On the Goodness of God

[ronnie_bonigli]

Does the existence of human and animal suffering prove that either there is no God, or that if there is a God, God is malevolent rather than benevolent?

When discussing the “Problem of Evil”, there are the “easy problem” and the “hard problem” (I hope I don’t get sued by David Chalmers for co-opting his easy/hard problem speak). I say easy problem because it’s something an atheist can get his head around and generally accept, not so with the hard problem.

Anyway, the easy problem has to do with moral evil i.e. that evil done by men. And we say it’s because God gave mankind Free Will. Genocide is a real evil, but it’s a result of God feeling it’s better for us to have Free Will than not. Now God could perform a miraculous intervention to stop an evil act every time one was about to occur but it would be a far different world, with miracles every second and Free Will negated, If every time you wanted to perform an evil act you were prevented, then for all intents and purposes you don’t have free will. Anyway, that’s my take on the easy problem.

Now the “hard problem”, the one atheists ain’t going to like, maybe think is even a little nuts, explaining the evil in Nature, things not caused by men using their free will; cancer, earthquakes, and all the rest. It’s more of a mystery than the first problem. But what if man isn’t the only creature with free will? Theologians tell is that angels, pure spirits, also have free will, and further, they are allowed to effect events in this world. Even the fallen angels. And of course we’re told we live in a Fallen World, with a corrupted nature, this world is not as it should have been if it hadn’t been infected by evil, and the evil angels add to the corruption of nature.

But just because you are subjected to evil and suffering, that does not mean it can do you no good. Saint John of the Cross constantly talks of how God “purges” the soul of it’s imperfections with the “Dark Night”, suffering can be the fire that burns away your faults. Jesus EMBRACED his cross, and told his followers that they would have to carry their “cross” too. For two thousand years, most of our greatest saints lived lives of much suffering, suffering that helped perfect them.

Human Suffering would be an enigma if there was a God and men only lived their life on earth before dying into non-existence, but if men live after death the suffering used in this life to forge them like steel in a furnace is a little less perplexing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If the God we are talking about is Jesus Christ, one can hardly imagine a less indifferent God.

 

[Spock]

To allow does not equal failure to prevent. That is a very negative definition of a positive word.

So what? During the Cold War there was good joke floating around. It ran like this:

The American and the Soviet team were in a competition. The Americans won the game. The Soviet news agency reported: “While the Soviet team captured the glorious second place, the Americans only got the next-to-the-last position!”

In any case, my main objection that we can both consider without any prior assumptions is the word “allow”. I disagree that it can be put in such words as these: “he failed to act to prevent them.” I prefer “to let happen” for simplicity, instead of “failure to act upon”. Now, of course, we have to agree on a definition. We have had problems with that before. Any ideas?

What is the relevance? Why would you disagree? According to christianity God is the final authority, therefore the buck stops with him. Whatever happens is because God did it or allowed it. The ultimate authority also carries the ultimate responsibility.

Do you really consider “a better cosmetic material” a greater good? I hope not… For your sake…

Now, how on Earth did you get to that conclusion?

 

[Spock]

The vast majority of mankind want to live and look forward to the fulfillment of their desires. This is your own experience of life, isn’t it? If God was indifferent to the welfare of mankind, why would He create them with a lust for life? Why wouldn’t they be just as indifferent to living as He is to creating?

Because it is our skin in the game. If we live or die, how do we live does not “touch” God, since God is immutable (Catholic dogma).

A nice little poem comes to mind:

They say that God is immutable
And their reasoning is truly irrefutable.
When he acts as he should,
They say he is good,
When he does not, his ways are inscrutable.

 

[Spock]

When discussing the “Problem of Evil”, there are the “easy problem” and the “hard problem”…

You might want to read The Tale of the Twelve Officers to have a full analysis on the “easy” part.

 

[tonyrey]

The existence of human and animal suffering simply proves we cannot have everything for nothing!

It is the price of being sentient creatures in a physical world.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

You might want to read The Tale of the Twelve Officers to have a full analysis on the “easy” part.

Cute strawman argument from the author. It can be summed up, If God exist he should act just as a cosmic cop, he doesn’t act as a cosmic cop, therefore God does not exist.

Btw, at the end of my post I pointed out that *If *God does exist but when we die we cease to exist, then if makes no sense at all for God to allow all this suffering. Of course if we live on after death, it’s a whole different ballgame.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

So what? During the Cold War there was good joke floating around. It ran like this:

The American and the Soviet team were in a competition. The Americans won the game. The Soviet news agency reported: “While the Soviet team captured the glorious second place, the Americans only got the next-to-the-last position!”

Irrelevant

What is the relevance? Why would you disagree? According to christianity God is the final authority, therefore the buck stops with him. Whatever happens is because God did it or allowed it. The ultimate authority also carries the ultimate responsibility.

Not what I said.

Now, how on Earth did you get to that conclusion?

I asked a question. How can a question be a conclusion?

This is what you said:

I don’t think that causing suffering to an animal can be justified if a human would gain some **greater good - as a generic principle. If that would be true, then causing suffering to some laboratory animals to get a better cosmetic material **could be justified.

All I asked was whether or not you think “a better cosmetic material” was a “greater good”. It was not a conclusion. I thought you were supposed to be the logic buff around here.

This conversation is going nowhere.

 

[Spock]

Cute strawman argument from the author. It can be summed up, If God exist he should act just as a cosmic cop, he doesn’t act as a cosmic cop, therefore God does not exist.

It is “playful” but not a strawman. If you want to take the effort, and read it as an outsider, you will see that the responses are exactly the same as some of the answers given by the apologists right here.

Btw, at the end of my post I pointed out that *If *God does exist but when we die we cease to exist, then if makes no sense at all for God to allow all this suffering. Of course if we live on after death, it’s a whole different ballgame.

If you want to elaborate, I will be more than happy to see the details.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

ronnie’s point is interesting.

If you happen to be a materialist, your little ditty might go as follows if written by Einstein.

They say that mass is predictable
And their reasoning is truly delictable.
When it acts as it should,
They say it is good,
When it doesn’t, its surely despicable.

So when mass does not behave as you might think it should … predictably … does that mean it doesn’t exist?

 

[Spock]

Irrelevant

It was supposed to show that the same concept can be expressed in several formats, yet the meaning is the same. To “allow” is exactly the same as “fail to intervene”. They both mean silent or tacit approval of the act.

Not what I said.

Of course you did not say that. I said it to show that power and knowledge bring along resposibility.

I asked a question. How can a question be a conclusion?

This is what you said:

All I asked was whether or not you think “a better cosmetic material” was a “greater good”. It was not a conclusion. I thought you were supposed to be the logic buff around here.

I don’t think so. The factories may think so, or they may be secretly ashamed of their practice. What I do say is this: “I do not find it justifyable to inflict pain on entity ‘A’ so that entity ‘B’ can benefit from it” - as a generic moral rule. There may be exceptions.

This conversation is going nowhere.

As usual. Don’t worry about it.

 

[Spock]

If you happen to be a materialist, your little ditty might go as follows if written by Einstein.

They say that mass is predictable
And their reasoning is truly delictable.
When it acts as it should,
They say it is good,
When it doesn’t, its surely despicable.

So when mass does not behave as you might think it should … predictably … does that mean it doesn’t exist?

Matter is not supposed to be “benevolent” and matter does not act. But I appreciate your little poem.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

It was supposed to show that the same concept can be expressed in several formats, yet the meaning is the same. To “allow” is exactly the same as “fail to intervene”. They both mean silent or tacit approval of the act.

That is not correct. But, there is not use in correcting your false assumption because you will say the same exact thing.

Of course you did not say that. I said it to show that power and knowledge bring along resposibility.

Which was exactly my point to begin with… My belief is that God gave that to Adam. This brings us back to my objection.

I don’t think so. The factories may think so, or they may be secretly ashamed of their practice. What I do say is this: “I do not find it justifyable to inflict pain on entity ‘A’ so that entity ‘B’ can benefit from it” - as a generic moral rule. There may be exceptions.

I take it the answer to my question was “no”.

As usual. Don’t worry about it.

Indeed my brother.

Take care buddy.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

It is “playful” but not a strawman. If you want to take the effort, and read it as an outsider, you will see that the responses are exactly the same as some of the answers given by the apologists right here.

If you want to elaborate, I will be more than happy to see the details.

Well, the “problem of Evil” isn’t simple, if it was it wouldn’t be called the “problem” of evil, and we wouldn’t have whole branches of theology like Theodicy dedicated to it. But still, I can why it isn’t necessarily a problem when you consider that we live on after death not a merely thousand years, or a million years, but forever. If your final destination is eternity any trials you’ve had in this life are infinitesimal in comparison, Saint Paul continually stressed this point, while discussing the decades of suffering he underwent, ending with his execution in Rome. And if any of that suffering proves benificial to your soul, if it helps remove your imperfections and prepare you for what John of the Cross called the Transforming Union, then maybe it’s worth it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I’ve believed for a long time now that if there were no God, there would be no way to explain what appears to be the benevolence of nature. The evolutionist can explain life only as a struggle to survive. There is no other “conscious” goal of life. If that was the only goal, why does nature give us a sense of the beautiful and the sublime? These things do not help us to survive. Food does. Weapons do. Inventions also assist in varying degrees, such as tools for farming and hunting. But why do we delight in a bird’s song, or go to the trouble of composing a symphony? Why do we bother to invent gods if no God exists and therefore no God can help our survival either in this world or in the next?

 

[Tonitz]

Does the existence of human and animal suffering prove that either there is no God, or that if there is a God, God is malevolent rather than benevolent?

“God” literally means “Good.” Human suffering is a matter of awareness relative to pain or perceived wrong, either one actual or not. There is increasing evidence that animals have emotions beyond what we so far thought. The movie “Temple Grandin” is interesting in this regard. But that such suffering exists in either humans or animals is irrelevant to any proof of Gog or disproof, God not being a matter of argument or discursion. Insofar as awareness is involved, at least in the case of humans it simply means that there may be an avenue for some to take advantage of in terms of religious, and then actual spiritual pursuits.

 

[Tonitz]

I’ve believed for a long time now that if there were no God, there would be no way to explain what appears to be the benevolence of nature. The evolutionist can explain life only as a struggle to survive. There is no other “conscious” goal of life. If that was the only goal, why does nature give us a sense of the beautiful and the sublime? These things do not help us to survive. Food does. Weapons do. Inventions also assist in varying degrees, such as tools for farming and hunting. But why do we delight in a bird’s song, or go to the trouble of composing a symphony? Why do we bother to invent gods if no God exists and therefore no God can help our survival either in this world or in the next?

Please explain the “benevolence” (literally ‘good will’) of Nature? Life eats life. All the prettiness of Disney and all the tweeting of birds, etc are what we put on battles for survival and for food. So far as we know, man is the only anti-entropic creature going. So if you mean that in Nature fewer and few beings have greater and greater depth of awareness, that’s one thing. But humans exist at great cost to Nature on this planet and increasingly so to each other.

And what you might perceive as a “goal” may not be that at all except by your anthropomorphism. Does that mean God isn’t? Absolutely not. But we have an astonishing tendency to make God in our own image and likeness. There is some warranting that, but not a lot. As to the invention of gods? That’s pretty simple. Even religious people do it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tonitz

And what you might perceive as a “goal” may not be that at all except by your anthropomorphism. Does that mean God isn’t? Absolutely not. But we have an astonishing tendency to make God in our own image and likeness. There is some warranting that, but not a lot. As to the invention of gods? That’s pretty simple. Even religious people do it.

Actually, it’s God who made us in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). But apparently you don’t read enough of the Bible to know that?

 

[Tonitz]

Actually, that passage is what I base much of my considerations on, as i know it to be foundational to any useful spirituality.

 

[Spock]

Well, the “problem of Evil” isn’t simple, if it was it wouldn’t be called the “problem” of evil, and we wouldn’t have whole branches of theology like Theodicy dedicated to it. But still, I can why it isn’t necessarily a problem when you consider that we live on after death not a merely thousand years, or a million years, but forever. If your final destination is eternity any trials you’ve had in this life are infinitesimal in comparison, Saint Paul continually stressed this point, while discussing the decades of suffering he underwent, ending with his execution in Rome. And if any of that suffering proves beneficial to your soul, if it helps remove your imperfections and prepare you for what John of the Cross called the Transforming Union, then maybe it’s worth it.

This is the reasoning if the Ninth Officer.

“I’ll let you in on a secret,” said the ninth officer.“Moments after Ms. K. flatlined, I had her resuscitated, and flown to a tropical resort where she is now experiencing extraordinary bliss, and her ordeal is just a distant memory. I’m sure you would agree that that’s more than adequate compensation for her suffering, so the fact that I just stood there watching instead of intervening has no bearing at all on my goodness.”

Of course it all hinges on that huge “IF” highlighted above. No atheist believes that, but since you believe it, we must examine this defense in greater detail. The real problem is that we do not live according this principle. When someone is in pain, we do not just shrug it off, saying that this little, temporal, finite pain will “pale” in comparison to the eternal bliss.

We all act as if this pain actually mattered. The catholic church maintains hospitals to help with alleviating pain. The problem is the discrepancy between what you profess in your words, and the acts how you actually conduct your life. And acts speak louder than words, don’t they?