportunity arise?”

Jesus talked about showing love for the sick by caring for them. Why not nudge people toward some excellent ways of caring for them? People will still get sick, but more of them, especially infants and children, might survive.

Tom – Well then, to be very specific, I did not claim that the people of Jesus’ time knew nothing at all, medically or physically speaking, nor did I claim that they did nothing to expand that knowledge.

As has been pointed out (by me, even!) the Jewish hygiene rituals were already a decent start on things. But Christianity abandoned them, and 1500 years later Christians were noticing the difference in illness rates, and carrying out pogroms because of the difference.

In this case, Jesus didn’t even have to add anything. He could have just kept His followers from subtracting something of genuine value.

Of course, there were opportunities to go further, as I’ve pointed out, and those weren’t taken either.

Ray @ 29,

The issue isn’t that they are estimates but that your presentation does not indicate such:

“At least shaved a few centuries off the time of 30-40% infant mortality rates in the first year.”

From your linked article:

“In short, nothing so characterized levels of infant mortality in the premodern era as their variability across time and place.”

Actually, the following seems to belie your claim that SCIENCE ™ has provided any remedy for high infant morality rates:

“Indeed, late-nineteenth-century cities and industrial towns were deadly locales for infants, where 20 to 35 percent of all those born died within twelve months and where summer epidemics of gastroenteritis and diarrhea turned densely packed neighborhoods into infant abattoirs.”

Or consider the penultimate paragraph of the article:

“In sub-Saharan Africa, which each year accounts for over 40 percent of the world’s deaths of children less than five, infant mortality in the year 2000 ranged from a low of 58.8 per thousand in Kenya to a high of 130.5 in Malawi. Similarly, in western Asia, Iran had an infant mortality rate of 28.1 while neighboring Afghanistan suffered a rate of 137.5, the highest in the world. Even in the Americas, tremendous variation still exists. Only a relatively narrow stretch of water separates Cuba from Haiti, but an immense gulf exists between their infant mortality rates. In 2000 Cuba had a rate of 7.7 while Haiti had one of 96.3.”

It is not a question of religion or science but accessibility.

However, looking back at the original post, I find your invocation of blind faith to be comical:

“Just a nudge, or two, but it might have sped up the development of science by a millennium or so. At least shaved a few centuries off the time of 30-40% infant mortality rates in the first year.”

Can you please apply the scientific method to this “faith” claim?

Jesus talked about showing love for the sick by caring for them. Why not nudge people toward some excellent ways of caring for them? People will still get sick, but more of them, especially infants and children, might survive.

The “survival” that you apparently consider to be the end of the matter is temporary, but the “most excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31b) that Jesus preferred to demonstrate (Romans 5:8) was permanent (2 Cor 4:18). “Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel” comes to mind.

Doug,

[P]erhaps Ray could explain why, if Jesus could have done a better job “nudging” folk toward “caring for the sick”, Christians pretty much had a lock on “caring for the sick” for centuries?

Ray is not going to answer your question, Doug, because he has no idea what he is talking about. We know that and so does he. (But apparently he doesn’t know that we know.) So he still keeps wasting peoples time by playing his stupid little games, pretending to know what he does not know.

Tom –

I refer you back to Kyle’s observations.

And I refer you back to my reply to Kyle and Jenna – “I’m not commenting on what God said or did. I’m commenting on what people say God said or did. That’s a different thing entirely, and less fraught with logical peril.”

It is a dubious quest to seek a God who would do things the way you or I would do them. It is an even more doubtful thing to reject God because he didn’t do what you would have done.

Of course, once you accept that, literally all bets are off. Even genocide can be justified. There is nothing – literally nothing – that could possibly help you differentiate between a good God that’s beyond your understanding, an evil God that’s beyond your understanding, a purely random God, etc.

If I’m limited, then oh well. I’ll do my best with my limited resources. And if I can’t understand what God’s up to – if God literally created me too stupid to understand – then I fail to see what alternative I have than doing my best.

