Do Tummy Aches Disprove God?
Jan 5, 2011
Joe Carter
[Note: This is part one in a two-part series on atheism and the problem of evil.]
My tummy hurts. Ergo, there is no god.
This argument may be absurd, but it’s not intended as a reductio ad absurdum. Although in simplistic form, this enthymeme encapsulates one of the primary atheological arguments—the argument from evil.
The structure of the argument becomes more obvious once we include the unstated premises:
1. Tummy aches are a form of harm being done to the physical and/or psychological well-being of a sentient creature.
2. Harm is evil.
3. God—an omniscient, wholly good being—would prevent evil.
4. God did not prevent my tummy ache.
5. Ergo, there is no god.
This argument is known as the evidential problem of evil, the preeminent surviving form of that argument since the problem of evil has been, in my opinion, adequately solved.
The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether the existence of evil constitutes evidence against the existence of God. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, “Evidential arguments purport to show that evil counts against theism in the sense that the existence of evil lowers the probability that God exists.”
The strongest and most famous examples of this type of argument can be found in William Rowe’s 1979 paper, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” Rowe outlines his primary argument as follows:
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979: 336)
I contend that Rowe’s argument is precisely the same as my Tummy Ache formulation.
Not so, you say, for Rowe has added the qualifier intense to the suffering in question. To which I’d respond: My tummy hurts intensely.
Actually, I would say that my construction of the argument is more solid. By sneaking in the adjective intense, Rowe attempts to give the premise emotional resonance. However, the inclusion of the modifier shifts the premise onto subjective ground, weakening its force. After all, how does intense suffering differ in kind from mere suffering?
Let's imagine that all suffering could be converted to a single unit of measurement—suffering measured in Tummy Aches (TA). Let’s also say that the range of suffering extends from .0001 TA to 100 billion TA. At what level would we say that suffering has become intense? 10 TA? 100 TA? Obviously, it would depend on the context. In the life of a single human, 100 TA of suffering might be considered intense. But is this the right standard?
Among philosophers, pain and suffering are most often evaluated in relation to individual human experience. Yet if we are talking about an amount of suffering that would disprove God, we should consider it within a larger context, such as the entire universe. On that scale, would 100 TA be noteworthy? Would even 100 billion TA be a considerable amount within the vast expanse of the cosmos?
Even if we were to choose an arbitrary context, however, we would still be left with the subjective, personal consideration: If God is omnipotent then he should be able to prevent my tummy ache. For the premise to support the conclusion it should discard all qualifiers and state its point more directly: “An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any suffering . . .”
Stated in this way, most people would abandon arguments for the Tummy Ache-evidential problem of evil. However, some skeptical folk would still contend that an omnipotent, wholly good being would indeed prevent all tummy aches—and that stomach pains are evidence against the existence of God. The proper response to this is “Are you omniscient?”
The necessity of this question is based on the fact that the first premise can only be judged by an omniscient being. When faced with the bare fact that suffering occurs, we are left with the question, “Could the suffering have been prevented without losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse?” Only an omniscient being could answer with certitude, yet Rowe’s premise begs the question by assuming that the answer is affirmative.
Those of us who are not omniscient, however, should be hesitant to conclude this is damning evidence. By remaining agnostic about the first premise, we have no reason to believe the argument is sound. It becomes apparent that the mere existence of evil has no bearing on the probability that God exists. The evidential problem of evil is, I contend, a non sequitur.
This is not to deny that evil is a problem; it is just not a logical or evidential problem. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga explains, evil is a religious problem:
The theist may find a religious problem in evil; in the presence of his own suffering or that of someone near to him he may find it difficult to maintain what he takes to be the proper attitude towards God. Faced with great personal suffering or misfortune, he may be tempted to rebel against God, to shake his fist in God’s face, or even to give up belief in God altogether. [emphasis in the original]
“Such a problem calls,” says Plantinga, “not for philosophical enlightenment, but for pastoral care.”
Perhaps, then, we are failing in our apologetic duties when we respond to such arguments as if they were inspired by reason rather than motivated by emotional. But how should we address such emotional atheism? That is the question we'll consider next week in the second part of this series.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
*Most philosophers (including William Rowe) would admit that Alvin Plantinga has solved the logical problem of evil. In his brief and masterful God, Freedom, and Evil, Plantinga concludes that it is at least possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil.
RESOURCES:
William Rowe’s The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism
Comments:
1.5.2011 | 12:20am
Don Roberto says:
An extraordinarily fascinating and important topic, worth repeated mulling. And the young seem to eventually come to this question, and many need our guidance, lest they yield to despair or Manichaeism. (C.S. Lewis is a good reference, e.g., his notion that we need a shared, predictable medium in which to interact with one another. Also see Cardinal Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity: "Fastened to the cross – with the cross fastened to nothing, drifting over the abyss. ") My most concise response is that a truly good parent does not overprotect his child. And your tummy ache will pass; hopefully a kernal of wisdom will remain, a stepping stone on the path to salvation.
1.5.2011 | 1:55am
Fred Sanders says:
Joe,
The Tummy Ache argument reminds me of William James' remark, "So long as one poor cockroach feels the pangs of unrequited love, this world is not a moral world." I could never decide if he was joking.
Fred
The Tummy Ache argument reminds me of William James' remark, "So long as one poor cockroach feels the pangs of unrequited love, this world is not a moral world." I could never decide if he was joking.
Fred
1.5.2011 | 2:45am
Rachel says:
Joe,
Superb piece. But (how pedantic of me!) you've called him William Howe in the footnote.
Great stuff!
Superb piece. But (how pedantic of me!) you've called him William Howe in the footnote.
Great stuff!
1.5.2011 | 3:52am
Gabriel says:
A number of comments:
(1)
The five-stage tummy-ache argument that Joe presents at the beginning of the article is incomplete. It missing out that God must be taken to be *omnipotent*, as well as omniscient and wholly good.
(2)
Joe objects to Rowe’s argument being about *intense* suffering rather than just any old suffering: “I would say that my construction of the argument is more solid. By sneaking in the adjective intense, Rowe attempts to give the premise emotional resonance. However, the inclusion of the modifier shifts the premise onto subjective ground, weakening its force. After all, how does intense suffering differ in kind from mere suffering?” I don’t know if Rowe would necessarily agree with this, but it seems to me that there is a philosophically significantly relevant difference between mild and intense suffering. Let’s consider intense suffering in the personal context:
(a) At some level of suffering no amount of good which could result from it could justify the original suffering. That is, there are certain sufferings that it would be rational to reject even if it were promised that the suffering would be followed by a most extraordinary degree of good. (‘I would love that good, but I am not willing to go through such intense suffering so as to get it – I’d prefer to just carry on with my mildly good existence as it is’). We might call such intense sufferings ‘limit sufferings’ - nothing could compensate for them, or justify them – we would always pefer not having gone through them. This fact seems very relevant to the argument, and it immediately rules out all manner of theodicies (though not all). Seeing as it blocks of certain routes of response, it is a philosophically relevant part of the argument.
And (b) furthermore, there are certain sufferings of such intensity that the person who undergoes them is destroyed thereby: they truly fall apart. In such a case, no good could ever compensate *them* for the intense evil they have suffered, as they have been physically/emotionally/spiritually destroyed by the suffering they have undergone, to such a degree that they are unable to be the recipient of anything thereafter. Simone Weil, in her discussions of affliction rather than suffering, and Marilyn Adams, in her discussion of horrendous suffering rather than mere suffering, seem both to be talking about this kind of absolutely destructive suffering.
Now, regarding my points (a) and (b), you may of course say that some *greater* good, to other people or things, derives from the suffering of that individual. Well, to this it is surely possible to respond: people are not ‘usable’ in this way, such that it can ever be ethically permissible to inflict intense and unredeemable suffering on one individual, for the benefit of others – however great that benefit. That is, any agent who sets up a situation in which one person is utterly destroyed in the most intense suffering, for the benefit of others, has done something that shouldn’t have been done. (Consider what we would think about a human father who inflicted such intense suffering on one of his children that they never recovered, so as to benefit one of his other children – it would be far from obvious that such behaviour would be that of a good or loving father). If the kind of good that God wanted to bestow on His creatures was such that it was unavoidable that some people suffer unredeemably intensely, then perhaps it would have been better had God simply not created the world. Perhaps a good, omnipotent, omniscient God would need to refrain from creating – if creation necessitated a world such as ours. Of course, this is only the beginning of the discussion – you could respond in all manner of ways. My point is simply that Rowe’s inclusion of ‘intense’ in his argument is not simply a rhetorical flourish, but rules out certain otherwise possible response, and leads the ensuing discussion in certain particular directions. Its inclusion serves a real and serious philosophical role. One of the roles it plays is very relevant to Joe’s own response to Rowe – his response from God’s omniscience (from God’s having inscrutable reasons) – I will bring this out at the end of my next comment.
(1)
The five-stage tummy-ache argument that Joe presents at the beginning of the article is incomplete. It missing out that God must be taken to be *omnipotent*, as well as omniscient and wholly good.
(2)
Joe objects to Rowe’s argument being about *intense* suffering rather than just any old suffering: “I would say that my construction of the argument is more solid. By sneaking in the adjective intense, Rowe attempts to give the premise emotional resonance. However, the inclusion of the modifier shifts the premise onto subjective ground, weakening its force. After all, how does intense suffering differ in kind from mere suffering?” I don’t know if Rowe would necessarily agree with this, but it seems to me that there is a philosophically significantly relevant difference between mild and intense suffering. Let’s consider intense suffering in the personal context:
(a) At some level of suffering no amount of good which could result from it could justify the original suffering. That is, there are certain sufferings that it would be rational to reject even if it were promised that the suffering would be followed by a most extraordinary degree of good. (‘I would love that good, but I am not willing to go through such intense suffering so as to get it – I’d prefer to just carry on with my mildly good existence as it is’). We might call such intense sufferings ‘limit sufferings’ - nothing could compensate for them, or justify them – we would always pefer not having gone through them. This fact seems very relevant to the argument, and it immediately rules out all manner of theodicies (though not all). Seeing as it blocks of certain routes of response, it is a philosophically relevant part of the argument.
