How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[Hawkmaid]

Omniscience…that causes many problems for the Christian God.

John

Problems? You’ll have to expound on that.

 

[Wesrock]

Might one suffer so much in this life, physically and psychologically, that one is unable to “(give) of oneself in love to another”? Further, how can even the most glorious future, which does not arrive until after one’s death, compensate for the present and past moments of agony one must endure prior to one’s death? These moments of pain cannot be erased but instead are intensely felt by many who suffer, and their character is beaten down rather than improved.

To some degree, I would have to trust in God’s mercy and justice. However, as to the second question, to be in God’s presence would far more than compensate any earthly suffering. Erase? No, but it would be given perspective, the person would gain understanding, and while it always remain a part of them, it would make sense, and be of very little consequence anymore other than helping to define who they are as a person.

This is not to say we should ignore suffering in this life. That would be wrong. We should do what we can to relieve our brothers and sisters in suffering. It’s not just a challenge for the sufferers, but one also for those with the opportunity to aid them (that is, God will watch how we treat those who are suffering and take that into account in his judgment). My original point, however, is just meant to address the question of God’s goodness, justice, and mercy.

 

[oldcelt]

Problems? You’ll have to expound on that.

Total knowledge of all design flaws, all future suffering of each individual, the fate of each individual. Why would a loving God create an individual only to have it be born with a terminal and hideous illness?
That is the burden of omniscience…if a deity possesses it and takes an active role among its creation, there has to come a great deal of responsibility. Add in all the other omnis ascribed to the Christian God, and it makes for a very difficult defense for much of the suffering we see in this world.
Remove omniscience and direct involvement, and it makes a great deal more logical sense…at least it does to me.

John

 

[cfauster]

I am torn between two possible approaches to the problem of evil.

One is the skeptical theism approach taken at
strangenotions.com/why-horrible-suffering-does-not-disprove-gods-existence/
which includes the following:
" … skeptical theism … argues that since human beings are limited by time and space, we are no more in a good position to see how seemingly pointless evil can lead to greater goods in the future than we are in a good position to see fleas in a yard from the seats on a typical backyard porch. The sheer number of possibilities that can be generated by seemingly inconsequential events is simply “beyond our ken.” For example, I sometimes ponder in astonishment the effect my wife’s great-grandmother had when she refused to let her daughter travel on the Titanic. It’s amazing to think of all the effects in the future (such as the birth of my son) that could have been drastically different were she to not have made such a simple choice. And this is just one example, but it is enough to show that an evil that exists in the present can have good effects hundreds or thousands of years from now that we are unable to fathom or predict."

The other approach argues that God places such a high value on being non-coercive towards the created world, God does not intervene to prevent bad things from happening in any kind of overpowering way. God calls forth goodness and beauty, but the creation is not going to be micromanaged at all by God. Those who take this approach tend also to reject acting with coercion or violence of any kind; they are pacifists. They do not agree, for example, with Augustine’s “just war” theory. To them no good end, no matter how good, can justify a violent, coercive means. No bad end, no matter how bad, can justify using violent or coercive means to avoid that bad end.

As I say, I’m torn between the above. Both seem internally consistent to me. They are not compatible with each other, however. Not sure if I can choose.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Total knowledge of all design flaws, all future suffering of each individual, the fate of each individual. Why would a loving God create an individual only to have it be born with a terminal and hideous illness?

This is only problematic if you squirrel in “terminal” in the way an atheist or deist would understand it and if you discount omnipotence at the same time.

If this physical existence is all there is and God is powerless to do anything about “terminal and hideous illness,” then you might have something of a point. However, if current human existence has an eternal dimension and relative to that, a terminal and hideous illness is something akin to one night in a cheap hotel, then you don’t.

Yes, it is entirely possible to become so absorbed in a “terminal and hideous illness” that faith, hope and love are abandoned completely. On the other hand real courage, real grace, real hope, real love and real faith are required to overcome that absorption.