I see things that could have been done that seem obvious to me. I mean, hundreds of millions of babies died because people didn’t know important things. I suppose an unknowable God might take a long view, but I’m a human being and things like babies dying bother me.

And this omission is from a God that can, allegedly, put incredible subtlety and depth into the Bible. I expect such a God to have rich, synergistic effects on all levels. (Ever read ‘Contact’? The alien signal has multiple levels of meaning, in multiple dimensions.) I admit to an engineering bent, and supposedly God’s the ultimate Engineer (as well as Poet and Pastor and…), but I don’t see any level of engineering elegance in not taking even a few simple steps to help parents save infants.

toddes – I hereby explicitly grant that I’m going on (widely accepted) estimates, not data verified and recorded via time travel. I also officially grant that the rates of infant mortality have varied over a wide range over areas of the globe and over the course of history.

I still contend that we have good reason to believe that infant mortality rates are dramatically lower today than in the past, virtually everywhere in the world today, and that access to even basic elements of modern, scientifically-based medical care is the primary driver of that. (Note that I didn’t say at any point that “religion” contributed either way to infant mortality rates, so it’s not clear why you brought that up.)

BTW, the fact that “late-nineteenth-century cities and industrial towns were deadly locales for infants” doesn’t invalidate the point. Didn’t we go over, repeatedly, the fact that the growth and application of science isn’t linear and monotonically increasing?

SteveK –

Except, ya know, the understanding that God, if he is indeed that being, *must* be good and therefore *must* not be capable of evil – by definition. You’d think that this would sink in by now, Ray.

To (slightly) paraphrase Winston Churchill, “However beautiful the [theory], you should occasionally look at the results.” If your calculations come out at genocide, including potentially killing children, might sometimes be okay, then I’d argue something’s gone wrong.

Ray,
You proudly repeat the same error as if that is a virtue. It’s not. Your reply in #40 implies that *you* think that God can do evil. What’s wrong with you?

Ray @6,

“Just an emphasis on cleanliness all by itself – like washing hands before and after meals (and bathroom trips), cleaning wounds, etc. – would have done a really staggering amount of good. Especially for infant mortality rates.”

Ray @ 30,

“As has been pointed out (by me, even!) the Jewish hygiene rituals were already a decent start on things. But Christianity abandoned them, and 1500 years later Christians were noticing the difference in illness rates, and carrying out pogroms because of the difference.”

Edit: Care to substantiate that claim?

Ray @ 38,

(Note that I didn’t say at any point that “religion” contributed either way to infant mortality rates, so it’s not clear why you brought that up.)

You brought up Jewish cleanliness rituals, you brought up Christianity abandoning those rituals, how is it that I was the one who brought religion into the discussion of infant mortality rates?

Your error is in viewing the cleanliness rituals as being about hygiene instead of being about holiness. You appear to arguing some type of health and wealth gospel: Salvation through hygiene.

And this omission is from a God that can, allegedly, put incredible subtlety and depth into the Bible.

The problem is that you don’t seem to be aware of any of the subtlety, the depth or even the basic message, Ray. Or perhaps I should check myself there and instead suggest in a more charitable fashion that you are not applying your awareness to the objection.

Jesus didn’t come to make life physically life better. (Though I suppose we could hope that life would improve if we all saw each-other as children of God.) If he did seek to better physical existence then he demonstrably failed (at least in the immediate years) what with all the crucifixions and other martyrdoms that Christians endured. No, he came for something bigger: the redemption of creation itself. Believe it or not that is the claim being made.

So while I have some sympathy with your objection (as with just about any argument from evil) I also have to remember that you aren’t likely to be moved by the notion of a suffering God or by his mission to restore what is broken. And so I suspect that you are not really interested in anything the Christian message might have to say on the matter and that this is an exercise in argumentation. Therefore you focus on temporal losses (however tragic) as opposed to the eternal gains (however glorious). But please prove me wrong.

1) God’s divine nature is perfectly good.
2) God creates/allows/purposes some X.
3) Some Y follows directly from the existence of X.