And (b) furthermore, there are certain sufferings of such intensity that the person who undergoes them is destroyed thereby: they truly fall apart. In such a case, no good could ever compensate *them* for the intense evil they have suffered, as they have been physically/emotionally/spiritually destroyed by the suffering they have undergone, to such a degree that they are unable to be the recipient of anything thereafter. Simone Weil, in her discussions of affliction rather than suffering, and Marilyn Adams, in her discussion of horrendous suffering rather than mere suffering, seem both to be talking about this kind of absolutely destructive suffering.
Now, regarding my points (a) and (b), you may of course say that some *greater* good, to other people or things, derives from the suffering of that individual. Well, to this it is surely possible to respond: people are not ‘usable’ in this way, such that it can ever be ethically permissible to inflict intense and unredeemable suffering on one individual, for the benefit of others – however great that benefit. That is, any agent who sets up a situation in which one person is utterly destroyed in the most intense suffering, for the benefit of others, has done something that shouldn’t have been done. (Consider what we would think about a human father who inflicted such intense suffering on one of his children that they never recovered, so as to benefit one of his other children – it would be far from obvious that such behaviour would be that of a good or loving father). If the kind of good that God wanted to bestow on His creatures was such that it was unavoidable that some people suffer unredeemably intensely, then perhaps it would have been better had God simply not created the world. Perhaps a good, omnipotent, omniscient God would need to refrain from creating – if creation necessitated a world such as ours. Of course, this is only the beginning of the discussion – you could respond in all manner of ways. My point is simply that Rowe’s inclusion of ‘intense’ in his argument is not simply a rhetorical flourish, but rules out certain otherwise possible response, and leads the ensuing discussion in certain particular directions. Its inclusion serves a real and serious philosophical role. One of the roles it plays is very relevant to Joe’s own response to Rowe – his response from God’s omniscience (from God’s having inscrutable reasons) – I will bring this out at the end of my next comment.
1.5.2011 | 3:53am
Gabriel says:
(3)
Joe claims that Rowe’s first premise begs the question: “When faced with the bare fact that suffering occurs, we are left with the question, ‘Could the suffering have been prevented without losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse?’ Only an omniscient being could answer with certitude, yet Rowe’s premise begs the question by assuming that the answer is affirmative. Those of us who are not omniscient, however, should be hesitant to conclude this is damning evidence. By remaining agnostic about the first premise, we have no reason to believe the argument is sound.” This is rather unfair, as it gives the impression that Rowe has simply ignored a response such as Joe’s. He did not: he discusses it explicitly on pages 337-8 of his original article.
Rowe tries to give an example of intense suffering that plays no positive role whatsoever: “Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn's intense suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn's suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Nor does there seem to be any equally bad or worse evil so connected to the fawn's suffering that it would have had to occur had the fawn's suffering been prevented.”
Of course, Joes’ immediate response would be that perhaps there is some good role that the fawn’s suffering plays which is unknown to us epistemically finite beings. Well, Rowe *explicitly* addresses this very objection as follows: “It must be acknowledged that the case of the fawn's apparently pointless suffering does not *prove* that (1) is true. For even though we cannot see how the fawn's suffering is required to obtain some greater good (or to prevent some equally bad or worse evil), it hardly follows that it is not so required. After all, we are often surprised by how things we thought to be unconnected turn out to be intimately connected. Perhaps, for all we know, there is some familiar good outweighing the fawn's suffering to which that suffering is connected in a way we do not see. Furthermore, there may well be unfamiliar goods, goods we haven't dreamed of, to which the fawn's suffering is inextricably connected. Indeed, *it would seem to require something like omniscience on our part* before we could lay claim to knowing that there is no greater good connected to the fawn's suffering in such a manner than an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have achieved that good without permitting that suffering or some evil equally bad or worse.”
If Rowe admits that his argument does not *prove* its conclusion, what does he think it does? Well, he says: “We are often in the position where in the light of our experience and knowledge it is rational to believe that a certain statement is true, even though we are not in a position to prove or to know with certainty that the statement is true. In the light of our past experience and knowledge it is, for example, very reasonable to believe that neither Goldwater nor McGovern will ever be elected President, but we are scarcely in the position of knowing with certainty that neither will ever be elected President. So, too... Consider again the case of the fawn's suffering. Is it reasonable to believe that there is some greater good so intimately connected to that suffering that even an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have obtained that good without permitting that suffering or some evil at least as bad? It certainly does not appear reasonable to believe this. Nor does it seem reasonable to believe that there is some evil at least as bad as the fawn's suffering such that an omnipotent being simply could not have prevented it without permitting the fawn's suffering. But even if it should somehow be reasonable to believe either of these things of the fawn's suffering, we must then ask whether it is reasonable to believe either of these things of all the instances of seemingly pointless human and animal suffering that occur daily in our world. And surely the answer to this more general question must be no. It seems quite unlikely that all the instances of intense suffering occurring daily in our world are intimately related to the occurrence of greater goods or the prevention of evils at least as bad; and even more unlikely, should they somehow all be so related, than an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have achieved at least some of those goods (or prevented some of those evils) without permitting the instances of intense suffering that are supposedly related to them. In the light of our experience and knowledge of the variety and scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing a greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinary absurd idea, quite beyond our belief. It seems then that although we cannot prove that (1) is true, it is, nevertheless, altogether reasonable to believe that (1) is true, that (1) is a rational belief.”
Rowe then discusses this even further in a footnote. Of course, there is much to be said here. I’m sure Joe could respond, and that the ensuing discussion could be very interesting and enlightening. But it should not be thought that Joe’s reason for rejecting Rowe’s argument is one that Rowe had simply not considered!
I would also add that the response that ‘though *we* cannot see any good that could be derived from the intense suffering of the fawn, an omniscient being may have/know one’ – is problematic for one of the reasons I mentioned above. Namely, that there are some sufferings so awful that no good could be a moral excuse for inflicting them. *Whatever* good you could suggest, would not give you the moral justification for inflicting a Holocaust, if you could then bring this good about through that great suffering. ---- I find it interesting that people who are so vehemently against ‘means-justifying-ends’ reasoning in ordinary ethical discussions, don’t seem to mind attributing this kind of ethical reasoning to God, when it comes to the intense evil and suffering we see all around us. It is often unjustifiable to *use* people by inflicting intense suffering on them as a means to some greater good – even if the user is God. I do not need to be omniscient to conclude this. And God being omniscient makes no difference to this.
Again, as I have said, one could discuss these matters back and forth. But I think that Joe has been rather extraordinarily over-confident when he says that “the problem of evil has been, in my opinion, adequately solved”!
Joe claims that Rowe’s first premise begs the question: “When faced with the bare fact that suffering occurs, we are left with the question, ‘Could the suffering have been prevented without losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse?’ Only an omniscient being could answer with certitude, yet Rowe’s premise begs the question by assuming that the answer is affirmative. Those of us who are not omniscient, however, should be hesitant to conclude this is damning evidence. By remaining agnostic about the first premise, we have no reason to believe the argument is sound.” This is rather unfair, as it gives the impression that Rowe has simply ignored a response such as Joe’s. He did not: he discusses it explicitly on pages 337-8 of his original article.
Rowe tries to give an example of intense suffering that plays no positive role whatsoever: “Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn's intense suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn's suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Nor does there seem to be any equally bad or worse evil so connected to the fawn's suffering that it would have had to occur had the fawn's suffering been prevented.”
Of course, Joes’ immediate response would be that perhaps there is some good role that the fawn’s suffering plays which is unknown to us epistemically finite beings. Well, Rowe *explicitly* addresses this very objection as follows: “It must be acknowledged that the case of the fawn's apparently pointless suffering does not *prove* that (1) is true. For even though we cannot see how the fawn's suffering is required to obtain some greater good (or to prevent some equally bad or worse evil), it hardly follows that it is not so required. After all, we are often surprised by how things we thought to be unconnected turn out to be intimately connected. Perhaps, for all we know, there is some familiar good outweighing the fawn's suffering to which that suffering is connected in a way we do not see. Furthermore, there may well be unfamiliar goods, goods we haven't dreamed of, to which the fawn's suffering is inextricably connected. Indeed, *it would seem to require something like omniscience on our part* before we could lay claim to knowing that there is no greater good connected to the fawn's suffering in such a manner than an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have achieved that good without permitting that suffering or some evil equally bad or worse.”
If Rowe admits that his argument does not *prove* its conclusion, what does he think it does? Well, he says: “We are often in the position where in the light of our experience and knowledge it is rational to believe that a certain statement is true, even though we are not in a position to prove or to know with certainty that the statement is true. In the light of our past experience and knowledge it is, for example, very reasonable to believe that neither Goldwater nor McGovern will ever be elected President, but we are scarcely in the position of knowing with certainty that neither will ever be elected President. So, too... Consider again the case of the fawn's suffering. Is it reasonable to believe that there is some greater good so intimately connected to that suffering that even an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have obtained that good without permitting that suffering or some evil at least as bad? It certainly does not appear reasonable to believe this. Nor does it seem reasonable to believe that there is some evil at least as bad as the fawn's suffering such that an omnipotent being simply could not have prevented it without permitting the fawn's suffering. But even if it should somehow be reasonable to believe either of these things of the fawn's suffering, we must then ask whether it is reasonable to believe either of these things of all the instances of seemingly pointless human and animal suffering that occur daily in our world. And surely the answer to this more general question must be no. It seems quite unlikely that all the instances of intense suffering occurring daily in our world are intimately related to the occurrence of greater goods or the prevention of evils at least as bad; and even more unlikely, should they somehow all be so related, than an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have achieved at least some of those goods (or prevented some of those evils) without permitting the instances of intense suffering that are supposedly related to them. In the light of our experience and knowledge of the variety and scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing a greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinary absurd idea, quite beyond our belief. It seems then that although we cannot prove that (1) is true, it is, nevertheless, altogether reasonable to believe that (1) is true, that (1) is a rational belief.”