That is the burden of omniscience…if a deity possesses it and takes an active role among its creation, there has to come a great deal of responsibility. Add in all the other omnis ascribed to the Christian God, and it makes for a very difficult defense for much of the suffering we see in this world.
Remove omniscience and direct involvement, and it makes a great deal more logical sense…at least it does to me.

John

Actually, omniscience paired with omnipotence and omnibenevolence resolves that “burden” completely since any terminal and hideous condition will be overcome. The real challenge is our impatience, lack of courage and lack of faith.

 

[tonyrey]

This is only problematic if you squirrel in “terminal” in the way an atheist or deist would understand it and if you discount omnipotence at the same time.

If this physical existence is all there is and God is powerless to do anything about “terminal and hideous illness,” then you might have something of a point. However, if current human existence has an eternal dimension and relative to that, a terminal and hideous illness is something akin to one night in a cheap hotel, then you don’t.

Yes, it is entirely possible to become so absorbed in a “terminal and hideous illness” that faith, hope and love are abandoned completely. On the other hand real courage, real grace, real hope, real love and real faith are required to overcome that absorption.

Actually, omniscience paired with omnipotence and omnibenevolence resolves that “burden” completely since any terminal and hideous condition will be overcome. The real challenge is our impatience, lack of courage and lack of faith.

Irrefutable. It is easy to criticise but to create a universe so immense and full of opportunities for development, fulfilment and enjoyment is a far more formidable exercise. Negativity leads precisely nowhere!

 

[oldcelt]

This is only problematic if you squirrel in “terminal” in the way an atheist or deist would understand it and if you discount omnipotence at the same time.

If this physical existence is all there is and God is powerless to do anything about “terminal and hideous illness,” then you might have something of a point. However, if current human existence has an eternal dimension and relative to that, a terminal and hideous illness is something akin to one night in a cheap hotel, then you don’t.

Yes, it is entirely possible to become so absorbed in a “terminal and hideous illness” that faith, hope and love are abandoned completely. On the other hand real courage, real grace, real hope, real love and real faith are required to overcome that absorption.

Actually, omniscience paired with omnipotence and omnibenevolence resolves that “burden” completely since any terminal and hideous condition will be overcome. The real challenge is our impatience, lack of courage and lack of faith.

No, the real problem is that an omniscient and omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc, deity would willingly (an act of will) create a sentient being for a short and horrible life. Remember, their death, particularly in the case of children, not only impacts that individual, but all around them.
No matter how you want to slice it, I cannot see this as anything but an act of divine cruelty, even if there is some spectacular afterlife awaiting. The death of a one-year-old from cancer cannot be rationalized in such a way as to make it an act of mercy or love…it is an unneeded, and unjustifiable act.

John

 

[oldcelt]

Irrefutable. It is easy to criticise but to create a universe so immense and full of opportunities for development, fulfilment and enjoyment is a far more formidable exercise. Negativity leads precisely nowhere!

Irrefutable? I think not. All that is needed is a different understanding of the creator. In my view, these horrific deaths are simply occasional sad situations that were not foreordained, foreseen and were unstoppable given our current technology.
Actually, it is a rather soothing thought to me.

John

 

[meltzerboy]

No, the real problem is that an omniscient and omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc, deity would willingly (an act of will) create a sentient being for a short and horrible life. Remember, their death, particularly in the case of children, not only impacts that individual, but all around them.
No matter how you want to slice it, I cannot see this as anything but an act of divine cruelty, even if there is some spectacular afterlife awaiting. The death of a one-year-old from cancer cannot be rationalized in such a way as to make it an act of mercy or love…it is an unneeded, and unjustifiable act.

John

I agree in the sense that theists would do better not to attempt to smooth over these inconsistencies with meaningless platitudes. Rather, let these inconsistencies stand, fight to reverse them, rail against and accuse G-d, but, at the same time, seek out some measure of comfort and understanding from G-d, as well as the wisdom of the ages.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, the real problem is that an omniscient and omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc, deity would willingly (an act of will) create a sentient being for a short and horrible life. Remember, their death, particularly in the case of children, not only impacts that individual, but all around them.
No matter how you want to slice it, **I cannot see this as anything but an act of divine cruelty, **even if there is some spectacular afterlife awaiting. The death of a one-year-old from cancer cannot be rationalized in such a way as to make it an act of mercy or love…it is an unneeded, and unjustifiable act.
John

From YOUR perspective as someone who only sees from the narrow and limited view you “cannot see this as anything but an act of divine cruelty.” Perhaps that is, itself, the very narrow and self-absorbed perspective that needs to be outgrown?