Considering all the possible X’s and Y’s that we’ve seen and experienced, can we ever conclude that these have rendered #1 to be false? No. The fact of #1 is not contingent on anything, it is immutable.

Will Ray ever get this point?

Evil is our Deficiency of Being (Aquinas?) rather than some positive entity, or, as Tom noted in his recent post: Sin narrows us, makes us smaller.

All of Man’s reaches into some, any, vector other than All-Sufficiency Himself will, in the end, leave Man in his Privation, in his Fragmentation. Vacuums are, we find, contingent on some larger, wider, reality.

Our Privation:

The Whole that is the Singular/Triune Image of God is Man’s final Good. All that is less than that condition, that state of affairs is, on Scripture’s ontological definition, a deficiency of Good, or, is Evil, or, is Lack, Need, Want. The OT finds Man thusly, in the “Outside” wherein the Ceiling over his head rises, at best, to Deuteronomy 28’s fewer wars, less anxiety, more crops, less illness, and some more rain. Sound familiar? Man’s Heaven is Scripture’s Cold Outside. We are, as Tom noted, narrowed by sin, just as, we are, as Aquinas noted, deficient in being. Scripture defines the OT and the Law as something which is to be far, far exceeded, as throughout the OT God Himself speaks into Man’s consciousness of that which is yet to come, some larger reality. Though Love hates divorce, Love regulates divorce in the OT as there just is no cure short of Genesis 3’s Protoevangelium beginning His gestation’s joyful, and painful, actualization within our fractured Time and Physicality in John 3.

We are, to the end of ad infinitum, relational beings and please permit here a brief bit of imagery to – perhaps – capture Immutable Love’s topography so as to know just what it is we are speaking of when we speak of the Christian’s God: In Him we find the necessarily interpersonal in Being, in Knowing, and in Motion as all that we call Self-Other-Us ceaselessly flows in Him as we find Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self in delight timelessly pouring-out even as we find in Him Love’s Beloved Other timelessly filling-up as in reciprocity These unceasingly Beget Unity’s singular Us as in Him we find Love’s effusively Triune and thoroughly Singular E Pluribus Unum.

Knowledge inside our skulls cannot pull That into us, into Man. Knowledge is Good, a Good Tree, only, there is another Tree which Man must first fill himself with if Goodness is to be Whole, if Goodness is to be Unabridged.

This is what the skeptic cannot fathom, for he makes of Man the means and the ends, and thus Man commits himself to that which is, at best, contingent, finite, mutable. Thus there ever presses upon him that which is Non-Contingent, Infinite, Immutable. Man is thus, necessarily, narrowed, smaller, as Tom notes, or, Man is thus deficient in Being’s depth and width and height. (Aquinas?)

Knowledge in our skulls cannot help us. Law cannot help us. If I know all things, but am void of Immutable Love I am yet a vacuum. If I keep the Law perfectly, I am yet not perfect. If I trust Him perfectly, I am yet imperfect. Law, that Ministry of Death, is non-entity.

Something else is in play.

Whatever function on my end is deemed necessary will never be deemed sufficient. Faith is necessary, but cannot be found, itself, sufficient, and we find in Hebrews 11 the proof of such. Man cannot even rest in that, in “I’m counting on Him totally”. We may knock, and lean, and wait, but, should He not Open, not Pour-Out, we are without hope. Immutable Love, All-Sufficiency, must spread His arms wide, must pour-out, must pour-into, we His beloved. Any other “take” on God/Man just does end incoherent, just does miscalculate. In all Pagan gods, and in humanism, we find precisely the reverse of such ontologically necessary Means/Ends.

None of it is enough. Just as Trust in the Law yields a vacuum necessarily void of All-Sufficiency Himself, so too, Trust in Trust, Faith in Faith, leaves Man, leaves In-Sufficiency, still in a vacuum necessarily void of God, void of All-Sufficiency. It is not our own motions within commission and omission, nor our own trusting, for all such vectors begin and end within In-Sufficiency. No. It is All-Sufficiency Himself Who must motion, for any vector which does not begin and end within Him cannot bring all-sufficiency.