Rowe then discusses this even further in a footnote. Of course, there is much to be said here. I’m sure Joe could respond, and that the ensuing discussion could be very interesting and enlightening. But it should not be thought that Joe’s reason for rejecting Rowe’s argument is one that Rowe had simply not considered!
I would also add that the response that ‘though *we* cannot see any good that could be derived from the intense suffering of the fawn, an omniscient being may have/know one’ – is problematic for one of the reasons I mentioned above. Namely, that there are some sufferings so awful that no good could be a moral excuse for inflicting them. *Whatever* good you could suggest, would not give you the moral justification for inflicting a Holocaust, if you could then bring this good about through that great suffering. ---- I find it interesting that people who are so vehemently against ‘means-justifying-ends’ reasoning in ordinary ethical discussions, don’t seem to mind attributing this kind of ethical reasoning to God, when it comes to the intense evil and suffering we see all around us. It is often unjustifiable to *use* people by inflicting intense suffering on them as a means to some greater good – even if the user is God. I do not need to be omniscient to conclude this. And God being omniscient makes no difference to this.
Again, as I have said, one could discuss these matters back and forth. But I think that Joe has been rather extraordinarily over-confident when he says that “the problem of evil has been, in my opinion, adequately solved”!
1.5.2011 | 4:25am
patricksarsfield says:
Mr. Carter is exactly right. The way I formulate this thought is when people talk about Hitler, Stalin or the latest serial killer proving there is no God, I reply that I am comforted by the thought that if death proves there is no God, there is no God. Too absurd for serious consideration, as is the thought that we can judge the goodness of God. I then go on to note that people should be careful what they ask for. If God is supposed to intervene and stop people from murdering, He might also stop all other violations of His moral laws and that would reduce us to automata. Free Will is the grace God "pays" bcause He loves us. To paraphrase a sentiment much in vogue recently in self-help circles: Love is letting go. Letting go can lead a lot of places but without it, God has not created sentient humans who lead lives they choose to lead.
1.5.2011 | 5:10am
Damion says:
I think most people miss one of God's most humble secrets here. Perhaps, we are looking at this whole problem upside down. Maybe, we should stop trying to reconcile our condition with the existence of God, and reconcile our condition with, well...our condition. Maybe, Suffering and Evil are not so much allowed by a God whose "hands are tied" by the laws of Volition...or...by a natural byproduct of God's greater purpose. Maybe God allows suffering because WE ARE SUFFERING.
Weakness, Suffering and Evil is merely the place we could potentially generate from--birthed within the dark "sea of possibilities". In other words, for the Light to visit this place, is an honor to us all...but it also shines on the ugliness of our natural environment--weakness, suffering and evil.
The reason I call this one of God's most humble secrets is that the visiting King patiently allows us to blame Him for the poverty of this neighborhood...when we should be deeply honored that He chose this place to visit at all.
deeply
Weakness, Suffering and Evil is merely the place we could potentially generate from--birthed within the dark "sea of possibilities". In other words, for the Light to visit this place, is an honor to us all...but it also shines on the ugliness of our natural environment--weakness, suffering and evil.
The reason I call this one of God's most humble secrets is that the visiting King patiently allows us to blame Him for the poverty of this neighborhood...when we should be deeply honored that He chose this place to visit at all.
deeply
1.5.2011 | 5:18am
Nick says:
I think a good way to understand the question on evil is to see a man like Harvey Dent, lying in the hospital bed, wondering if God, or any goodness, exists if he has befallen to such pain and suffering. His question on God comes not so much from subjective sentiments as from a great experience of evil and a loss of faith. It's almost like the opposite of having a religious or mystical experience, really.
1.5.2011 | 5:47am
john chiarello says:
Good article Joe- these are a few recent posts I did on atheism- as you can see I'm not as nice as you! By the way- if there too long- you guys dont need to post them- I was just writing them this morning [one of them] and thought it fit with this article. God bless, John
[1569] HITCHENS BOOK- Let me do some more on Hitchens [I’ve been critiquing his book- god is not great- he is an atheist]. Okay- read a few more pages and must admit I’ve written notes on the side of the page like ‘this man is an idiot’ of course I would never write that on the blog! Why do I say this? Let me just say Hitchens uses old- disproven arguments- that have been proven false years ago- yet he seems to have not done recent research before he wrote the book. I actually double checked the date the book was written- trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it was written in say the year 1995- then okay- some of the more recent scientific and historical discoveries might have not been available at the time- but the book was written in 2007 [I’m writing this critique in 1-2011] so he simply does not know his subject [trying to disprove the existence of God] well enough to be touted as a brilliant man [which many have said]. Mistakes- he uses the old argument from DNA- called ‘junk dna’ which says we have strings of DNA in us that serve no useful function. DNA is sort of a computer code within us that maps out the basic structures and life functions that we as humans need to exist. Over the years we found DNA that at the time seemed to have no purpose- thus the name ‘junk’. But recent research has shown us that yes- there are functions that this so called junk DNA plays- it’s not junk after all. Yet Hitchens appeals to this silly argument as proof that ‘see- this dna was leftover from evolution’. He also uses another faulty argument form the human tailbone- if you look at the human skeleton- the tailbone seems to look like- well a tail! So people over the years have said this is a vestigial body part [which means it was left over as we evolved- and that’s why it’s there- people have said this about the appendix, the lobe of the ear, and lots of other stuff- today we have found that all of these things that at one time seemed to be ‘leftover’ do indeed have a function]. So Hitchens pulls out the old tail bone rabbit from the hat. The tailbone serves as a balance mechanism for the human to walk upright- it also serves as a primary connecting structure for other parts of the human skeleton- basically we have known for quite some time that the tailbone is not ‘vestigial’- I guess Hitchens just threw out any old arguments he has picked up over the years and figured the reading public would never know- he figured wrong. More? Okay- he contradicts himself page after page. He actually uses one of the proofs against Darwinian evolution- to argue for Darwinian evolution! He is familiar with the ‘Cambrian explosion’ this piece of scientific evidence shows us that some 500 million years ago [the Cambrian era] there was an ‘explosion’ of new body structures that form the basic structures of life- and that these life forms did not evolve over millions of years- they just appeared at once! When science found this out years ago- it thru a monkey wrench into the whole idea of Darwinian evolution- it said things indeed did not evolve slowly over millions of years- but they showed up at once. This kind of scientific truth goes against evolution and actually backs up the biblical claim that things were created at a set period of time- in complete form. So the whole Cambrian explosion thing is evidence against evolution- To Hitchens he just talks about it- acknowledges that the explosion does indeed contradict Darwin’s view [the tree paradigm- that things evolved over time ‘like a tree’ you started with one common base and things all branched out- the Cambrian evidence disproves this theory of Darwin]. And after admitting that all this proof does not back up Darwin- he then says see- ‘this is proof for evolution’. I don’t know if this man is out to lunch or what? And last but not least- he covers the fact that other civilizations have had myths about creation- the flood- and stuff like that. This argument [very old one- refuted years ago] basically says ‘see- because we have found these stories in other cultures- that means the bible stories about creation are fake’ man- I don’t even want to do the whole thing right now- I’ll try and simply paste the stuff I wrote about this at the bottom [or if you go to the blog site you can find all these posts under the evolution section]. Basically this theory has also been refuted- the fact is that if you find other cultures with ‘creation- flood’ stories, this in no way means creation or a flood never happened- to the contrary- this would be proof that it did! Overall he contradicts himself when tying to refute the Christian argument from design [that is we see design in the universe- people- animals- this argument is called Teleology] and Hitchens says ‘look- we see faults in humans, animals, the cosmos’ animals eat one another- humans have bad design with the eye structure [another famous- and also refuted argument about the so called faulty design of the eye] and therefore there must not be a grand designer [God] because look at the flaws in the product. Geez- another stale argument that’s been around for ages. Basically the way we refute this is to say ‘so- if I told you the car in the driveway was designed and made by an intelligent being- Ford- and you show me that the design has flaws- okay, I will have to find a way to explain the flaw’ but then for you to say ‘see, because it has flaws- it CAME FROM NOTHING’! Geez- well yes- I would think you were an idiot! The explanation for the so called flaws [predatory animals- the suns future demise, etc.] is the reality that yes indeed- Christian teaching says God made man and creation sinless, and after the fall of man into rebellion- the earth and all of creation plunged into a state called ‘the curse’ or in Hitchens eyes ‘bad design’. So all in all his arguments are old-outdated and easily refuted. Kinda starting to feel sorry for the man- thought he would have done a better job than this- believe me- if you are an atheist and are looking for arguments against the existence of God- historically others have made a much better case- I still think their arguments are wrong- but they have made a better case- Hitchens is the wrong man for this task.