An individual in the midst of suffering cannot see beyond that suffering and it becomes intolerable to the extent that they cannot. This is true even of psychological maladies. At some point, transcending that state and rising above it requires an act of will that receives the grace necessary for doing so. For someone not open to grace, not open to (name removed by moderator)ut from the “outside” of one’s self, looking beyond the self-absorbed perspective is ruled out in principle by the very denial of the possibility.

At that point, it is quite true that seeing beyond one’s view – no matter how that view is sliced – is not permitted by the very act of denying the possibility that reality is more than we determine it to be. The state of being becomes a vicious one of self-imposed captivity to the suffering – suffering takes on the fullness of reality by limiting the capacity of the individual to sees beyond themselves by assuming the “power” to regulate what reality is for that individual. This would seem the very definition of narcissism, brought to bear by the power of suffering.

There is no overcoming oneself and one’s limitations if you begin with the premise that nothing exists beyond the bounds of those limitations, especially when the full reins of power over the individual are handed to “suffering” in that way.

 

[oldcelt]

From YOUR perspective as someone who only sees from the narrow and limited view you “cannot see this as anything but an act of divine cruelty.” Perhaps that is, itself, the very narrow and self-absorbed perspective that needs to be outgrown?

An individual in the midst of suffering cannot see beyond that suffering and it becomes intolerable to the extent that they cannot. This is true even of psychological maladies. At some point, transcending that state and rising above it requires an act of will that receives the grace necessary for doing so. For someone not open to grace, not open to (name removed by moderator)ut from the “outside” of one’s self, looking beyond the self-absorbed perspective is ruled out in principle by the very denial of the possibility.

At that point, it is quite true that seeing beyond one’s view – no matter how that view is sliced – is not permitted by the very act of denying the possibility that reality is more than we determine it to be. The state of being becomes a vicious one of self-imposed captivity to the suffering – suffering takes on the fullness of reality by limiting the capacity of the individual to sees beyond themselves by assuming the “power” to regulate what reality is for that individual. This would seem the very definition of narcissism, brought to bear by the power of suffering.

There is no overcoming oneself and one’s limitations if you begin with the premise that nothing exists beyond the bounds of those limitations, especially when the full reins of power over the individual are handed to “suffering” in that way.

So, a person who was created by an all powerful, all knowing, etc., etc, is self-absorbed because they rail against the suffering that was planned from all eternity? I don’t think it is that person who needs to examine what “reality” is about. They are keenly aware.
Unfortunately for your attempt at an argument, it all falls back to the omniscient, omnipotent…creator within your belief system. Having found that fact, I came to realize the things I now recognize and take on a different view of creation and the creator.
There is also no overcoming one’s limitations by ignoring the world as it exists in order to make it fit to a particular belief system.

John

 

[oldcelt]

I agree in the sense that theists would do better not to attempt to smooth over these inconsistencies with meaningless platitudes. Rather, let these inconsistencies stand, fight to reverse them, rail against and accuse G-d, but, at the same time, seek out some measure of comfort and understanding from G-d, as well as the wisdom of the ages.

Agreed.

 

[Wesrock]

Appeals that no reward can overcome suffering is an appeal to emotion and also an appeal to the limits of imagination, treating imagining as the same as conceiving.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I agree in the sense that theists would do better not to attempt to smooth over these inconsistencies with meaningless platitudes. Rather, let these inconsistencies stand, fight to reverse them, rail against and accuse G-d, but, at the same time, seek out some measure of comfort and understanding from G-d, as well as the wisdom of the ages.

Thank you Meltzerboy. God is a great forward thinker and I am not a design fault!!!