All vacuums are, themselves, contingent, and our deficiency of Being is that state of affairs wherein we find the non-entity of Man-In-God, God-In-Man, Amalgamation, E Pluribus Unum. In Christ, and nowhere else that we’ve ever seen, we find such vectors streaming into Man’s consciousness.

In-Sufficiency, no matter what it does, cannot pull All-Sufficiency into itself. No. All-Sufficiency must pour-out, must empty, must, by debasement, come down, and fill-up In-Sufficiency. The vacuum void of Love Himself must be filled-up with, simply, All-Sufficiency Himself. All else is but the Cold Outside. From the Timeless Immaterial to the bitter ends of Time and Physicality all these lines seamlessly cohere, and therein we find the incoherence of the short-sighted question, “Why must Timeless Love pour Himself out within Time and Physicality?” There is only “One Actuality” and thus all definitions must ever find their contextual milieu within the One Actuality.

In the only Actuality that there is, the Means justify the Ends:

How Love ransoms us is by both a necessary and a sufficient means, and, we find, God’s Means are God’s Ends. In Love’s Ontology we find that the Means actually do justify the Ends, just as we find that the Ends actually do justify the Means, for, neither the Means nor the Ends are Man, whereas, All-Sufficiency Himself, Love Himself, is both our Means and our End.

The Outside, or, the Dark, or, Hell, is Man’s Self in Privation, is Man as the means, Man as the ends, for, whatever is outside of that Singular/Triune E Pluribus Unum is, on ontological necessity, “love-less-ness”, and, therein, we find Man’s Isolated-I, that fierce imprisonment within the Self, void of Other, and, thereby, void of the singular-Us. From such privation, isolation, we discover that God, that is to say, E Pluribus Unum, that effusively singular, that unquestionably triune Self-Other-Us, rescues us.

All-Sufficiency pours out, is Himself debased, seeks not His Own but instead His Beloved Other, and In-Sufficiency finds himself thereby filled up, and is therein Glorified and in all vectors such that should he look above his head or beneath his feet or within his chest he finds, in all regressions, All-Sufficiency Himself. God-In-Man, Man-In-God. Incarnation’s inescapable geography of amalgamation of Timelessness and Time, of Word and Corporeal.

The Good News is that Man is not some god’s means to some cosmic tyrant’s ends, but that, rather, Immutable Love Himself makes of Himself both our Means and our End.

Only in the Ontology of Immutable Love do the Means justify the Ends, and the Ends the Means.

In Christ we find the fully articulated summation of such Means, of such Ends, for Uncreated Love therein becomes Man’s all in all. In Christ we find the most complete, most robust, most forceful manifestation of the Unchanging God, Who just is Love. In Christ we find Love’s ten thousand strong vectors seamlessly, effortlessly converging, ad infinitum, as there is no story on Earth that is like this one whereby we find Love’s topography fully manifested, that landscape of His effusively Triune and thoroughly Singular E Pluribus Unum from A-to-Z.

Tom –

Ray, could you describe for us what you consider to be a good summary of the answer that we are giving you for your question?

That Jesus was far more concerned about people’s souls than their bodies. Anywhere close?

Doug – If you want my position on abortion, see here.

Ray @ 51,

“If you like, here’s another.”

From the linked article:

“The official Church position during the Black Death was on the whole pro-Jewish. More than one pope – Boniface, Innocent and other popes (about four had to really contend with the problem) — issued proclamations that the Jews were not at fault and should be protected. The way to salvation did not lie in the destruction of the Jews.”

Aside from the fact that there is not a single reference provided in the whole article, the gist of the article was that it was mob mentality not official church teaching that resulted in the Jewish persecution. The same holds true of your original Wiki link: mob mentality.

“It wasn’t that early Christianity discouraged hand-washing and such, it’s that it failed to encourage it.”