[1567] FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER [and Hitchens] - Okay, before I get too far behind in our study of Modernity- let’s do another post. F.S. [the guy above- don’t want to keep writing the name] was one of the most influential thinkers/theologians to come at the turn of the 19th century. He too challenged the sterile rationality of Enlightenment thinkers- and tried to craft a way to look at religion that was unique. Instead of religion being this dry approach to the world and existence as mediated thru mans senses [natural religion- Kant, etc.] he said religion was actually meant to be this experience that man has as he interacts with the whole of creation- an ‘intuition- sense’ that is more than something we can dissect and put under the microscope of reason. F.S. was a sort of go between- he was both trained in academia- a true intellectual- and also a ‘man of the cloth’. He knew the arguments that some of the Romantics made against ‘dead religion’ and he challenged their rejection of religion and wrote the famous book ‘On religion- speeches to its cultured despisers’ in 1799. The book was targeted toward his fellow academics in the universities of Germany who scoffed at religion- he appealed to their sense of art and beauty as true Romantics- and made the case that true religion is ‘the sense and taste for the infinite’ that is religion can be an expression [above reason] that seeks to embrace this sense of the infinite, this ‘feeling’ in man that there is more to life than meets the eye- and you can be ‘cultured’ and religious at the same time.
Okay- actually this is a good spot to jump into more of my critique of Christopher Hitchens book ‘god is not great’. Hitchens fits in good with the ‘cultured despisers’ that F.S. was writing to. I have found some points of agreement with Hitchens; he sees the Catholic church’s stance on no condom use as dangerous- especially in places like Africa- because condoms can be an effective way to reduce the AIDS virus. As a Protestant, I am not against condom use/contraceptives- but the flaw in Hitchens argument is he presents the case in a way that says ‘see- if it weren’t for the church’s teaching on condoms- Africa would not be in this epidemic’. Point of fact- one of the major ways AIDS is spreading on the continent is thru the vocation of male prostitution and other promiscuous type lifestyles. Would Hitchens have us believe that as the male prostitutes are getting ready to ‘go to work’ that they look in the drawer- see the condom and say ‘geez- I would really like to use a condom- but my strict adherence to Catholic doctrine will not allow me to do it!’ The reality is the church’s teaching on condom use- if practiced in accordance with ALL THE OTHER TEACHINGS of the church- would not increase the spread of aids [the church teaches monogamous only relationships- these relationships are not contributing to the spread of the virus in Africa]. Hitchens also has an entire chapter on pig meat! Yes, I’ve heard Hitchens speak over the years- and for some reason he has this obsession with pig meat! Anyway he defends the poor pig- makes fun of the Jewish Kosher diet- and then proceeds to give his personal view on why pig meat became a ‘no- no’ to kosher Jews. He actually believes [for real!] that pigs taste and act so much like humans [their intelligence- and their screams when being slaughtered] that the Jews associated eating pig with eating humans [and Hitchens even describes the taste of pig meat tasting like human meat- no joke!] he believes this is the secret reason Jews don’t eat pigs. He also defends pig meat as being healthy. Okay- I’m not a pig meat aficionado- but being I am a student of the bible [including the Old Testament] I can assure you that the Jewish dietary laws of the Old Testament are in fact very healthy laws! For hundreds of years people did not know why pigs, shrimp, etc. were forbidden to be eaten by the Jewish people- and over time science has discovered that these meats were indeed unclean. The prohibition against certain sea food- later these types of fish were found out to be scavengers, they are the ‘trash eaters’ that keep the oceans clean- that’s why they are unhealthy. Pigs- Hitchens favorite meat- pig meat is not good for you [in general- I’m a very happy pig eater- on pizza- with eggs- out of a bag with spices on it- pork rinds] because the digestive tract of the pig is very short, what they eat ‘becomes’ part of their flesh/life without going thru a long digestive process- not like the cow who ‘chews the cud’ [multiple processes of digestion]. Basically pigs are in fact a ‘less healthy’ meat than other types of meat. All in all Hitchens- once again- is just misinformed about stuff- lots of stuff. Geez- I wrote this short critique from basic knowledge gained thru out my life- believe me I did not have to Google ‘is pig meat clean’. So once again we see the ‘brilliant mind’ of Hitchens at work. I’m reminded of an article I read a few years back- it was a column by Maureen Dowd [the liberal columnist]. She gave her conservative brother a free shot to use her column to blast liberals. He went at it- in pure tea party fashion. As he went down the list- hitting all the favorite sore spots- he got to a line where he spoke of his senator- obviously a liberal- he simply said ‘Sheldon Whitehouse- you sir- are an idiot’ and that was that. As I continue to read Hitchens book- this line comes to mind.
[1569] HITCHENS BOOK- Let me do some more on Hitchens [I’ve been critiquing his book- god is not great- he is an atheist]. Okay- read a few more pages and must admit I’ve written notes on the side of the page like ‘this man is an idiot’ of course I would never write that on the blog! Why do I say this? Let me just say Hitchens uses old- disproven arguments- that have been proven false years ago- yet he seems to have not done recent research before he wrote the book. I actually double checked the date the book was written- trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it was written in say the year 1995- then okay- some of the more recent scientific and historical discoveries might have not been available at the time- but the book was written in 2007 [I’m writing this critique in 1-2011] so he simply does not know his subject [trying to disprove the existence of God] well enough to be touted as a brilliant man [which many have said]. Mistakes- he uses the old argument from DNA- called ‘junk dna’ which says we have strings of DNA in us that serve no useful function. DNA is sort of a computer code within us that maps out the basic structures and life functions that we as humans need to exist. Over the years we found DNA that at the time seemed to have no purpose- thus the name ‘junk’. But recent research has shown us that yes- there are functions that this so called junk DNA plays- it’s not junk after all. Yet Hitchens appeals to this silly argument as proof that ‘see- this dna was leftover from evolution’. He also uses another faulty argument form the human tailbone- if you look at the human skeleton- the tailbone seems to look like- well a tail! So people over the years have said this is a vestigial body part [which means it was left over as we evolved- and that’s why it’s there- people have said this about the appendix, the lobe of the ear, and lots of other stuff- today we have found that all of these things that at one time seemed to be ‘leftover’ do indeed have a function]. So Hitchens pulls out the old tail bone rabbit from the hat. The tailbone serves as a balance mechanism for the human to walk upright- it also serves as a primary connecting structure for other parts of the human skeleton- basically we have known for quite some time that the tailbone is not ‘vestigial’- I guess Hitchens just threw out any old arguments he has picked up over the years and figured the reading public would never know- he figured wrong. More? Okay- he contradicts himself page after page. He actually uses one of the proofs against Darwinian evolution- to argue for Darwinian evolution! He is familiar with the ‘Cambrian explosion’ this piece of scientific evidence shows us that some 500 million years ago [the Cambrian era] there was an ‘explosion’ of new body structures that form the basic structures of life- and that these life forms did not evolve over millions of years- they just appeared at once! When science found this out years ago- it thru a monkey wrench into the whole idea of Darwinian evolution- it said things indeed did not evolve slowly over millions of years- but they showed up at once. This kind of scientific truth goes against evolution and actually backs up the biblical claim that things were created at a set period of time- in complete form. So the whole Cambrian explosion thing is evidence against evolution- To Hitchens he just talks about it- acknowledges that the explosion does indeed contradict Darwin’s view [the tree paradigm- that things evolved over time ‘like a tree’ you started with one common base and things all branched out- the Cambrian evidence disproves this theory of Darwin]. And after admitting that all this proof does not back up Darwin- he then says see- ‘this is proof for evolution’. I don’t know if this man is out to lunch or what? And last but not least- he covers the fact that other civilizations have had myths about creation- the flood- and stuff like that. This argument [very old one- refuted years ago] basically says ‘see- because we have found these stories in other cultures- that means the bible stories about creation are fake’ man- I don’t even want to do the whole thing right now- I’ll try and simply paste the stuff I wrote about this at the bottom [or if you go to the blog site you can find all these posts under the evolution section]. Basically this theory has also been refuted- the fact is that if you find other cultures with ‘creation- flood’ stories, this in no way means creation or a flood never happened- to the contrary- this would be proof that it did! Overall he contradicts himself when tying to refute the Christian argument from design [that is we see design in the universe- people- animals- this argument is called Teleology] and Hitchens says ‘look- we see faults in humans, animals, the cosmos’ animals eat one another- humans have bad design with the eye structure [another famous- and also refuted argument about the so called faulty design of the eye] and therefore there must not be a grand designer [God] because look at the flaws in the product. Geez- another stale argument that’s been around for ages. Basically the way we refute this is to say ‘so- if I told you the car in the driveway was designed and made by an intelligent being- Ford- and you show me that the design has flaws- okay, I will have to find a way to explain the flaw’ but then for you to say ‘see, because it has flaws- it CAME FROM NOTHING’! Geez- well yes- I would think you were an idiot! The explanation for the so called flaws [predatory animals- the suns future demise, etc.] is the reality that yes indeed- Christian teaching says God made man and creation sinless, and after the fall of man into rebellion- the earth and all of creation plunged into a state called ‘the curse’ or in Hitchens eyes ‘bad design’. So all in all his arguments are old-outdated and easily refuted. Kinda starting to feel sorry for the man- thought he would have done a better job than this- believe me- if you are an atheist and are looking for arguments against the existence of God- historically others have made a much better case- I still think their arguments are wrong- but they have made a better case- Hitchens is the wrong man for this task.
