An imagined conversation (funny)

Post Reply New Topic

Dr. Peach is a professor of philosophy at University University. Dr. Mango is a professor of theology at University University.

Scene: outside the humanities department in the garden.

Fade in

Peach: Hello, Dr. Mango.
Mango: Hello, Dr. Peach. I have seen you around. You study philosophy, correct?
Peach: Of course. I was just going to prepare for my course on atheism.
Mango: I didn't know you were offering a course on atheism.
Peach: It's new. I've decided that too many people in this world believe in the Sky Fairy. One young mind at a time, right?
Mango: Not to antagonize you, but I happen to believe in that Sky Fairy. I'm a theologian, remember?
Peach: Inquiry: How do you manage to believe in God in this worst of all possible worlds?
Mango: I simply look about me and see all the wonders the Lord created, and I cannot resist the idea of the divine.
Peach: *snorts*
Mango: What was that snort?
Peach: I just can't believe in God, what with all the horror in the world. What sort of deity allows the whole of the third world to starve and die of AIDS, and sends hurricanes and tsunamis, and lets so much evil into the world? It seems so cruel and improbable.
Mango: Every time I see someone give a dollar to a homeless man, or they concoct a cure for a disease, or I hear of a baby being born, or I watch the sun rise, I can't help but believe in a divine plan for all this good in the world. The very beauty of nature is the best proof for the existence of God.
Peach: Nature is a teeming mass of plants and animals that live in squalor and eat each other. Humanity is a teeming mass of self-serving jerkoffs that live in squalor and nuke each other. In this world it is a nasty thing to say that God exists.
Mango: Ah, but faith! Have you ever seen Europe? What civilization and culture!
Peach: Went last summer. I laid a wreath at Auschwitz.
Mango: Well I went to Rome. It was gorgeous. What beauty man built in the name of God!
Peach: *cough* Inquisition! *cough*
Mango: Alright then. But good shall prevail.

(they walk to a small table)

Mango: The rain last night was copious. This bowl someone left on the table is still halfway full!
Peach: Looks half-empty to me.
Mango: I have to go. My research team is waiting for me to help them with Project Beauty of God.
Peach: Nice speaking to you!

(Mango walks away)

Peach: (muttering under breath) Candide.

Interesting. You made Mango a Liebnizian optimist and Peach a cynic. How much fun do you think a Calvinist theologian could be? I mean, if placed in the incorrect place and done in the incorrect way, he could be rather boring and annoying talking about total depravity and God's wrath, but I think Calvinism is one of the more interesting views, especially if one takes into account its role in American history(puritans) and on some level economic history(Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism), and simply its level of cynicism towards mankind in general.

I was worried about my little play here because it left religious cynicism out. Mostly I was thinking of the argument that the world is too beautiful for God not to exist, and the counter-argument that the world is too horrible for God to exist, a debate that seems to be about individual perception rather than actual philosophy.

Well, it works. Right, it is an interesting play and religious cynicism isn't necessary. It is a very effective unit and I don't see how the unit can be improved with the addition of certain elements without radically changing its nature.

I've always wondered how conversations between my school's theology department and its philosophy department must go, atheist feminist versus firebrand department head is always fun

I might suggest that you are perhaps selling "The Problem of Evil" short. It was included as a significant argument against the existence of God (at least in some conceptions of Him) in my PHIL101, whereas our optimist was not included as a strong counter.

Attributed to Epicurus:
"Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"

P.S. The dialog is under appreciated in philosophy nowadays

Well, she wasn't focused on "The Problem of Evil" just a funny semi-philosophical argument. I think most people argue the "free will" argument, I dunno, if I were doing it on the religious side then I would take the optimist stance considering that I think most Christian theologians assert God's sovereignty and foreknowledge of the future and more so than man's free will, which is incompatible with perfectly free will(in terms of undetermined choices), and thus means God ordains everything(on some level), and thus means that if God exists then all bad is his choice, so yeah, going with Liebniz and optimism and of course the final argument ends up being an appeal to ignorance.


Mises:
"If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent"

Yeah, I read an economics book with arguments on the nature of God.... it was sort of interesting.