I didn’t realize that the Bible was meant to be a SCIENCE™ book. Again, salvation through hygiene.

Obviously, hygiene is of much greater import compared to the sins of the “sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers.”

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him follows proscribed cleanliness rituals should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him hand-washing.

I was just thinking that! Dare I suggest that it’s an insurmountable problem?

Conclusion: Therefore there is no God.

Ray @ 30,

“But Christianity abandoned them, and 1500 years later Christians were noticing the difference in illness rates, and carrying out pogroms because of the difference.”

Ray @ 59,

“You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. At no point did I claim that Christianity, or Christian leaders, encouraged pogroms..”

Keep moving the goalposts.

You still haven’t answered why basic hygiene is of greater import than those actions which actually separates humanity from God (i.e. sin)?

“And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

So, Ray, if Jesus had actually commanded Gentiles to continue to follow the ritual cleansing acts of the Jews, would that have convinced you that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, or would you have just found another reason to refuse Him?

toddes –

So, Ray, if Jesus had actually commanded Gentiles to continue to follow the ritual cleansing acts of the Jews, would that have convinced you that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, or would you have just found another reason to refuse Him?

It wouldn’t have resolved the problem of evil for me. That’s pretty fundamental. But signs that Jesus had access to more information about the structure of the world than a first century carpenter would certainly give me pause.

If you are, or have contact with, the Architect of the Universe, it seems to me it ought to show. But I’ve never run into a religion that seemed to be founded by someone like that. Indeed, rather the opposite – much of the time, when any religion makes any kind of scientific claim, it’s at best vague and at worst flat wrong.

Doug – Sure, people didn’t think scientifically back then. But let’s take something simple, like the order of creation in Genesis. Why does it specify the Earth was created before the stars? That flowering plants came before animals, especially water-dwelling ones?

Those and more are just plain wrong. Sure, science doesn’t know everything yet, and we could have some details wrong in our general picture. But it’s hard to imagine how we could be wrong about the order of those things. So why does the Bible get it wrong? Why didn’t any religion get it anything like right?

Would people not have believed that Genesis was the word of God if it had specified the correct order? If so, why?

toddes –

Oh right, these are miracles, which by Your fiat are not possible and so cannot be used as evidence that Jesus was the Creator of the Universe. But if He had prescribed hygiene practices that would have sealed the deal.

Nope. Being able to violate the ‘rules of the game’ is one thing, but another is knowing the details of the rules themselves. Maybe an analogy will help.

There’s a class of computer games called “Roguelikes”, based on the original game Rogue. Rogue is about the first ‘dungeon crawler’ – the player has to traverse a dungeon full of monsters and traps and magical items and weapons and such. The actual layout and content is semi-randomly generated and different every time, though. A pink potion in one game might be helpful potion of healing, and in the very next game a potion of hallucination. Also, the game doesn’t tell you which weapons do the most damage – you have to figure that out by experience. Players ‘die’ a lot. Survival requires both luck and skill.

The problem domain is large enough to be interesting but small enough to be tractable – and has been a target for machine learning. Some programs play lots of games and work out the rules over time. They can get as good as the best human players.

I still play a handheld version, iRogue, from time to time. Took quite a while to work out that the katana does the most damage, followed by the claymore, followed by the two-handed sword, etc.

Of course, if you can peek at the source code, you can tell right away which weapons have the best stats. There’s no need for you to explore and experiment. You’d be close to an optimal player even without changing the program itself.

If our universe were like a computer simulation – rules-based, but the Programmer could alter whatever It likes with a Debugger – then sure, the Programmer could do miracles. But the Programmer would also know details of the rules that mere agents in the system – us, in the analogy – hadn’t figured out yet.

So when I say a religion “ought to show” “contact with the Architect of the Universe”, I’m not really talking about miracles. (Actually, I’m not so fond of miracles as a sign of the divine – messing with the design post facto is a sign the design wasn’t complete from the start.) I mean that it should show unparalleled knowledge of the universe’s normal operation, at minimum. Miracles are an optional extra.