[1567] FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER [and Hitchens] - Okay, before I get too far behind in our study of Modernity- let’s do another post. F.S. [the guy above- don’t want to keep writing the name] was one of the most influential thinkers/theologians to come at the turn of the 19th century. He too challenged the sterile rationality of Enlightenment thinkers- and tried to craft a way to look at religion that was unique. Instead of religion being this dry approach to the world and existence as mediated thru mans senses [natural religion- Kant, etc.] he said religion was actually meant to be this experience that man has as he interacts with the whole of creation- an ‘intuition- sense’ that is more than something we can dissect and put under the microscope of reason. F.S. was a sort of go between- he was both trained in academia- a true intellectual- and also a ‘man of the cloth’. He knew the arguments that some of the Romantics made against ‘dead religion’ and he challenged their rejection of religion and wrote the famous book ‘On religion- speeches to its cultured despisers’ in 1799. The book was targeted toward his fellow academics in the universities of Germany who scoffed at religion- he appealed to their sense of art and beauty as true Romantics- and made the case that true religion is ‘the sense and taste for the infinite’ that is religion can be an expression [above reason] that seeks to embrace this sense of the infinite, this ‘feeling’ in man that there is more to life than meets the eye- and you can be ‘cultured’ and religious at the same time.
Okay- actually this is a good spot to jump into more of my critique of Christopher Hitchens book ‘god is not great’. Hitchens fits in good with the ‘cultured despisers’ that F.S. was writing to. I have found some points of agreement with Hitchens; he sees the Catholic church’s stance on no condom use as dangerous- especially in places like Africa- because condoms can be an effective way to reduce the AIDS virus. As a Protestant, I am not against condom use/contraceptives- but the flaw in Hitchens argument is he presents the case in a way that says ‘see- if it weren’t for the church’s teaching on condoms- Africa would not be in this epidemic’. Point of fact- one of the major ways AIDS is spreading on the continent is thru the vocation of male prostitution and other promiscuous type lifestyles. Would Hitchens have us believe that as the male prostitutes are getting ready to ‘go to work’ that they look in the drawer- see the condom and say ‘geez- I would really like to use a condom- but my strict adherence to Catholic doctrine will not allow me to do it!’ The reality is the church’s teaching on condom use- if practiced in accordance with ALL THE OTHER TEACHINGS of the church- would not increase the spread of aids [the church teaches monogamous only relationships- these relationships are not contributing to the spread of the virus in Africa]. Hitchens also has an entire chapter on pig meat! Yes, I’ve heard Hitchens speak over the years- and for some reason he has this obsession with pig meat! Anyway he defends the poor pig- makes fun of the Jewish Kosher diet- and then proceeds to give his personal view on why pig meat became a ‘no- no’ to kosher Jews. He actually believes [for real!] that pigs taste and act so much like humans [their intelligence- and their screams when being slaughtered] that the Jews associated eating pig with eating humans [and Hitchens even describes the taste of pig meat tasting like human meat- no joke!] he believes this is the secret reason Jews don’t eat pigs. He also defends pig meat as being healthy. Okay- I’m not a pig meat aficionado- but being I am a student of the bible [including the Old Testament] I can assure you that the Jewish dietary laws of the Old Testament are in fact very healthy laws! For hundreds of years people did not know why pigs, shrimp, etc. were forbidden to be eaten by the Jewish people- and over time science has discovered that these meats were indeed unclean. The prohibition against certain sea food- later these types of fish were found out to be scavengers, they are the ‘trash eaters’ that keep the oceans clean- that’s why they are unhealthy. Pigs- Hitchens favorite meat- pig meat is not good for you [in general- I’m a very happy pig eater- on pizza- with eggs- out of a bag with spices on it- pork rinds] because the digestive tract of the pig is very short, what they eat ‘becomes’ part of their flesh/life without going thru a long digestive process- not like the cow who ‘chews the cud’ [multiple processes of digestion]. Basically pigs are in fact a ‘less healthy’ meat than other types of meat. All in all Hitchens- once again- is just misinformed about stuff- lots of stuff. Geez- I wrote this short critique from basic knowledge gained thru out my life- believe me I did not have to Google ‘is pig meat clean’. So once again we see the ‘brilliant mind’ of Hitchens at work. I’m reminded of an article I read a few years back- it was a column by Maureen Dowd [the liberal columnist]. She gave her conservative brother a free shot to use her column to blast liberals. He went at it- in pure tea party fashion. As he went down the list- hitting all the favorite sore spots- he got to a line where he spoke of his senator- obviously a liberal- he simply said ‘Sheldon Whitehouse- you sir- are an idiot’ and that was that. As I continue to read Hitchens book- this line comes to mind.
1.5.2011 | 6:50am
Blake Helgoth says:
What is missing is that God did allow suffering and evil (all came because on man and Satan's sin) because He wanted even greater good to come from them! "Oh happy fault, oh necessary sin of Adam!" Now, beacuse of the suffering of Christ Jesus, suffering was transformed into a greater good than was possible before. Now all suffering can be offered as the greatest act of love for the world because it is now pregnant with redemptive power!
1.5.2011 | 7:20am
michael Currie says:
This subject bleeds into other issues about the nature of God and what He does or does'nt do. While aknowledging that within "Him we live and breathe and have our being" there is much that can still be said about the world he has given us. One thing is that the world is not a conjurors trick, it is real and as it has been said ,it is real all the way down. Pain is not an adjunct to the world it is an integral element of it. I think Simone Weile said something about her pain in the form of a question, What would have to change in the structure of the world for her not to be in pain. Unless we wish to return to a time when pain was seen as an augery(sic) where one read the signs to find the sin then we are left with the physical,emotional,psychical components of pain which owe there reality to the way the world is put together and perhaps even to the distortions of the Fall.
1.5.2011 | 7:27am
Mike says:
You are spot on in your critique of Rowe's arbitrary qualifier. Degrees of suffering are relative. If God created the cosmos void of the kind of suffering Rowe presently understands as "intense," this would not remove the experience of intense suffering - it would just continue to be the highest degree of suffering possible, which could very well be tummy aches in a theoretical order of creation. Thus, the only way to remove "intense" suffering would be to remove all suffering by necessity.
Further, I disagree with Gabriel's defense or Rowe. Perhaps I misunderstood the main premise, but the intrinsic value of suffering cannot be considered within the context of the good it yields. This views suffering, and God's allowance of it, through a utilitarian lens - the end justifies the means. Suffering must be assessed independent of our response to it for the two are separate.
Ultimately I've always viewed evil as proof of God's existence. If the cosmos was not order towards the Good, we would not be able to identify experiences to the contrary. Shadows prove the sunshine.
Further, I disagree with Gabriel's defense or Rowe. Perhaps I misunderstood the main premise, but the intrinsic value of suffering cannot be considered within the context of the good it yields. This views suffering, and God's allowance of it, through a utilitarian lens - the end justifies the means. Suffering must be assessed independent of our response to it for the two are separate.
Ultimately I've always viewed evil as proof of God's existence. If the cosmos was not order towards the Good, we would not be able to identify experiences to the contrary. Shadows prove the sunshine.
1.5.2011 | 7:57am
jason taylor says:
"...but the intrinsic value of suffering cannot be considered within the context of the good it yields. "
Really? Every child who goes to school involuntarily is an example of the converse. Do we really measure suffering in any other way? Can it be claimed that suffering is good in itself?
Really? Every child who goes to school involuntarily is an example of the converse. Do we really measure suffering in any other way? Can it be claimed that suffering is good in itself?
1.5.2011 | 8:12am
Mike says:
"Really? Every child who goes to school involuntarily is an example of the converse. Do we really measure suffering in any other way? Can it be claimed that suffering is good in itself?"
This analogy demonstrates my point. The act of going to school cannot be considered suffering in and of itself because there are children for whom it is not suffering and who do go voluntarily. The only difference in those two scenarios is the will of the child. This holds true for many experiences. An instance of "suffering" can have vastly different outcomes unrelated to the instance itself but are a product of the will and a person's response to it.
Simply because one person cannot benefit from an instance of suffering does not mean that instance of suffering produces no benefit. The great variable here is subjectivity and the response of the will.
I'm not trying to suggest in any way that "suffering" is purely relative either. Rather, if one is going to debate evil and suffering as real "things" that disprove God's existence, they must be discussed on their own merit and independent of people's response to them. If this cannot be done, it's not so much evil that disproves God's existence in the argument but, rather, the inability of people to respond positively to pain that disproves God's existence.
But, as with a great many things, I could be wrong.
This analogy demonstrates my point. The act of going to school cannot be considered suffering in and of itself because there are children for whom it is not suffering and who do go voluntarily. The only difference in those two scenarios is the will of the child. This holds true for many experiences. An instance of "suffering" can have vastly different outcomes unrelated to the instance itself but are a product of the will and a person's response to it.
Simply because one person cannot benefit from an instance of suffering does not mean that instance of suffering produces no benefit. The great variable here is subjectivity and the response of the will.
I'm not trying to suggest in any way that "suffering" is purely relative either. Rather, if one is going to debate evil and suffering as real "things" that disprove God's existence, they must be discussed on their own merit and independent of people's response to them. If this cannot be done, it's not so much evil that disproves God's existence in the argument but, rather, the inability of people to respond positively to pain that disproves God's existence.
But, as with a great many things, I could be wrong.
1.5.2011 | 8:29am
Jimmy says:
False premise: we would have to be omniscient, to know the will of an Omniscient God.
The fact is, 1) God is said to be omniscient; but it is said we can know his will well enough, by reading our Bibles. What is more 2) our Bibles usually (if not always?) tell us specifically, that God is going to protect us from diseases, pain, if we are good and follow him.
Therefore? Many people come to this conclusion still: 3) if we are good, but there is pain and evil, then the God of the Bible, often lied to us. And he is no god at all, therefore.
The fact is, 1) God is said to be omniscient; but it is said we can know his will well enough, by reading our Bibles. What is more 2) our Bibles usually (if not always?) tell us specifically, that God is going to protect us from diseases, pain, if we are good and follow him.
