Job 8-10

[wolfpurplemoon]

Job is still bemoaning his torment at the hands of Satan (with permission of God), he is definitely justified in his complaints.

Comments

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

I'm curious as to where atheists get their idea of "justice." If God is unjust to allow all this to happen to Job, who created this thing called justice? What standard are we comparing God to?

If God doesn't exist, does justice still exist in the universe?

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

Plus you just got finished practically saying that the only reason to obey the moral laws in the Bible is simply to avoid punishment, yet you act as if God were really, truly wrong to let Job suffer. Why is God outright black-and-white wrong, but for humans there is no real wrong, but just an attempt to avoid punishment?

[iopha.livejournal.com]

who created this thing called justice? What standard are we comparing God to? If God doesn't exist, does justice still exist in the universe?

Two thousand five hundred years ago, an Athenian man asked of his fellow citizens the following perplexing question, known henceforth as the Euthyprean Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma): "Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?"

To transpose to our contemporary, monotheistic, Christian context: Is the good favoured by God because it is good in itself, or is the Good made good because it is favoured by God? In other words, does God get to decide what is good, or does He love the good because it is good independently?

It is very, very difficult to answer this question in a satisfactory manner. If we choose the first option, that is, things are good in themselves, then we don't need God to justify morality: God may favour what is good, but He is not the source of this goodness. Instead, morality stems from 'natural law' or rationality. Since the Good is independent of God, morality presents so special problem to the atheist (who, it should be noted, might or might not be justified in being an atheist on separate grounds.)

What about the other option? That whatever it is that God decides is good, becomes good? Theologians have worried that this makes what is good and just arbitrary. Is it within God's power to make rape and murder just and good? Could God send a revelation saying "Thou shalt kill and eat infants?" and make it good and just to cannibalize babies?

If we say it isn't in God's power to do this, then we admit that what is good is independent from God, and God only loves what is good and just (as should we, for the same rational reasons God does; thus, we don't need Him to ground morality). If we say it is within God's power to make infanticide just, we admit that morality is arbitrary and subject to the whims of God, whatever they may be.

Please note that we cannot say that God's will is not arbitrary on matters of morality (that His wisdom is such that He would never condone cannibalism) because whatever reasons he may have for never making cannibalism just are the true source of morality. In order for morality to stem uniquely from God it must be within his power to make rape, murder and cannibalism just and good. In other words, morality must be irrational.

It seems we are forced to accept that what is good and just is independent of God's will; that God is not free to decide tomorrow that rape and murder and cannibalism is good; and therefore that an atheist could, in principle, find what is just and good without recourse to God.

It may be that we are not, ourselves, wise enough to discover this on our own, and we need God to tell us what is in fact good and just. Though justice is independent of God, we may not be clever enough to see this for ourselves, or reason correctly to what is good and true, and we must then put our faith in God and accept on his authority what is, in fact, good and just.

Clearly, the atheist has one line of response: because the atheist seens no evidence for the existence of God, she must claim that human reason is in fact sufficient to discerning what is good and what is not good. Since the theist and atheist both agree that goodness and justice is independent of God (upon reflection on the Euthyprean dilemma), the atheist can say: "Well, we might be fallible and imperfect and finite creatures; nevertheless, we must do our best to find out what is good and just using what limited resources we have; we scarcely have another choice in the matter."

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

The thing is, I don't see atheists in general living "the best they can" as you put it. They use all kinds of excuses to justify things like abortion, which ultimately is only legal for the sake of convenience. They support social reforms which are not good for our kids welfare. They tend to have views on marriage and sex that cause our kids to get into trouble. The world's foremost atheistic governments, such as that of the USSR and China, have records on human rights that are nothing to be proud of.

The people I have observed to have the greatest respect for human rights, and the good of mankind, are those who profess a belief in God, and actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Sure, there are Christians who don't live the life they claim to live. But the ones who actually care about the truth of abortion, the ones who are tough enough to tell our kids that the straight and narrow road is the one that will keep them out of trouble, are the ones who believe and obey God.