Ray,

I would expect the work of such a being to be perfect on all levels.

Several AT folks have been drumming this into your head for a long time now, so one more time shouldn’t hurt.

Perfection, in the way you are using the term, is identical to God. God is goodness itself, love itself, etc. You’ve read Feser. Look up Divine simplicity. You don’t have to agree with the explanation, but that doesn’t mean an explanation hasn’t been provided.

SteveK –

You don’t have to agree with the explanation, but that doesn’t mean an explanation hasn’t been provided.

Actually, no, it hasn’t. At most, there’s a claim that if I study Aquinas enough, there will be an explanation. No concrete references, not even an outline of an argument, just claims that I don’t understand. Even if it’s true that I ‘just don’t understand’, the only thing that would help that would be answering questions.

Tom –

Why did Jesus come?

“[T]o seek and to save that which was lost”. To redeem humanity from sin and (spiritual) death.

Now, I’ll just refer back to #61.

Ray,

At most, there’s a claim that if I study Aquinas enough, there will be an explanation. No concrete references, not even an outline of an argument, just claims that I don’t understand. Even if it’s true that I ‘just don’t understand’, the only thing that would help that would be answering questions.

Huh? If you’ve read Feser, as you tell us you have, then you have been given an explanation of, and an argument for, essence and existence being identical.

So to say that knowledge (in that sense) is identical to power (in that sense), etc. does seem unintelligible. But that is simply the wrong way to understand the doctrine of divine simplicity. Properly understood, the doctrine does not say that power, knowledge, goodness, essence, existence, etc., as they exist in us, are identical. Rather, it says that there is in God something that is analogous to power, something analogous to knowledge, something analogous to goodness, etc., and that these “somethings” all turn out to be one and the same thing. “Power,” “knowledge,” “goodness,” etc. are merely different, analogously used descriptions we use in order to refer to what is in God one and the same reality, just as (to borrow Frege’s famous example) the expressions “the morning star” and “the evening star” differ in sense while referring to one and the same thing (the planet Venus).

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html

StevK –

Rather, it says that there is in God something that is analogous to power, something analogous to knowledge, something analogous to goodness, etc., and that these “somethings” all turn out to be one and the same thing.

Which makes understanding It, or making any predictions about It, completely impossible, right? C.f my contention in the linked discussion that something atemporal could not in any intelligible sense be termed ‘conscious’.

But let’s be careful here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re defining God’s perfection as “completeness” rather than “optimality”, right?

@Ray Ingles:

And all I get in return is references to the first and last paragraphs of H’s comment, which say that atheists are “damaged”, and shouldn’t resort to straw men.

Stop it, you are not speaking the truth.

In #6 to substantiate your whining you link to another thread which is a perfect example of why — and I am going to speak for myself only — discussing with you is a frustrating exercise. So the discussion with me went something like this (a couple of steps missing):

(1) Ray Ingles links to an essay showing that it is perfectly possible to ground morality without bringing God into the picture.

(2) G. Rodrigues congratulates Ray Ingles on finally seeing the truth of what those “AT guys” are saying.

(3) Ray Ingles disavows the AT premises that substantiate the grounding of morality.

(4) G. Rodrigues then points out that, quite obviously, it does Ray Ingles no good to appeal to a self-consciously AT grounding of morality; Ray Ingles has to make his case.

(5) Ray Ingles just defers to the linked article; the exact words were “I’ll let Miller do it for me, if you don’t mind.”

(6) Ray Ingles has is feathers ruffled up because G. Rodrigues is just in it for “the amusement”.

(7) Ray Ingles whines about G. Rodrigues not answering questions.

(8) In response to (7) and what issued it, G. Rodrigues points out the Fifth Way.

(9) Ray Ingles asks “Where can I see an argument that a per se infinite regress is impossible that doesn’t rest on the assumption (or intuition, to be as generous as possible, though I don’t share it) that a per se infinite regress is impossible?”

