Playing Devils Advocate e3: The problem of natural suffering

[Linux]

The problem of natural suffering.

What excuse can be given for allowing Natural suffering?

True, the necessity of freewill explains Moral Evil.

However, it is not at all clear or self evident that natural suffering is necessary.

Why would a loving God create an evolving world full of dangerous things, suffering, death, disease, organisms consuming each-other, and then put humans beings in the thick it, essentially leaving humanity to the whim of nature “red in tooth and claw”?

What reasonable theodicy can seriously be given for this?

This to me seems like a malicious God evidently, therefore i reject the existence of a loving God.

 

[Bahman]

The problem of natural suffering.

What excuse can be given for allowing Natural suffering?

True, the necessity of freewill explains Moral Evil.

However, it is not at all clear or self evident that natural suffering is necessary.

Why would a loving God create an evolving world full of dangerous things, suffering, death, disease, organisms consuming each-other, and then put humans beings in the thick it, essentially leaving humanity to the whim of nature “red in tooth and claw”?

What reasonable theodicy can seriously be given for this?

This to me seems like a malicious God evidently, therefore i reject the existence of a loving God.

To my understanding it is wrong to assign any attributes to God and then try to deduce something from it. We however cannot imagine a God without assigning our daily emotion to it. This type of paradox arises from the fact that we sum two contradictory facts, like suffering and loving God. God is God, suffering is crucial for humanity as without this we could not reach to higher state of strength. A part of human suffering is the result of human error in not reading the history properly. We however were able to get through a tough time building different civilizations, creating different state of thoughts, … To me, what humanity achieved without God intervention considering all human suffering is tremendous. Lyrics from tree of love by Jamie Saber: “We are miracle that God create to taste the bitter fruit of time, we are precious and one day our suffering turns into wonder of the earth.”

 

[Linux]

To my understanding it is wrong to assign any attributes to God and then try to deduce something from it.

Well, we obviously are not speaking about the same God.

We however cannot imagine a God without assigning our daily emotion to it. This type of paradox arises from the fact that we sum two contradictory facts, like suffering and loving God. God is God, suffering is crucial for humanity as without this we could not reach to higher state of strength. A part of human suffering is the result of human error in not reading the history properly. We however were able to get through a tough time building different civilizations, creating different state of thoughts, … To me, what humanity achieved without God intervention considering all human suffering is tremendous. Lyrics from tree of love by Jamie Saber: “We are miracle that God create to taste the bitter fruit of time, we are precious and one day our suffering turns into wonder of the earth.”

You argument here seems to assert that a being is justified in creating a terrible reality in the hope of producing a positive effect. However doing wrong to make a right, does not justify what is wrong.

Putting a child in a room with a vicious human eating lion, might make the child more stronger if he or she happens to survive that situation, but surely it was not good to create that situation in the first place. Some children will come out of that situation psychologically damaged; and any person who would do that should be locked up regardless of the supposed psychological benefits.

I’m sorry, the possibility of some good coming out of natural suffering is not a justified solution.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Epicurus philosophy.

 

[Back2Church]

I think the question to ask is what would a reality be like if no amount sufferring was possible?

Imagine an overprotective parent who locks his child in a padded room and keeps him hidden from everything the world has to offer for his entire life, all in the name of keeping the child from ever experiencing anything that could be considered suffering. No skinned knees, no broken bones, no colds… nothing “bad” could get to the child, due to the father’s over-protection. With the possibility of experiencing suffering being reduced as much as possible, is not the possibility of experiencing good equally reduced?

Now if we expand this over-protection idea to a cosmic level, what would reality look like? Would we also be equally limited in experiencing anything good? If so, then it means that in order for God to create a universe in which little to no suffering was possible, then such a universe would also exhibit as little to no good as possible. Would we call a god who created a universe in which no good was possible a good god?

 

[Linux]

Epicurus philosophy.

What do you mean by that?

 

[zro_x]

Well, we obviously are not speaking about the same God.

You argument here seems to assert that a being is justified in creating a terrible reality in the hope of producing a positive effect. However doing wrong to make a right, does not justify what is wrong.