Almost all the other posters have been finnicking about somebody else’s world (Pelagians all).

 

[tonyrey]

Irrefutable. It is easy to criticise but to create a universe so immense and full of opportunities for development, fulfilment and enjoyment is a far more formidable exercise. Negativity leads precisely nowhere!

There is certainly an element of chance in the outcome of events but to attribute all events to purposeless processes is self-contradictory. It would imply that all our conclusions lack a rational foundation and they too are fortuitous. :dts:

 

[Bahman]

Suffering does not equate to evil. Suffering is an indicator of hurt or injury – to suffer may mean that whomever is suffering is undergoing some injury, but that does not automatically translate to the injury or hurt being harmful in an absolute sense. A physical workout may cause temporary damage to muscle tissue which is rebuilt to be stronger. This is one of the reasons why weight training causes sore muscles and some “suffering.”

Real evil can only be assessed in light of final ends or purpose. The extinction or short-lived existence of animal species or individuals may appear problematic to us, but that does not mean these are not part of a larger design plan the implementing of which justifies or warrants those apparent (to us) flaws. We don’t have the entire plan in view, so any observations or concerns we might have can only be tentative ones until we see the whole picture.

Perhaps you have a good definition for evil when we are dealing for useless suffering?

 

[Bahman]

Disabilities in people and animals, diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s, as well as other things which seem to be design flaws.

If he could not create the world without these things, he is not all powerful. Or would He want suffering in the world? Then He would be evil.

How can we reconcile these seemingly flaws of design with possible intelligent design by God?

(Sorry if this is in the wrong sub forum, mods please move it if it is!)

You are correct in your observation. A universe with useless suffering is not good hence it is evil.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Whilst most thread participants have merely been whinging about other people’s lives, a few have vaguely generalised about deeper purposes.

Is there anyone else that can really speak for themselves?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is also no overcoming one’s limitations by ignoring the world as it exists in order to make it fit to a particular belief system.

John

Well, no actually. Suffering, to the degree it takes over, causes an “ignoring” of the world and narrows one’s perspective merely to the suffering itself. That is very like making one’s world view “fit” to a particular belief system – much moreso, in fact, because the sufferer cannot make themselves rise above their own suffering. They are trapped in the belief system and cut-off from the proper world-view that is closer to reality. This is why grace in necessary.

At the point of suffering we are faced with a fundamental option of giving into suffering to the extent of losing (and ignoring) the world as it exists or we can accept the grace to move beyond the suffering and not let it gain complete dominance. Absent faith in God to provide the necessary grace, atheists and deists leave themselves only one option – to accept the world view that suffering places upon them.

Suffering is a subjective experience, it is not “reality” in the sense you make it out to be. The reality is our capacity to overcome suffering made possible by a greater Reality than the one we suppose by the narrow view of atheism and narcissism. This is why faith, hope and love are supernatural virtues – they open the path out of ourselves, the “reality” you assume to be the only possible one.

 

[oldcelt]

Well, no actually. Suffering, to the degree it takes over, causes an “ignoring” of the world and narrows one’s perspective merely to the suffering itself. That is very like making one’s world view “fit” to a particular belief system – much moreso, in fact, because the sufferer cannot make themselves rise above their own suffering. They are trapped in the belief system and cut-off from the proper world-view that is closer to reality. This is why grace in necessary.

At the point of suffering we are faced with a fundamental option of giving into suffering to the extent of losing (and ignoring) the world as it exists or we can accept the grace to move beyond the suffering and not let it gain complete dominance. Absent faith in God to provide the necessary grace, atheists and deists leave themselves only one option – to accept the world view that suffering places upon them.

**Suffering is a subjective experience, it is not “reality” in the sense you make it out to be. **The reality is our capacity to overcome suffering made possible by a greater Reality than the one we suppose by the narrow view of atheism and narcissism. This is why faith, hope and love are supernatural virtues – they open the path out of ourselves, the “reality” you assume to be the only possible one.

So, let’s redefine reality to avoid the obvious.

John