(10) G. Rodrigues points out, *among other things*, that the Fifth Way nowhere relies on the impossibility of per se infinite regresses.

(11) Ray Ingles, addressing *none* of the points made, responds “With you, I’m not starting with the Fifth Way. I’m starting rather more fundamentally than that, because it’s something that genuinely puzzles me. You’ve never been willing to answer questions about it, but I’m really asking real questions, not rhetorical ones.”

No further response from G. Rodrigues.

Whatever faults I may have — and they surely are many, some of them I am even conscious of — the fact is that, looking back, I wonder why the hell did I humored your crap as much as I did.

But I was asking questions, not arguing. I was pointing out things I don’t follow, and why.

Some of your questions are quite dumb — I mean “Which makes understanding It, or making any predictions about It, completely impossible, right?” (slaps forehead) — so yes, the proper suggestion is RTM.

Melissa referred me to Aquinas, that’s all.

As far as I remember, Feser does not discuss the transcendentals. I have no good references on them btw, so do not bother asking for them.

Melissa – That’s much more useful, thanks! My Google-fu is pretty good, but not with Google Books, evidently. I’ll look it over.

G. Rodrigues – There’s problems with most of the steps, though (3) and (11) stand out. (11) is there because we have a history, and I was referring to things you hadn’t answered before. Why should I have to address all your points if you won’t address mine? As to (3), that’s you not understanding what I’m saying. Even on naturalism, the section I quoted of Miller is coherent. Note the last three sentences in particular.

And, again, you assert that my questions are “dumb”, and throw a general reference out (or, indeed, grant that you’re not giving me any reference at all). Even if you were correct, such an answer is of zero utility to me. Though it might serve to make you feel superior or something, so it’s got that much going for it, I suppose.

@Ray Ingles:

You want to know how your rendering sounds to my internal ear? Horrible, just plain horrible. Are you sure we are talking about the same book (*)?. Just read it again and pay attention (to the book, not to me). Here are three hints:

(1) Final causes are causally eficacious.

(2) Only what is in act can be causally eficacious.

(3) Aquinas is not a Platonist.

(*) Actually, I have read “Aquinas” only once and since at the time I read it I already knew a not inconsiderable portion of the material I sped through it, so my memory of the book is a little hazy.

note: Prof. Feser gives a more formal treatment in his “Existential inertia” paper, but I do not recall if the paper is available online (I think not).

SteveK –

But given what was said above, it is impossible for anything to be directed towards an end unless that end exists in an intellect which directs the thing in question towards it.

Right, but when I look “above”, I see: “Consider those cases where goal-directedness is associated with consciousness…”. He describes a case, a house in the mind of an architect – ‘here’s an example of a final cause existing in an intellect’ – but I do not see an argument that that’s the only possible way for something to be “directed towards an end”.

In the case of a house in the mind of an architect, I suppose that’s true. But it’s not at all clear to me that an oak tree must exist in any sense – especially as an idea in some intellect – for an acorn to produce one.

A bit earlier than that, Feser says “even a simple physical phenomenon like the attraction between two particles would suffice for [Aquinas’] purposes.” Two particles can attract each other, but why does this need an idea in an intellect to make this happen? They might collide, or settle into an orbit, but why does the future collision or the orbit have to exist in any sense for them to attract each other in the present?

An oak tree is more complicated than the collision of two particles, but I don’t see the difference in principle. A quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. So help me out, explain it to me in the simple case of two particles attracting one another. Why does that require an “intellect which directs”? Or, where is that covered in Aquinas?

I was talking to SteveK, not you, in that response, G. Rodrigues.

To you, I would ask for some expansion of point 1. While I can see how a final cause could be efficacious as an idea in an intellect, I don’t see why an intellect must be involved for something unconscious, like two particles attracting.

Google is, for the nonce, reluctant to cough up the pages involved from Aquinas, though I’ll see what can be done, or perhaps arrange an interlibrary loan at some point. It’d save time if you could summarize, but I confess to doubting you’d do so.