Putting a child in a room with a vicious human eating lion, might make the child more stronger if he or she happens to survive that situation, but surely it was not good to create that situation in the first place. Some children will come out of that situation psychologically damaged; and any person who would do that should be locked up regardless of the supposed psychological benefits.

How do we know that to be the case? If some good comes from putting a child in a room with a lion comes about that is greater than the suffering caused to the child, then perhaps God is morally justified by enabling that situation to occur.

 

[Linux]

I think the question to ask is what would a reality be like if no amount sufferring was possible?

Imagine an overprotective parent who locks his child in a padded room and keeps him hidden from everything the world has to offer for his entire life, all in the name of keeping the child from ever experiencing anything that could be considered suffering. No skinned knees, no broken bones, no colds… nothing “bad” could get to the child, due to the father’s over-protection. With the possibility of experiencing suffering being reduced as much as possible, is not the possibility of experiencing good equally reduced?

Now if we expand this over-protection idea to a cosmic level, what would reality look like? Would we also be equally limited in experiencing anything good? If so, then it means that in order for God to create a universe in which little to no suffering was possible, then such a universe would also exhibit as little to no good as possible. Would we call a god who created a universe in which no good was possible a good god?

1. is it really true that if we experience no natural suffering that therefore we will produce less good as people?
2. Why would the fact that suffering compels us toward seeking some pragmatic good mean that its okay to create a world like ours?

I think you are assuming that a wrong can make a right. Would it not be more moral to not create us at all?

 

[Linux]

How do we know that to be the case? If some good comes from putting a child in a room with a lion comes about that is greater than the suffering caused to the child, then perhaps God is morally justified by enabling that situation to occur.

So, you think its a loving act to put a child in a room with a human eating lion because it might make him stronger if he survives?

That is obviously not a good thing to do regardless of the benefits that might occur. It does not make sense of the concept of a loving God. You would not do that to your child, and i don’t understand why you would allow God to do it to your child under the assumption that if “God” does it then it is okay.

If you would put a child in a room with a human eating lion, and if you think its okay for God to put your son in a room with a man eating lion, then this particular atheist has nothing more to say to you. I think you should be spared the right to a child.

 

[Back2Church]

1. is it really true that if we experience no natural suffering that therefore we will produce less good as people?
2. Why would the fact that suffering compels us toward seeking some pragmatic good mean that its okay to create a world like ours?

I think you are assuming that a wrong can make a right. Would it not be more moral to not create us at all?

I’m saying that in a world where no suffering was possible, we would have to be created as indestructible, mindless beings incapable of experincing joy of any kind. In order for us to be able to experince any kind of joy, the possibility of experincing “non-joy” is unavoidable.

 

[zro_x]

So, you think its a loving act to put a child in a room with a human eating lion because it might make him stronger if he survives?

No, I don’t. Actually, I don’t think there has to be any benefit for the child, just so long as some general good for all people comes about from putting the child in the room that is greater then the suffering of the child. Making the child stronger if he survives does not seem to be a good enough reason to justify putting him into the room.

That is obviously not a good thing to do regardless of the benefits that might occur. It does not make sense of the concept of a loving God.

The definition of love is the desire for the well-being of others. If the best way to bring about general well-being is to do it through suffering, then that is exactly what a loving God would do.

You would not do that to your child, and i don’t understand why you would allow God to do it to your child under the assumption that if “God” does it then it is okay.

It is okay if God does it, because God has a perfect knowledge of all the consequences that flow from his actions, whereas we do not. This is why God gives us rigid rules of right and wrong to follow. Following these will benefit humanity, at least most of the time.

Also note that God has already killed children before. And I don’t mean through disease. He killed the first-born children of the egyptians because killing children in that circumstance justified the results of that action: freeing the isrealites from slavery.

 

[Linux]

No, I don’t. Actually, I don’t think there has to be any benefit for the child, just so long as some general good for all people comes about from putting the child in the room that is greater then the suffering of the child.