Therefore? Many people come to this conclusion still: 3) if we are good, but there is pain and evil, then the God of the Bible, often lied to us. And he is no god at all, therefore.
1.5.2011 | 9:29am
Craig Payne says:
Regarding Rowe's use of "intense" suffering: Perhaps a better qualifier would be "apparently unjustifiable in principle."
Tummy-aches, for example--let's say they occur because of eating unhealthy foods, or too much food, or in order to cause us to reflect on philosophical problems upon which we would not have reflected without the tummy-ache. In these cases, the suffering seems to be "justifiable in principle."
Rowe's example of the fawn in the forest is not intended merely to illustrate "intense" suffering, but suffering that is apparently unjustifiable in principle, right?
Tummy-aches, for example--let's say they occur because of eating unhealthy foods, or too much food, or in order to cause us to reflect on philosophical problems upon which we would not have reflected without the tummy-ache. In these cases, the suffering seems to be "justifiable in principle."
Rowe's example of the fawn in the forest is not intended merely to illustrate "intense" suffering, but suffering that is apparently unjustifiable in principle, right?
1.5.2011 | 9:57am
Fred says:
"It is said we can know his will well enough, by reading our Bibles."
Not by Roman Catholics. Scripture is only one way to know the will of God. Study of nature, tradition, philosophy are all ways to know what we can of God's will. Besides. you're not making a critical distinction. We can know God's will without knowing exactly why it is His will. My dog knows it is my will that she sit. She has no clue, nor can she, why I want her to sit. The argument holds. Secondly, God himself presents a version of the omniscience-or-lack-of-it argument in the Bible, in book of Job, when he says to Job out of the whirlwind, essentially, "I'm God and you're not. You're not qualified to question me."
Not by Roman Catholics. Scripture is only one way to know the will of God. Study of nature, tradition, philosophy are all ways to know what we can of God's will. Besides. you're not making a critical distinction. We can know God's will without knowing exactly why it is His will. My dog knows it is my will that she sit. She has no clue, nor can she, why I want her to sit. The argument holds. Secondly, God himself presents a version of the omniscience-or-lack-of-it argument in the Bible, in book of Job, when he says to Job out of the whirlwind, essentially, "I'm God and you're not. You're not qualified to question me."
1.5.2011 | 10:07am
Michael says:
@ Jimmy
I dont think you've read the bible much, or else have a over simplified mental version of it, because as I recall, the bible also has an entire book (Job) devoted to the idea that we cannot know why God allows suffering, even of the good like Job. Rather than tell Job why he is suffering, God says (I paraphrase) "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" We cannot fathom his ALL reasonings, because we are not omnipotent.
The premise is not false.
I dont think you've read the bible much, or else have a over simplified mental version of it, because as I recall, the bible also has an entire book (Job) devoted to the idea that we cannot know why God allows suffering, even of the good like Job. Rather than tell Job why he is suffering, God says (I paraphrase) "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" We cannot fathom his ALL reasonings, because we are not omnipotent.
The premise is not false.
1.5.2011 | 10:11am
Joe McFaul says:
"Plantinga concludes that it is at least possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil."
So God is not omnificent.
Once you reach that conclusion, then the etnire problem of theodicy immediately evaporates.
Those are pretty big bootstraps.
So God is not omnificent.
Once you reach that conclusion, then the etnire problem of theodicy immediately evaporates.
Those are pretty big bootstraps.
1.5.2011 | 10:23am
PaulR says:
Buddhists would say all existence is suffering, whether tummy-ache, virulent cancer or even the cruelest torture. The magnitude is meaningless - only relevant for us, whose knowledge and attachment are limited to our small plane of existence. For sentient beings above us (ie. angels, saints, etc...) tummy-aches, cancer, or torture are all the same, and mean nothing. Therefore, suffering and "evil" (as we understand it) are overcome by wisdom.
1.5.2011 | 10:42am
A Horse says:
As is commonly missing from a logical debate of this matter is the fact that all of the previous debaters did not dive into the nature of good and evil itself. The existence of evil is one of the strongest proofs for the existence of God, because the question self destructs without God in the paradigm.
1) If you assume there is such a thing as evil, it follows that you must believe that there is such a thing as good.
2) If you believe that there is such a thing as good, then you must have a moral law with which to differentiate between good and evil
3) If you have a moral law, then you must have a moral lawgiver, which is God himself.
It follows that if Athiesim were true, then there would be no moral law, and there is no such thing as evil or suffering, so why are they basing an argument on something which they believe does not exist?
In reality, evil and suffering do exist, and therefore a moral law and a moral law giver exist. And praise be to Him, he came down to do something about all of it. He hated evil and suffering so much that he died to destroy them.
1) If you assume there is such a thing as evil, it follows that you must believe that there is such a thing as good.
2) If you believe that there is such a thing as good, then you must have a moral law with which to differentiate between good and evil
3) If you have a moral law, then you must have a moral lawgiver, which is God himself.
It follows that if Athiesim were true, then there would be no moral law, and there is no such thing as evil or suffering, so why are they basing an argument on something which they believe does not exist?
In reality, evil and suffering do exist, and therefore a moral law and a moral law giver exist. And praise be to Him, he came down to do something about all of it. He hated evil and suffering so much that he died to destroy them.
1.5.2011 | 10:46am
Craig Roberts says:
Jimmy, you're kidding right?
"Bibles usually (if not always?) tell us specifically, that God is going to protect us from diseases, pain, if we are good and follow him."
God's own Son, the only man who was ever truly 'good' was not protected by God from crucifixion. Keep searching for answers, but don't assume you already know what the Bible tells us.
"Bibles usually (if not always?) tell us specifically, that God is going to protect us from diseases, pain, if we are good and follow him."
God's own Son, the only man who was ever truly 'good' was not protected by God from crucifixion. Keep searching for answers, but don't assume you already know what the Bible tells us.
1.5.2011 | 11:37am
David Nickol says:
@Craig Roberts
Jesus suffered torture and death willingly. He was not forced into it. Also, in the argument being dealt with here, we are talking about "intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse." One might consider the salvation of the world a "greater good" than permitting the suffering and death of Jesus. But as I said, Jesus suffered voluntarily, so his suffering does not need to be explained in explaining the problem of evil.
For those who would attribute evil in the world to "the Fall," unless they are fundamentalists, they have to account for the fact that floods, earthquakes, predation, disease, and death predate the first humans by hundreds of millions of years.
Jesus suffered torture and death willingly. He was not forced into it. Also, in the argument being dealt with here, we are talking about "intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse." One might consider the salvation of the world a "greater good" than permitting the suffering and death of Jesus. But as I said, Jesus suffered voluntarily, so his suffering does not need to be explained in explaining the problem of evil.
For those who would attribute evil in the world to "the Fall," unless they are fundamentalists, they have to account for the fact that floods, earthquakes, predation, disease, and death predate the first humans by hundreds of millions of years.
1.5.2011 | 12:32pm
GlennB says:
In the book of Job, Job's questions about his suffering are not answered by God. But the mere appearance of God is enough to restore Job who concludes: "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore, I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." Job's reply follows God's: "He looks down on all that are haughty;he is king over all that are proud."
When God appears to us in our suffering, all of our "whys?" don't matter any more. Except, of course, for those whose prideful protest is of the likes of Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamatzov, whose real issue with suffering is not God's existence, but that he will only submit to God on his own terms.
When God appears to us in our suffering, all of our "whys?" don't matter any more. Except, of course, for those whose prideful protest is of the likes of Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamatzov, whose real issue with suffering is not God's existence, but that he will only submit to God on his own terms.
1.5.2011 | 12:42pm
Steve says:
The question of suffering, of which death is the ultimate, is obviously a difficult one. But trying to understand offers no comfort. In the Book of Job, God rebukes Job from the whirlwind in all the ways previous commenters have explained, and Job is essentially left with no "answers". Nevertheless, there is an element to the Job story that I like to remember; though God rebukes Job's demand for answers, God nevertheless answers him. God responds to Job's cries. To put it simply, God was there in the midst Job's suffering. Furthermore, God essentially says that Job's companions, who spend the entire book trying to give and explain "answers" to Job's suffering, are essentially full of nonsense. The answer, though it may not be intellectually or philosophically satisfying to Job's and our limited human minds, was nevertheless an answer. God hears our call. He is there in the lowest of our lows.
This presence of the Lord in the midst of human suffering was demonstrated perfectly in the Crucifixion. In Christ, God suffers in the worst way that the world has to offer, even unto death. In the Cross, God speaks (like the Psalmist in Psalm 22), "I am a worm." And in making Himself present in the lowest of the worldy lows, he can therefore redeem our suffering and save us from the lowest of our lows. How? Because the Cross is not the last word; the Resurrection is. God was present in Job's suffering, and this presence is "fulfilled" in the Cross. We may not like or understand "the answer" of God to Job or the "answer" of the Cross, but understanding was never the point. God's presence in and victory over suffering is the point.
This presence of the Lord in the midst of human suffering was demonstrated perfectly in the Crucifixion. In Christ, God suffers in the worst way that the world has to offer, even unto death. In the Cross, God speaks (like the Psalmist in Psalm 22), "I am a worm." And in making Himself present in the lowest of the worldy lows, he can therefore redeem our suffering and save us from the lowest of our lows. How? Because the Cross is not the last word; the Resurrection is. God was present in Job's suffering, and this presence is "fulfilled" in the Cross. We may not like or understand "the answer" of God to Job or the "answer" of the Cross, but understanding was never the point. God's presence in and victory over suffering is the point.
1.5.2011 | 2:40pm
James says:
Job fans:
Note that the Bible assures us that in the end, God proves himself, by giving "Job twice as much as he had before." So that, we are made to understand that short-term suffering is only good ... if it leads to greater prosperity in the end. When suffering is dropped.
But what about those who are "good," and yet suffer ... all their lives? The book of Job has no answer, for that.
While as for the New Testament message, of the wonderfulness of the "cross" and suffering? It seems like a double-cross, of the prosperity-promising Old Testament God. To say, Dr. Roy Harrisville's 2006 book, "Fracture."
Note that the Bible assures us that in the end, God proves himself, by giving "Job twice as much as he had before." So that, we are made to understand that short-term suffering is only good ... if it leads to greater prosperity in the end. When suffering is dropped.
But what about those who are "good," and yet suffer ... all their lives? The book of Job has no answer, for that.
While as for the New Testament message, of the wonderfulness of the "cross" and suffering? It seems like a double-cross, of the prosperity-promising Old Testament God. To say, Dr. Roy Harrisville's 2006 book, "Fracture."
1.5.2011 | 4:37pm
Steve says:
James,
With respect, where does the New Testament say that the Cross and suffering are "wonderful" (in the sense that I think you mean it)? No, Christian Tradition and Scripture are fully aware and expressive of the horror of the Crucifixion. To deny the reality of the horror of the Crucifixion is to deny our salvation. Without the Cross, Jesus is reduced to a thought-provoking but unremarkable teacher at best or a clownish cartoon at worst (google "Buddy Christ").
Furthermore, Jesus without the Cross means that God does in fact stand idly by while his creatures suffer and die. This is the reason St. Paul writes that his only purpose is to speak about Jesus Christ "and him crucified". The Cross is the answer to the problem of suffering. Why? It is God's perfect demonstration of his love and compassion for humanity. On the Cross, he literally "suffers with" us (the root meaning of "compassion"). By doing this, He has the final word, not suffering and death. Our death becomes His death, but He is stronger than death. He "suffers with" us and dies with us so that we may rise with Him.
With respect, where does the New Testament say that the Cross and suffering are "wonderful" (in the sense that I think you mean it)? No, Christian Tradition and Scripture are fully aware and expressive of the horror of the Crucifixion. To deny the reality of the horror of the Crucifixion is to deny our salvation. Without the Cross, Jesus is reduced to a thought-provoking but unremarkable teacher at best or a clownish cartoon at worst (google "Buddy Christ").
Furthermore, Jesus without the Cross means that God does in fact stand idly by while his creatures suffer and die. This is the reason St. Paul writes that his only purpose is to speak about Jesus Christ "and him crucified". The Cross is the answer to the problem of suffering. Why? It is God's perfect demonstration of his love and compassion for humanity. On the Cross, he literally "suffers with" us (the root meaning of "compassion"). By doing this, He has the final word, not suffering and death. Our death becomes His death, but He is stronger than death. He "suffers with" us and dies with us so that we may rise with Him.
1.5.2011 | 4:46pm
Craig Payne says:
"Note that the Bible assures us that in the end, God proves himself, by giving "Job twice as much as he had before." So that, we are made to understand that short-term suffering is only good ... if it leads to greater prosperity in the end. When suffering is dropped."
James, not to be snide, but this interpretation of the end of Job is jaw-droppingly, monumentally, off base. Job is reconciled with God before any mention of "greater prosperity" or of having more children. His experience with God is the point, whether or not he is blessed again afterwards. As Job says, "I had heard of You...now I see You."
Also, God never promises Job it won't happen again. Job and his wife have to continue on, in faith, as do we all.
James, not to be snide, but this interpretation of the end of Job is jaw-droppingly, monumentally, off base. Job is reconciled with God before any mention of "greater prosperity" or of having more children. His experience with God is the point, whether or not he is blessed again afterwards. As Job says, "I had heard of You...now I see You."
Also, God never promises Job it won't happen again. Job and his wife have to continue on, in faith, as do we all.
1.5.2011 | 5:10pm
Anri says:
"Stated in this way, most people would abandon arguments for the Tummy Ache-evidential problem of evil. However, some skeptical folk would still contend that an omnipotent, wholly good being would indeed prevent all tummy aches—and that stomach pains are evidence against the existence of God. The proper response to this is “Are you omniscient?” "
No, I am not omniscient.
It should also be noted that I do not grow feathers, and cannot lay hard-shelled eggs. Yet, even though I lack characteristics specific and definitive of birds, I still believe I can have intelligent conversations about, and make some bread statements about them.
I do not have to have the characteristics of a thing to discuss it. I can discuss magma, coins, automobiles, nitrogen, and Jupiter (the planet or the deity) while lacking many characteristics of these things.
To anyone who wishes to posit that god is incapable of creating a world incorporating free will, but free from suffering and evil, I ask: what is your concept of heaven? Do people lack free will in heaven? Or is there evil and suffering there?
Common Christian thought holds that god is omnipotent. If god is omnipotent, he can do anything - that's what the term means. If god is omnipotent, he can remove all suffering without any cost or disruption in his plan. He can remove all suffering and still achieve all the aims the suffering might otherwise accomplish - he's omnipotent. He chooses not to.
No, I am not omniscient.
It should also be noted that I do not grow feathers, and cannot lay hard-shelled eggs. Yet, even though I lack characteristics specific and definitive of birds, I still believe I can have intelligent conversations about, and make some bread statements about them.
I do not have to have the characteristics of a thing to discuss it. I can discuss magma, coins, automobiles, nitrogen, and Jupiter (the planet or the deity) while lacking many characteristics of these things.
To anyone who wishes to posit that god is incapable of creating a world incorporating free will, but free from suffering and evil, I ask: what is your concept of heaven? Do people lack free will in heaven? Or is there evil and suffering there?
Common Christian thought holds that god is omnipotent. If god is omnipotent, he can do anything - that's what the term means. If god is omnipotent, he can remove all suffering without any cost or disruption in his plan. He can remove all suffering and still achieve all the aims the suffering might otherwise accomplish - he's omnipotent. He chooses not to.
1.5.2011 | 5:44pm
jason taylor says:
"This analogy demonstrates my point. The act of going to school cannot be considered suffering in and of itself because there are children for whom it is not suffering and who do go voluntarily. The only difference in those two scenarios is the will of the child. This holds true for many experiences. An instance of "suffering" can have vastly different outcomes unrelated to the instance itself but are a product of the will and a person's response to it."
But it is suffering "in and of itself" for the child for whom it is suffering. And "the will of the child" is irrelevant in this matter. You could just as easily say tummy aches are not suffering because you could conceivably find someone that enjoys tummy aches.
But it is suffering "in and of itself" for the child for whom it is suffering. And "the will of the child" is irrelevant in this matter. You could just as easily say tummy aches are not suffering because you could conceivably find someone that enjoys tummy aches.
1.5.2011 | 8:02pm
Bender says:
1. Tummy aches are a form of harm being done to the physical and/or psychological well-being of a sentient creature.
2. Harm is evil.
3. God—an omniscient, wholly good being—would prevent evil.
4. God did not prevent my tummy ache.
5. Ergo, there is no god.
6. My tummy still hurts. Evil still exists. A lot of good it did me to "prove the non-existence of God." I'm no better off, in fact I'm worse off, than I was before.
7. Since God does not exist, my hurt tummy and evil must be caused by something other than God, e.g. either by willed action (someone punched me in the belly) or natural consequence (being lactose intolerant).
8. Since hurt tummies and evil exist whether or not God exists, or whether or not God prevents them from happening, 3 and 4 are shown to be false premises.
9. Ergo, there could still be a God.
2. Harm is evil.
3. God—an omniscient, wholly good being—would prevent evil.
4. God did not prevent my tummy ache.
5. Ergo, there is no god.
6. My tummy still hurts. Evil still exists. A lot of good it did me to "prove the non-existence of God." I'm no better off, in fact I'm worse off, than I was before.
7. Since God does not exist, my hurt tummy and evil must be caused by something other than God, e.g. either by willed action (someone punched me in the belly) or natural consequence (being lactose intolerant).
8. Since hurt tummies and evil exist whether or not God exists, or whether or not God prevents them from happening, 3 and 4 are shown to be false premises.
9. Ergo, there could still be a God.
1.5.2011 | 8:04pm
Gerald Reiner says:
Jesus said,"My kingdom is not of this world." So we do not expect our experiences here to be heavenly (e.g. without suffering).
Why is suffering allowed here? Why did the Blessed Virgin Mary not be allowed to die on the evening of Palm Sunday instead of years later, after witnessing the greatest suffering one could endure?
One grinds on a knife until it is sharp enough; one polishes an ornament until it shines as desired. God gives us the opportunity to fulfill out capacity for holiness by methods we question.
Remember OJ Simpson. Did God finally see fit to punish him? I think the opposite is true. God loves OJ so much HE is giving him a new opportunity to repent. New buddies, new furniture, new routines, and lots of time to reflect.
Why is suffering allowed here? Why did the Blessed Virgin Mary not be allowed to die on the evening of Palm Sunday instead of years later, after witnessing the greatest suffering one could endure?
One grinds on a knife until it is sharp enough; one polishes an ornament until it shines as desired. God gives us the opportunity to fulfill out capacity for holiness by methods we question.
Remember OJ Simpson. Did God finally see fit to punish him? I think the opposite is true. God loves OJ so much HE is giving him a new opportunity to repent. New buddies, new furniture, new routines, and lots of time to reflect.
1.5.2011 | 8:55pm
joe mcfaul says:
"Remember OJ Simpson. Did God finally see fit to punish him? I think the opposite is true. God loves OJ so much HE is giving him a new opportunity to repent. New buddies, new furniture, new routines, and lots of time to reflect."