Ray,
We’re looking to explain the existence of final causes. We agree that they do exist because undirected causes wouldn’t explain the maintained regularity/order we see in nature. Naturalists like to refer to this maintained regularity as being the result of physical laws, but those laws, as causal forces, must exist somewhere in reality – existing now, today.

We know that the intellect exists and that it has the ability to maintain regularity/order. Where else in the nature would you like to put these final causes – these physical laws?

I didn’t realise you were a nonce, Ray.

Ray, please don’t take this the wrong way, but why don’t you take conversation to Feser’s blog? He has been mentioned here often and I would think that you would stand a better chance of “getting it” over yonder.

@Billy Squibs:

He has been mentioned here often and I would think that you would stand a better chance of “getting it” over yonder.

Whatever the suitability of the advice, Ray was already there.

Yeah, I’ve seen Ray there in the past. Whether Feser responds or not, there are more than enough knowledgable Thomists knocking around his blog to engage with.

Melissa –

Is the existence of an electron in a particular place and time contingent?

Was I talking about the existence of electrons, or the nature of their properties?

They could be thought of as connected to the way God thinks.

Which implies that, if God thought differently, then 2+2 could equal something other than 4. And I’m sorry, I just can’t see that. ‘Two’ as understood in mathematics, and ‘plus’ as understood in mathematics, leads to 2+2=4, period – no matter who might think differently.

Billy Squibs – There are better ways to make such a joke. You didn’t have to phrase it as actually saying “I didn’t realize you were a [child molester]”. How about “Who do you know who’s a nonce?” or “Probably not just for a nonce,” or “I doubt Google discriminates against nonces”, or even, “Not just one nonce, surely”.

Instead, you went for the maximally insulting version. Apparently none of the alternatives even occurred to you. Or did it really not strike you that linking someone to child molestation might not be suitable for a joke? I’ve been to the U.K. and Ireland several times; I didn’t find that social norms differed that much.

And Tom should have read your comment, since I reported it via the contact form. We’ll see if he ever responds.

Let’s just say that Kennedy did misspeak and say I am a doughnut. That wold have been funny.

You referred to yourself a nonce, Ray. I merely ran with this and informed you about the other meaning. It is the same meaning that readers from the UK and Ireland would likely have first thought of when reading your comment. Indeed, I had to look several times and do some research before I found out that it had another meaning and it wasn’t a spell check error.

My joke wasn’t intended to be “maximally insulting”, Ray. Though I think you are going to take it that way no matter what I say. But perhaps you will accept my apology for the hurt this has caused. (I don’t apologize for the joke itself because no malice was intended.) Tom can see fit to delete the associated comments if he chooses.

Take a seat and steady yourself, Ray.

Yes. I am seriously telling you that. As I seriously told you in comment #101 and again in comment #106.

Read up and you’ll see I did no such thing.

I realise that. Hence my attempt to make a humorous statement.

That means “for the time being” and has since the 13th century

Read down to the comments section in your own link and you will see exactly what I mean.

Billy Squibs –

I realise that

So why did you just say – direct quote – “You referred to yourself a nonce, Ray”? You could have said something like, “I chose to deliberately misinterpret what you said as referring to yourself as a nonce.”

Screw it. I’ll assume you don’t really communicate well with the written word and write it off as a loss.

Melissa –

Electrons are contingent, so are any properties they have.

What part of Aquinas establishes that? Existence isn’t a property. ‘Contingency’ needn’t apply to properties the same way. Or so it seems to me, but if there’s a converse argument I’d like to see it.

Besides which, it’s not clear to me that the existence of mass-energy is contingent. The conservation laws have been pretty darn good descriptions of what we’ve seen; we’ve never seen it created or destroyed. Mass-energy meets what experimental criteria we could ever come up with for something eternal.

It implies nothing of sort.

Well then I’ll need some elaboration of what the “connection” between the way God thinks and the existence of such truths is. I can see how thought could recognize such truths, but not any way it could make them true.