Proof of a God of Love?

by rocketman 3 Replies latest jw friends

  • rocketman
    rocketman

    Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column (now found at NFL.com) occasionally tackles subjects other than football, since Easterbrook is a religion writer as well. In this week's column, Easterbrook maintains that the human body's release of large quantities of endorphins upon death is proof that there is a benevolent God.

    He writes that God is sparing us from an unpleasant, horrible experience by such action, and that Darwinian evolution has no explanation for such an occurance. He reasons that a pleasant feeling at death has no evolutionary advantage over an unpleasant feeling upon dying.

    I won't argue the point either way here other than to say that if Easterbrook is correct, then God created us to die. Why else would He incorporate such a feature in humans? One could argue though that humans were not originally created to die but rather that the introduction of sin into the human family brought about death. In that case, God would have had to somehow alter human makeup in respect to the release of endorphins after He sentenced humans to die.

    Another question that does pop into my mind is this: could this release of endorphins be a response to many milleniums of human death experience, an adaptation developed over time as humans formed rituals and beliefs connected with the death experience?

    You can find Easterbrook's argument here, but you'll need to scroll down to the heading "And How Come She Asks For Your Credit Card Number?"

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    So, God is doing me a favor by making me feel good when I die? Why doesn't he do me a real favor and keep me alive.

    It seems a trifle odd that someone would think that a small gesture that seems to make people feel a little better would be considered evidence of God's benevolence. Wouldn't the reverse (say, existance of extreme pain for innocent children) then be considered evidence for his non-existance?

    If good things prove God's existance, then bad things must prove his absence.

    I think Easterbrook should stick to football.

  • Brummie
    Brummie

    Interesting post RM

    Brummie

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    RunningMan... that's exactly the way I feel... in fact, I said pretty much the same to a JW friend the other day.

    That's pretty much what convinced me to abandon the Judeo-Christian idea of God. If God is omniscient, after all, then couldn't He have constructed the universe without pain and suffering in the first place?

    The JWs (and many other fundamentalist Christians before them) try to point to some features of the animal world as evidence of God's benevolence. They essentially ignore the fact that predation is a fundamental part of all ecosystems. The JWs occasionally suggest that predation only started after the fall... but why would the sin of humans affect the animal kingdom? And in fact, God would have had to create a whole new ecosystem from scratch, with insects, predators, etc. It simply makes no sense.

    So any attempts to prove God's benevolence based on nature are doomed to fail.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit