S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
You appear not to understand the nature either of free will or the Fall.
- Status
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
Discarding the free will arguments for a moment – they’re irrelevant, as you’ll soon see – let’s examine a specific scenario.
Consider the numerous children who die within a short time of childbirth, at an age of only a few months or less. They are not yet capable of thinking about their suffering, its meaning, or religion in any way. Their free will, or that of any other person, is not relevant to the scenario.
Perhaps their suffering is an instrument for a greater good, in some sense. Perhaps it teaches a message to the rest of the world, for example.
Now, suppose one less child suffers and dies.
Has that message to the rest of the world been diminished? Has that greater good been significantly harmed? Probably not.
Furthermore, regarding the point that we have a limited perspective. That is, again, irrelevant. Consider the following logic:
1.If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then no blameless person suffers.
2.God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
3.Babies are blameless.
4.Babies suffer.
5.Therefore, from 1,2, and 3, no babies suffer.
This is inconsistent. Furthermore, the addition of any additional propositions – e.g. (6) God has a plan for the world – does not change the fact that propositions 1-4 are still consistent. No matter how many propositions you add, the set will still be inconsistent. No amount of additional information or perspective will solve the inconsistency. You must instead find a problem with one of the original four propositions.
Now, you could replace proposition 1 with this: If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and has a plan for the universe, then it is possible that a blameless person suffers.
However, one must explain why this is true. Being omnibenevolent, God can only allow a blameless person to suffer if the plan that requires it is much greater than the individual’s suffering; holding to the plan, which will bring great good, is more important than the individual good of the person. I’ll let my philosophy of religion professor take it from here:
Furthermore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God can certainly achieve his goals without allowing any suffering. Even if he allows free will, there is much suffering that does not result from free will. Why would God choose pain and suffering to achieve his plans rather than any other possible method, being omnipotent? If he does so, he is not omnibenevolent.
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
I also note that all the imagistic, mythological, dogmatic rather than logical ‘explanations’ offered for suffering, such as original sin, the salvation-promoting power of human suffering, our inability to know the purposes of an infinite God, etc., all depend on the presupposition of the existence of this miraculous being and his associated mythology, which was what was first put into question by the problem of evil. Since this is exactly what is in question, its existence cannot be presumed in order to solve the logical problems of how it could exist. But further, these ‘explanations’ are just dogmatic imagery which purports to ‘solve’ the puzzle by a fable, rather than conceptual accounts which reconcile infinite goodness and omnipotence with evil.
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
Who knows? Again, we lack the perspective to possibly answer this question.
That is the very premise that I called you on. You are presupposing that suffering is inherently evil, without proving it. All you really have is that we don’t like it, and that’s not the same thing at all.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
If you are going to judge God then you have to judge God according to how Christians define Gods nature, otherwise, who is it exactly that you are judging?
A
Aboveallbereal
Guest
You seem to be unaware that the very concepts of good, evil, benevolence etc that you seem to rely on presuppose a God. Without a God they are meaningless uncountable nouns in a world blind to such concepts.
One of the intellectual challenges facing atheism is an acceptance of this and other difficult cold and unattractive realities of life without God. If God - be He good or bad - does not exist then good evil etc have no meaning beyond subjective experience and that as de Sade with his adult and insightful understanding of the atheist conception rightly pointed out is irrelevant to all but the being doing the suffering. In short if a baby dies in agony so what?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Precisely. If there is no God, the baby is just a meaningless bag of chemicals, with no more objective moral value than a bucket load of donkey-poo.
Welcome to nihilism.
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
No, there is something more objective than personal subjectivity and less mythological than God in which to ground morality, and that is in society and our social love of humanity, which together provide the foundation for the same ethics that religion attempts to establish pictorially rather than conceptually, by positing a dogmatic mythology.
It would be a real pity if the only reason we had for being good to each other were our mutual belief in a mythologial being who told us to do this and who would punish us later if we didn’t! In that case, our belief would lack all moral significance, and would express only our recognition of the utilitarian benefit of avoiding punishment.
It would be a real pity if the only reason we had for being good to each other were our mutual belief in a mythologial being who told us to do this and who would punish us later if we didn’t! In that case, our belief would lack all moral significance, and would express only our recognition of the utilitarian benefit of avoiding punishment.
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
Speaking of objective non-Christian morality – why do you misrepresent yourself as a Catholic in your profile?
Just curious.
Just curious.
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
I was born Catholic.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Well, that pretty much sums it up. Welcome to the “Catholic” version of love and compassion.
What is truly ironic is that we could change the starting parameters of a discussion, and talk about why do Christians or Catholics mourn the departure of their loved ones, or why does the Catholic Church maintain hospitals to alleviate suffering? All of a sudden, this existence becomes very important. The pain is not good any more, it must be cured, lessened, fixed, as much as it can be.
So welcome to the apologists who keep blowing both hot and cold from their mouth. Who actively practice doublethink. Welcome to the crazy house, where nothing matters, but to “whitewash” God, no matter how inconsistent the poster must become. Where the only consistent behavior is inconsistency. And, of course, to deny this inconsistency by all means possible. But you only convince yourself.
Sometimes it is said that religion is a mental disorder. It is not true. There are plenty of sane and religious people out there. But the apologists who change their attitude based upon the prevailing “wind”, who are willing to argue against their previously held position, just because the same question is presented in a slightly different fashion - well those people do not belong to the class of “sane and religious” group.
V
Vico
Guest
The remark of “so what” is not Catholic idea, it was a description of the athiest attitude as presented by Marquis de Sade. In fact I have read de Sade, the tale of his deathbed (1814) when a priest talks to him of reform, and he asks for a girl (for sex) instead, arguing against the priest. He spent 32 of his 74 years in an insane asylum.Well, that pretty much sums it up. Welcome to the “Catholic” version of love and compassion.
What is truly ironic is that we could change the starting parameters of a discussion, and talk about why do Christians or Catholics mourn the departure of their loved ones, or why does the Catholic Church maintain hospitals to alleviate suffering? All of a sudden, this existence becomes very important. The pain is not good any more, it must be cured, lessened, fixed, as much as it can be.
So welcome to the apologists who keep blowing both hot and cold from their mouth. Who actively practice doublethink. Welcome to the crazy house, where nothing matters, but to “whitewash” God, no matter how inconsistent the poster must become. Where the only consistent behavior is inconsistency. And, of course, to deny this inconsistency by all means possible. But you only convince yourself.
Sometimes it is said that religion is a mental disorder. It is not true. There are plenty of sane and religious people out there. But the apologists who change their attitude based upon the prevailing “wind”, who are willing to argue against their previously held position, just because the same question is presented in a slightly different fashion - well those people do not belong to the class of “sane and religious” group.
Sin is disorderd thought and action resulting in the seven vices: pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth. The libertine avoids proper order.
We help others out of charity, which includes healing, not for the purpose of disorder. The result of sin is unhealthy attachment, for which penance is a remedy, in several general forms of prayer, abstinance, charity, and witness to Catholic faith before others.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Oh, but it is. It is the final “argument” when the apologists run out of rational ones. See any thread about the “problem of evil”. When all else fails, it will be argued that the pain and misery in this existence is irrelevant when compared to the eternal bliss in the afterlife. Don’t fool yourself. The “so what…” will come up every time. The first time I have seen it happened many years ago on this board, and I am sad to say, but I blew a fuse, because I could not believe how such an incredibly heartless “argument” can be offered. Since then I learned better.
V
Vico
Guest
Referring to the rethorical question earlier: “In short if a baby dies in agony so what?”
The “so what” is not a Catholic idea because it is not taught by Catholicism, although Catholics may make any kind of statement imaginable that is non-Catholic. What is taught by Catholicism is that we were created to be happy with God in heaven *, and that we have done nothing to deserve it, it is a gift, as is grace, yet we must choose it.
- Baltimore Catechism No. 1, Question 6: Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
I know all that. But, you see, that kind of argument is still offered on these boards - and quite frequently, too. And the other Catholics do not rebut these “arguments”. Why is that?
V
Vico
Guest
I can only speculate that they have not read or understood the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I was taught with the Baltimore Catechism series.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
You are confusing the subjective will to do what one imagines or fantasies to be good, with “moral truth”. There is no such thing as moral truth if there is no God. It is irrational to say that people ought to behave in a certain way. You can ask people to cooperate with your desires; but this does not tell us what is truly right and what is truly wrong; for there is no right or wrong with out God.
There is no such thing as moral significance in a nihilistic reality. There is no such thing as objective significance full stop. Thats just a fantasy that you made up because you want people to treat you in a way that is pleasing to you. You want people to share in your fantasy; because you are not happy experiencing that delusion by yourself. Your life has no true significance whatsoever. You are just an insignificant meaningless blip on the face of reality which might as well of never occurred in the first place. What is the point of you?
R
reggieM
Guest
You very much misunderstood the argument. It was an atheistic response, not a Catholic one. You should refute it in terms of atheistic materialism and not by attacking Christianity.Well, that pretty much sums it up. Welcome to the “Catholic” version of love and compassion.
What is truly ironic is that we could change the starting parameters of a discussion, and talk about why do Christians or Catholics mourn the departure of their loved ones, or why does the Catholic Church maintain hospitals to alleviate suffering? All of a sudden, this existence becomes very important. The pain is not good any more, it must be cured, lessened, fixed, as much as it can be.
So welcome to the apologists who keep blowing both hot and cold from their mouth. Who actively practice doublethink. Welcome to the crazy house, where nothing matters, but to “whitewash” God, no matter how inconsistent the poster must become. Where the only consistent behavior is inconsistency. And, of course, to deny this inconsistency by all means possible. But you only convince yourself.
Sometimes it is said that religion is a mental disorder. It is not true. There are plenty of sane and religious people out there. But the apologists who change their attitude based upon the prevailing “wind”, who are willing to argue against their previously held position, just because the same question is presented in a slightly different fashion - well those people do not belong to the class of “sane and religious” group.
So, what is your refutation of the argument? You say above that it is “heartless” to make such a statement, but I think you need to explain your reasons in terms of materialistic atheism. What does heartless mean? What is the ultimate origin of it? What purpose does it have (or the opposite)?
Above all, it’s important to answer the question “why?” to each of your assertions about life.
As most of us see it, in the nihilistic view, “In short if a baby dies in agony so what?” – follows logically and rationally from the first premise.
Again, this is not the Catholic view we’re discussing but the logical results of atheism.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
This response is made by Christians and Catholics, time and time again, when the “problem of evil” is discussed - never by atheists. When Christians run out of their semi-rational arguments, this is the last “resort”. It follows logically from the concept that this life is not “all there is”. If one believes that this life is merely a “prelude” to some perfect existence in some afterlife, then the significance of the atrocitities happening here and now are diminished.
In the eyes of the atheists this life is the only one. Therefore it matters what happens here and now. I have never heard an atheist saying “so what…?”. Of course that does not mean that there can be no atheist who says something like this. There certainly could be. I would attack that atheist just as vehemently as I do when a Catholic says this. But you are wrong when you think that the “so what…?” argument is a logical corollary to atheism.
It is the logical corollary to Christianity, for the reasons stated above.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
- Status