People like to think they are wise enough to know what is right and do it without a God to babysit them. In my opinion, that is a dangerous, prideful attitude to have. The truth is, no human can live a good life without God. Humans need God. There's nothing wrong with being humble enough to admit that.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron, and thanks for your reply.

The thing is, I don't see atheists in general living "the best they can" as you put it.

That's presumably because we disagree about what is the best! For example, an atheist might think allowing gays and lesbians to marry is the most just thing to do, so their support really is what they think is the morally best course of action. I don't think it's fair to claim atheists use 'excuses' to justify what they, deep down, 'know' is morally wrong. Most of them honestly believe that gay marriage (or whatever!) is not going to hurt anyone, and that banning it only hurts loving couples. (It certainly hasn't destroyed Canada or any of the dozens of countries that allow it.)

Despite this, I feel like you did not respond appropriately to my earlier post. You claimed that justice comes uniquely from God, and I presented an argument which concluded that morality is knowable apart from God. I'm wondering what your take on that is.

The people I have observed to have the greatest respect for human rights, and the good of mankind, are those who profess a belief in God

Well of course! Because what you believe to be what is good is necessarily linked to belief in God (and, presumably, Scripture) it will follow that you will always 'observe' atheists or secular folks behaving 'immorally' by those standards. A secularist might find opposition to gay marriage (to take my earlier example) morally repugnant... out of respect for human rights!

But the question still is: is what is good, good only because God says it is? Or is it good because it is just good in itself?

I think answering this is the first step; I worry about generalizing from personal anecdotes. This only reflects our existing biases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

Maybe some atheists do indeed think gay marriage is just, though I would disagree with them. But many stands atheists take are not based on such an honest view of what is best. I find it hard to believe Stalin or Mao killed so many people because they really believed it was right. Or that atheists abort babies because they believe is is right. They do these things because they find it convenient for their own personal desires.

Regardless of whether good is good on its own, or whether it's good by virtue of God saying it's good, we can see in the world that God doesn't just make things sinful for the purpose of a power trip. We see the pain and sadness that sexual immorality causes, and we know it's forbidden for a reason, not just to keep us from having fun. Even atheists who voice an opinion that sexual permissiveness is a good thing surely know in their hearts, by what the pain the see in the world, that it is not so. I don't think atheists and theists act differently based on a difference of opinion as to what is best. One side often simply does what they find fun regardless of what is best.

Whether good is good only because God says it is, or otherwise, I have noticed that God's laws make sense. There is no biblical morality that is there for stupid reasons. The Bible's morality makes sense, and the followers of the Bible tend to live happy lives. As I said earlier, "Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but is forbidden because it is hurtful."

[samus-aran.livejournal.com]

You talk about how the pain of the world indicates that 'sexual immorality' is a bad thing. I think the fact that sexual acts between consenting adults can be seen as immoral in the first place is a greater cause for worldly pain than anything else. Think about it; if there were no social backlash and everyone had access to all the resources and information that they needed to keep themselves safe, the amount of human suffering would be greatly diminished. Instead, thanks largely to the Christians of our nation and abroad, access to such education and resources has been largely stifled because you all think it's your business what people are doing in the bedroom and how often.

As in; you're hurting people. Stop it.

[samus-aran.livejournal.com]

... and it's not just Christians either, obviously, but they're more-so the problem here at home and, for example, in Africa.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

As far as I can understand, the issue is whether or not it is possible to have a grasp of morality if one is an atheist. My answer is yes, based on an argument that basically runs as follows: what things are good and bad are good in bad for reasons. As you say yourself, we can see that certain courses of action lead to 'pain and sadness.' Pretend, for a moment (if you will!) that there is no God, or that He withdrew his presence, but that the world is largely the same. Even in His absence, doing what it wrong would still lead to pain in sadness.

In other words, we should seek the reasons that make good things good, and bad things bad. So if we believe there is no God, or that God is absent, the best and only thing we can do is try and think our way through; so it is at least possible that we could use our reason to ground morality even in the absence of God.

I say 'possible' because this is what is sometimes called an "in principle" claim (as in: true in theory, perhaps not in practice). But it seems nevertheless clear that it is possible for the atheist to have morality.

Your argument seems to draw on observations that atheists in fact behave immorally. I take this to concede that while a moral atheist is possible in theory, in practice it never works. My reply would be to say that the disagreements about ethics, justice, and morality are largely legitimate disagreements arising between honest parties trying their best.

There are historical examples of individuals who have done terrible things. Communist regimes were officially 'atheistic', but it should be noted that their justification for the policies that led to suffering were based on Marxist economic dogma. I know a little bit about Soviet history (less so Chinese) and it is clear that policies such as agricultural collectivization came out of an ideological commitment to Marxism. This commitment obscured the human cost of the policies enacted. I don't think Stalin woke up in the morning dreaming up new ways to hurt people just because he was evil. Rather, he justified his evil by saying it was a 'necessary' cost to pay. (Similar arguments are made under capitalism about third-world suffering!)

In any event, since we're looking at history, it is pretty clear that theists and atheists alike have, on occasion, done horrible things, from the Crusades to the Inquisition. Anti-semitism has deep Christian roots (mostly Catholic).

Even the book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament has records of genocide:

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

(Deuteronomy 7:1-4)

All I want to say is that, for the individuals who do not see Scripture as particularly authoritative on these matters, they are (and should be) free to use their reason to puzzle it out for themselves. The basis of secular societies is the use of reason, and there is no evidence that those countries that are largely secular are doing any worse.

For example, northern European countries are stable, prosperous, happy, with low rates of violence and incarceration; in fact by almost any reasonable metric they are doing better than the U.S. right now, and this despite that they are among the least religious countries on the entire planet! Clearly they're doing somehing right. Ergo, it is possible to have a moral and secular society.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

People have permissive sex, and commit all the other sins that go with that type of lifestyle, and it hurts society. Disease gets spread; women have sex with guys who turn out to be jerks and wreck their lives; kids are born who are without the parents they need to raise them and show them good examples; ...and all because people like to enjoy the temporary pleasures of sin. Christ is not hurting anyone. He's points the way to right all these wrongs. People just don't like what he says because they live in darkness and hate the light being shined on their evil deeds.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of people in history who professed a belief in God, and even claimed to be Christian, who did horrible things. The thing is, you have to judge their acts by the Bible. If a person who claims to be a Christian does something contrary to the Bible, like say, killing heretical Christians, you can't blame Christianity for his actions. Because the Bible, which real Christianity is based on, doesn't agree with those actions. For that reason, I don't defend the actions of the Catholic Church, who don't use the Bible as their authority and didn't allow the Bible to be read during the middle ages. All I defend is Christ and the Bible.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, the nations the Israelites destroyed were in the habit of practicing horrific child sacrifice rituals, as well as other sins. You make it sound like God just had them killed for no reason, but there were reason. Though I admit I don't understand it all. I know that in the New Covenant, we are to treat all people with love, to allow them to make a free choice as to whether they want to serve God. You don't find any examples of a person being killed for not becoming a Christian in the New Testament.

Thirdly, your essay about atheists being moral sounds good, but in practice, it doesn't seem to work. SA far as I have seen in my life, following Christ, in the genuine biblical way, does work. Sometimes I wonder if the fruits of a philosophy are any clue as to it's truthfulness.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

...and I forgot to mention, I don't know enough about Europe to know if what you said is true about their happiness and prosperity. I do know they rely on the US for a lot of stuff. We are still the shining city on the hill that many aspire to emulate.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

If a person who claims to be a Christian does something contrary to the Bible, like say, killing heretical Christians, you can't blame Christianity for his actions.

That's an interesting point, and I wonder how it applies to non-Chrisians. For example, I think it's pretty clear in the writings of Karl Marx that he thought one of the central goals of communism was supposed to be freedom. By parity of reasoning, if Stalin did something contrary to Marxism, we can't blame Marxism for it.

I wonder, though, who gets to define what is contrary to the Bible? Most Christians agree that the Bible requires interpretive work; it can't be taking literally, word for word (particularly the old Testament.) Take, once again, Deuteronomy, specifically Deut 13:6-9.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

Now, if you are a Christian living in North America (or in fact pretty much anywhere) chances are you do not follow this rule very closely; proselytizers from other religions are tolerated and this not only under law, but by conviction. Most people do not believe it is good to murder believers of different faiths.

Why is that? Well, maybe Christians believe only the law of the New Testament stands, because it forms a new covenant. I find this appealing myself, but then what to make of the other moral stances based on the Old Testament (such as the stance on homosexuality in Leviticus)? It seems they must be discarded along with God's command to kill anyone who tries to convert you (including, I guess, Scientologists, Buddhists, Pagans, and so on).

If we want to keep some of the Old Testament rules, but not all, then I guess we should decide what to keep and what to leave out based on our reason. I think it's pretty clear that we think it's immoral to kill people of other faiths, even if they try and convert people to their religion (would you kill me?), despite what the Old Testament says. So our interpretation of the Bible matters, and this interpretation is guided by moral reasoning: so moral reasoning is prior to the literal content of the Bible.

This is an important point, I think, because being 'contrary to the Bible' is pretty controversial (always has been!). Maybe there are Christians who think we should kill those of different faiths, as God smote the heretical tribes who allegedly practiced child sacrifice (though one wonders whether the infants of these tribes deserved death as well). Maybe the Christians who did what we consider horrible things believed themselves to be in accordance with the Bible and consider today's Christians actually... unchristian!

Now as you point out, the New Covenant has a very different ethical system: "You don't find any examples of a person being killed for not becoming a Christian in the New Testament."

Well, Jesus does say in Mark 6:11 that cities which do not receive Him will be destroyed and suffer more than Sodom and Gomorrah! But maybe there's a good way of figuring out which Old Testament rules stand and which do not based on a careful reading of the New Testament. This careful, interpretive reading can't be avoided since Jesus doesn't go over all the rules Himself. Once again, moral reasoning is paramount.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

One last thing then, about the properity of secular societies. As you say, the truth of a (moral) philosophy may be in its fruits. If Christianity were the only way to truth, peace, prosperity and blessedness, you'd expect that countries where Christianity is absent and atheism or secularism present would be countries where things aren't going too well.

Sweden and Norway are good case studies. Only about 23% of Swedes answered 'yes' to a poll question asking whether they believe in a God; less than 4% attend regular, weekly Church services; another 25% explicitly deny there is a God or any higher power. Meanwhile, only 20% of Norwegians say religion is important in their lives.

Let's look at some statistics, then. I'm taking these from the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/). According to our theory, Biblical Christianity not only should do better over-all, secular and atheistic countries should be floundering about in a moral cesspool of suffering and meaninglessness.

Infant Mortality Rate:
Sweden: 2.74 deaths /1,000 live births
Norway: 3.55 deaths / 1,000 live births
USA: 6.14 deaths / 1,000 live births

Life Expectancy:
Sweden: 80.97 years
Norway: 80.08 years
USA: 78.24 years

GDP per capita:
Sweden: $36,800
Norway: $58,600
USA: $46,400

Unemployment rate:
Sweden: 8.3%
Norway: 3.2%
USA: 9.3%

Prison Population per Capita:
Sweden: 75 per 100,000
Norway: 64 per 100,000
USA: 715 per 100,000

(from here (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita)

So, while both Swedes and Norwegians have far lower infant mortality rates (a good signifier of lower rates of income inequality) and longer life-expectancy, Swedes make slightly less than their American and Norwegian counterparts. Norway, of course, has significant oil reserves and a small population; they share it equitably.