Actually I remember Ron Goldman, an innocent bystander who was murderd simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But God loved him so much that He allowed him to die young thereby avoiding a long life of suffering and an old age of arthritis.
Apparently God achieved a two-fer. God loves OJ so much He lets him go to priison for a chance to repent. He also loves Ron Goldman so much He kills him off young to avoid the ravages of old age.
Therefore God is good.
We actually have no satsifactory answer to the theodicy question and it's ridiculous to attempt any definitive answer to that question.
Tempted and tried we're oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all the day long
While there are others living about us
Never molested though in the wrong
Farther along we'll know all about it
Farther along we'll understand why
Cheer up my brother live in the sunshine
We'll understand it all by and by
When death has come and taken our loved ones
It leaves our home so lonely and drear
And then do we wonder why others prosper
Living so wicked year after year
Actually I remember Ron Goldman, an innocent bystander who was murderd simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But God loved him so much that He allowed him to die young thereby avoiding a long life of suffering and an old age of arthritis.
Apparently God achieved a two-fer. God loves OJ so much He lets him go to priison for a chance to repent. He also loves Ron Goldman so much He kills him off young to avoid the ravages of old age.
Therefore God is good.
We actually have no satsifactory answer to the theodicy question and it's ridiculous to attempt any definitive answer to that question.
Tempted and tried we're oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all the day long
While there are others living about us
Never molested though in the wrong
Farther along we'll know all about it
Farther along we'll understand why
Cheer up my brother live in the sunshine
We'll understand it all by and by
When death has come and taken our loved ones
It leaves our home so lonely and drear
And then do we wonder why others prosper
Living so wicked year after year
1.6.2011 | 10:13am
My tummy hurts from reading this thread.
Ergo, God exists.
Ergo, God exists.
1.6.2011 | 10:53am
michael Currie says:
It would seem to me that, from a Christian perspective, the issues of pain and evil are wrapped up in the question; Why do we need salvation? There is something about the world as it is structured that combines all three, pain, evil and salvation. I suppose the world could be arranged in a different configuration so as to eliminate the first two entirely and perhaps therefore the need for salvation. As the world is, all suffering can be explained, at least in theory and much of it in reality and yet it persists. From tummy aches to angst to horrors beyond imagining and ,to paraphrase the Philosopher skater Kerrigan, Why us has rang out through the ages. No answer has silenced this cry against pain in all of its manifestations. Pain will be our unwelcome companion as long as there is life. For the atheists among us this cry is just a kvetch and they will try with their fellow travelers ,the materialists and utopians to do their best to rid the world of this curse. They will be trying for a long, long time and even then the cry will be with us. A clue to the answer can be found in a peculiar aspect of our response to pain and evil. Some pain is ameliorated if we attach meaning to it. Some trivial examples are athletes who often go through excruciating pain and deprivation to achieve a result they see as desirable or the parent sitting up night after night with a sick child. We see purpose in the hero that loses his life to save another. We even alter our perceptions of a criminal, sometimes, when mitigating circumstances are brought to light. So the dilemna seems to be pain without meaning more than pain per se. Is it true that there is pain without meaning? I would submit that contrary to appearances there is not while not diminishing the reality of pain. My notion is that the possibility and the desire of a world without pain is inextricably bound to meaning and the example par excelance of this binding is Christ crucified. Christ submitted to the pain , evil and death that seems to rule the world, He took it into Himself and gave all suffering meaning by turning his suffering into salvation.
1.15.2011 | 1:54am
Owen says:
Sorry but this makes NO sense at all... I find it amazing that people, despite what is happening around them still have faith in God, but to be so self-focused and so arrogant to think that they are better than anyone hence they shouldn't have a tummy ace is absurd.
Do you really think that bad stuff only happens to bad people?! Really? What about kids who die form cancer at the age of 5, what about people who die form not having enough food, earthquakes?? It doesn't matter if you have faith, it doesn't even matter if you did it all the "right" way, there is NO insurance on this world. And perhaps not even on the next one
Do you really think that bad stuff only happens to bad people?! Really? What about kids who die form cancer at the age of 5, what about people who die form not having enough food, earthquakes?? It doesn't matter if you have faith, it doesn't even matter if you did it all the "right" way, there is NO insurance on this world. And perhaps not even on the next one
1.21.2011 | 7:46am
Steve Zara says:
"For the atheists among us this cry is just a kvetch and they will try with their fellow travelers ,the materialists and utopians to do their best to rid the world of this curse."
For atheists pain is real, pain is human. There is no goodness in pain. There is no message in suffering. There is no salvation in cancer. There is no silver lining to the fog of Alzheimers.
We try to rid the world of pain, not to fight a curse, but because we have fellow feeling, evolved, but no less real, no less moral.
I am material, my suffering is physical. It's in my myelin-sheathed nerves that spark and fizz. It's in my calcite bones that crumble and break. It in my oxygen-starved muscles that cramp and strain. It's in all there, and within my material brain.
I am atheist, I care about people because they are real. Their pain is here and now. There is no good to it, no puzzle of origin. There is no contorted illogic looking for why a good god would want the evil of agony. We don't see a doctor battle pain to the death with morphine and a divine plan unfolding.
Pain does not disprove god. God is defined beyond disproof. Pain only changes meanings. Good becomes confusing. Holy becomes distressing. Father becomes abusive, cruel to be kind. Suffering means learning that god isn't nice. Life is the cross we all have to bear.
I say damn the cross; torture is no redemption. No mystery, no god, just us. No need for bellyaching, let's get to work.
For atheists pain is real, pain is human. There is no goodness in pain. There is no message in suffering. There is no salvation in cancer. There is no silver lining to the fog of Alzheimers.
We try to rid the world of pain, not to fight a curse, but because we have fellow feeling, evolved, but no less real, no less moral.
I am material, my suffering is physical. It's in my myelin-sheathed nerves that spark and fizz. It's in my calcite bones that crumble and break. It in my oxygen-starved muscles that cramp and strain. It's in all there, and within my material brain.
I am atheist, I care about people because they are real. Their pain is here and now. There is no good to it, no puzzle of origin. There is no contorted illogic looking for why a good god would want the evil of agony. We don't see a doctor battle pain to the death with morphine and a divine plan unfolding.
Pain does not disprove god. God is defined beyond disproof. Pain only changes meanings. Good becomes confusing. Holy becomes distressing. Father becomes abusive, cruel to be kind. Suffering means learning that god isn't nice. Life is the cross we all have to bear.
I say damn the cross; torture is no redemption. No mystery, no god, just us. No need for bellyaching, let's get to work.
1.21.2011 | 5:25pm
severalspeciesof says:
I would like to point out some mis-information that was put forward by john chiarello, regarding vestigial organs. (There's a whole lot more put forth by john that is rather dubious, but no time to go there.)
Vestigial doesn't necessarily mean useless, but rather less useful than its counter part in an ancestor.
The tail bone bit brought a giggle. Some people are born without the coccyx, yet stand quite well, and others, in extremely rare cases (rare because it's vestigial), have plenty of them, resulting in actual tails...
Vestigial doesn't necessarily mean useless, but rather less useful than its counter part in an ancestor.
The tail bone bit brought a giggle. Some people are born without the coccyx, yet stand quite well, and others, in extremely rare cases (rare because it's vestigial), have plenty of them, resulting in actual tails...
1.22.2011 | 1:23pm
Quine says:
Joe, you can't make the (evidential) problem of evil go away by trivializing it on your tummy-ache scale. (By the way, where is The Holocaust, or the toucher and rape of children in the Ryan Report, on that scale?) You claim that "most philosophers (including William Rowe) would admit that Alvin Plantinga has solved the logical problem of evil" but do you have any evidence for that? That Plantinga has presented an argument does not mean he has a "solution." Where are you getting your philosopher polling data, and is it a numbers game, anyway?
Earlier on this thread, Gabriel has covered many of the philosophical objections so I will not go back over them. People have made up the attributes of deities for thousands of years. Deities with the simultaneous attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibeneficence are logically inconsistent just as you can make up a description of a square circle, but the words when put together don't mean anything. You don't need omniscience yourself to know that a being with those attributes would not have made this world at all. What is the point when such a being would already know how it works out. That deity could simply create the post-world result in paradise, without suffering ever having happened, and without the unimaginably great evil of sentient beings roasting in Hell for all eternity.
Earlier on this thread, Gabriel has covered many of the philosophical objections so I will not go back over them. People have made up the attributes of deities for thousands of years. Deities with the simultaneous attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibeneficence are logically inconsistent just as you can make up a description of a square circle, but the words when put together don't mean anything. You don't need omniscience yourself to know that a being with those attributes would not have made this world at all. What is the point when such a being would already know how it works out. That deity could simply create the post-world result in paradise, without suffering ever having happened, and without the unimaginably great evil of sentient beings roasting in Hell for all eternity.
3.4.2011 | 11:36pm
Lavona Radisovich says:
Buddhists would say all existence is suffering, whether tummy-ache, virulent cancer or even the cruelest torture. The magnitude is meaningless - only relevant for us, whose knowledge and attachment are limited to our small plane of existence. For sentient beings above us (ie. angels, saints, etc...) tummy-aches, cancer, or torture are all the same, and mean nothing. Therefore, suffering and "evil" (as we understand it) are overcome by wisdom. Joe, you can't make the (evidential) problem of evil go away by trivializing it on your tummy-ache scale. (By the way, where is The Holocaust, or the toucher and rape of children in the Ryan Report, on that scale?) You claim that "most philosophers (including William Rowe) would admit that Alvin Plantinga has solved the logical problem of evil" but do you have any evidence for that? That Plantinga has presented an argument does not mean he has a "solution." Where are you getting your philosopher polling data, and is it a numbers game, anyway?