Sweden, meanwhile, has a leftist government that taxes its citizens heavily; so while they make about 10,000$ less, they do get a number of services from it. It might be a matter of personal taste what one prefers: more money (but private health care costs) or less money (and state-subsidized cradle-grave coverage).

Finally, the U.S. has ten times as many prisoners per capita as both these 'atheistic' and 'secular' countries. This is another index that reflects income inequality in a society. But I think the point is clear: these three democratic, advanced societies are all doing quite well. On some things, these secular countries are doing better than the US.

So it seems inescapable to conclude that Chritianity is not necessary to in order to have a moral, prosperous, well-functioning society. It doesn't seem to hurt very much, but it doesn't seem to help either (neither does atheism, for that matter!)

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

I don't know enough about Norway and Sweden to give an educated answer to your post. What I do know, from what I have seen in my own life, is that the Christians have been the ones who care, and the ones who don't take God seriously are the ones who serve themselves.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

It's frustrating to me how people like yourself show a total lack of understanding of what the Bible says and means. You sound AS IF you know what you are talking about though, so you more than likely lead people astray.

First, if the "other gods" which were followed back in those OT times called for killing children as worship, then you pretty much deserved the death penalty for worshipping them. You make it sound like someone got killed for simply bowing their head to a false god, when much darker things were happening.

Second, I happen to think Jesus, in sparing the prostitute, showed us that we are to stop killing these sinners and point the way to forgiveness and salvation. Homosexuality, which you mentioned above, is listed as a sin several times in the NT, as I think I posted elsewhere here. So there no actual room for interpretation there for Christians. Just about every law from the OT that we dont follow anymore has a passage in the NT explaining why.

Finally, as you mentioned in your last paragraph, God will punish sinners in the end with possible death. But nowhere is force, abuse, or coercion portrayed as an option for us humans in spreading Christianity.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

Just to add something about homosexuality. It's still listed as a sin in the NT. But, as the prostitute was spared from death, we arent to abuse them or kill them. We simply share the love of Jesus, and lety them know they have the option of accepting him. We do however have to be firm that their actions are sinful.

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

Having enjoyable sex is not an "evil deed". Being gay is not an "evil deed". There is no malice in either of these. We don't like what you say because you're being insulting, not because we "live in darkness".

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

And from what I've seen in MY life, people who call themselves "christian" do so in order to have a thin veil of authority so they can make ridiculous claims such as being gay and not hating one's own sexuality being "sinful".

Surprise, your experiences don't magically trump everyone else'.

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

Threatening someone with death is exactly the sort of thing that coercion is.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

It's frustrating to me how people like yourself show a total lack of understanding of what the Bible says and means. You sound AS IF you know what you are talking about though, so you more than likely lead people astray.

I'm sorry; it certainly isn't my intent to frustrate you here. The only point I was trying to make was that, as a matter of fact, there are very many competing interpretations of the Bible available. How to read it, and what to take away from the Old and New Testaments, is anything but self-evident. You claim that every rule no longer followed from the OT has a NT basis. But surely you recognize the fact that other Christians might practice and understand the Bible differently, and agreement on these matters is not forthcoming.

I didn't mean to imply that Christians have a duty to convert forcibly. It was just an example to bring out interpretational difficulties.

In the past, these interpretational conflicts led to religious war. On the European continent, the Peace at Westphalia brokered a tenuous religious peace that only secular governance guaranteed in the long-term. I'm not that interested in various arguments for or against Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism (or the hundreds of various sects and sub-sects). Rather, I just want to very humbly suggest a few political theses that we should be able to agree on:

First, the freedom to worship as one sees fit, or refrain from worship, should be respected. I think we're on the same page here.

Second, given the immense variety of religions in the world, monotheistic, polytheistic, and so on, and the doctrinal differences within religions, our political systems should take no stand or promote any particular sect, creed, or dogma. Government should neither promote atheism nor Christianity.

Third, arguments in the public sphere should be argued with what I'll term "public reasons." A public reason is something that can, in principle, be intelligible to everyone regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. For example, I'm not a Christian; so defending a certain moral prescription on a purely Biblical basis is not going to persuade me. However, since we've agreed that morality is rational, with or without a God, you can provide me with non-Biblical arguments. I think this is an important civic duty to perform.

So, while it may the case that homosexuality is condemned both in the OT and NT, because I don't recognize the authority of the Gospels (along with Jews, Buddhists, Muslisms, and so on), I will ask for the reasons why the NT says this, and evaluate these reasons. Likewise, our political system should never make laws on a solely Scriptural basis.

The reason I brought up the case studies of Norway and Sweden was to show that these secular countries are quite capable, without direct Biblical inspiration, of allowing their citizens to prosper and enjoy their freedom. Of course as a private citizen you are perfectly free (and should be perfectly free) of following any moral rule you see fit that goes over and above what secular consensus achieves.

In Canada, where I live, no Church, priest or minister is forced to perform gay marriages against their will; but gays and lesbians can marry if they so choose. This seems right to me.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

I should mention that I do find the concept of Hell, as traditionally conceived, intrinsically coercive. Many think that Atheists reject God out of pride, or out of a sinful desire to do what they wish, but that deep down we know He exists. I can assure you, at least for me, this is not the case.

I've really, honestly, deeply, and at length thought about it. I considered the arguments, looked at the evidence. At the suggestion of friends I've even "prayed" and waited for an answer. There was nothing. Nothing at all. I feel like I've done my absolute best. I'm not angry at God; I just genuinely don't think there is such a Being, not the Christian one, not the Zoroastrian one.

If I'm wrong, and if I do have a soul, and I stand in judgement before your God (or Allah, or Ahura-Mazda, or whoever) and this God looks in my heart and mind and sees that I did not reject Him from malice or hatred or jealousy or pride, that I did my best in this all too short and brief life-span, and just came to the wrong conclusion, I can't believe I would be condemned to an eternity of suffering and pain. It would have been an honest mistake committed in a brief, frail and fallible mortal life.

For an infinitesimally small fraction of time, I was wrong about something very important; and if I were to stand in judgement and see Him before me, and truly know I was wrong to be an atheist, I would immediately repent. Will I go to Hell? Would a just God condemn me to horrible suffering forever and ever? Maybe. I don't have the answer to that question. You might think "well, why take the chance?" then I ask: "Well, who's right, then?" because, as I've said, I've looked at the evidence, the arguments, the texts of dozens of religions that claim I will be damned if I don't choose them. So I politely decline Pascal's wager.

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence for Islam is as good as Christianity, which is to say, not that great; and both say I will be punished. Maybe you think that if I looked hard enough and honestly enough at the Bible I could not help but become a Christian and see the truth of these doctrines, and the falsity of others. Of course, the Muslim feels the same way; and I, as an atheist, have come to the conclusion both are (probably) wrong, barring future evidence and arguments I may not have considered.

But it's been a thoroughly honest process; and if there is a God, and I am punished for all this, the possibility of this punishment certainly doesn't speak to the goodness of this being or my desire to worship it. It seems to me any being who would torture me forever because I made a mistake doesn't deserve the name 'God.'

[sarah rivero (from livejournal.com)]

Iopha and Jaron, I have enjoyed your conversation very much. I agree with Iopha that we shouldn't impose Christian values on non-Christian people. The only problem I have is with the abortion issue. I don't think that is a purely Christian issue. It's a morality issue. Even if I did not believe in God, I would have a problem with it. I hold to a more reformed view than probably Jaron does. I do believe that all good does come from God because God is God and there is nothing evil in him. The good that we experience is God's common grace for all. I don't believe anything happens outside of his will. I believe any truth that we get is from God. Just that someone can be moral without believing in God is God's grace. I don't believe Christianity is something you can rationalize or make yourself believe. It's not all that rational, but when someone is truly converted it is a life changing experience. They see things differently.