So you are saying that a child should be put in a room with a human eating lion if it benefits society? This is scary stuff. No reasonable atheist would ever accept what you are saying here. It just shows us how far you are willing to go to blind yourself to the horrific nature of things for the sake of faith. It is certainly true that human beings would throw a child to the lions if they thought they could have heaven that way; that is all that has been made evident by this claim. Kind of like Pagans sacrificing virgins to keep the God’s wrath from their villages. But they were doing it for the greater good so its okay.

Making the child stronger if he survives does not seem to be a good enough reason to justify putting him into the room.

I agree, and neither is the human race as a whole a sufficient reason either. The wellbeing of a child cannot be sacrificed for the wellbeing of society. Thats a draconian way of thinking and is very pragmatic rather than moral.

If the best way to bring about general well-being is to do it through suffering, then that is exactly what a loving God would do.

It is not clear to me at all that that it is true. It seems obvious to me that putting a child in a cage with a lion is wrong and is not about the well being of the child under any circumstance. Its ridiculous to think thats okay just because it might make him stronger. In fact its going to make the child justifiably hate the person who put him in a cage.

It is okay if God does it, because God has a perfect knowledge of all the consequences that flow from his actions, whereas we do not.

Thats a circular argument. That God has perfect knowledge of consequences does not tell me if a God is justified in creating negative circumstances that lead to positive circumstances.

A wrong does not make a right. Sure, if you have faith that God is perfectly good then you are not going to question any natural suffering. Whether it is reasonable to have faith despite any degree of natural suffering is a different question.

 

[MPat]

The problem of natural suffering.

What excuse can be given for allowing Natural suffering?

True, the necessity of freewill explains Moral Evil.

However, it is not at all clear or self evident that natural suffering is necessary.

Why would a loving God create an evolving world full of dangerous things, suffering, death, disease, organisms consuming each-other, and then put humans beings in the thick it, essentially leaving humanity to the whim of nature “red in tooth and claw”?

What reasonable theodicy can seriously be given for this?

This to me seems like a malicious God evidently, therefore i reject the existence of a loving God.

One simple solution can be found looking at your previous thread (“Playing Devil Advocate e2: Unfair Judgement”). Let’s see: do we deserve any better…? If the answer is “No.”, then there is no injustice here.

If you want a more interesting solution, one can think of such as well. For example, what if God is looking for “excuses” to let at least some of us into heaven…? Could “They have suffered a lot…” be one of potential ones…?

 

[Classicist]

Linux, Moral Evil is, indeed, attributable to actors with free will, and we cannot blame God for the murders, thefts, slip-ups, etc., of humanity. Thank you for recognizing that.

Natural Evil is no evil at all. Cancer hurts us, yes; storms ruin our lives, yes; earthquakes kill us, yes - but what of Earth without these things? The same forces which dictate the existence of cancer cells also dictate the existence of antibodies. The same forces which produce heat stroke, hypothermia, monsoons, and hurricanes also produce the beauty of dawn, dusk, calm wind blowing through trees, and rain pattering on windowsills. The same forces which cause earthquakes to erupt have caused the vistas, mountains, canyons, and mesas to be formed. We explore, and we are admitted to danger. We live, and we die. Death must come, sooner or later.

“We may have years,
We may have hours,
But sooner or later,
We push up flowers.”

The atheist’s problem with all this rests on two foundations: psychological and existential.

1. Psychologically, atheists simply fear death as we all do. They refuse, however, to look at every possible solution, as one of them is deemed too silly (spirit & God).
2. Existentially, atheists believe that we have no soul(s). If life is just brutal, nasty, and short without any resolution hereafter, then yes, given this life, God is cruel and evil.

The answer to both of these is given by the Catholic Church, as well as many other monotheistic religions:

1. Death is natural. It comes one way or another, sooner or later. No point panicking. Nothing comes from nothing.
2. We have a soul. The pain of a few hours, days, weeks, months or years on Earth are meaningless in Eternity. We pass through them as through a door.

When atheists understand what it means that we have a principal & principle of life equal to the natural, physical world (i.e. the soul), then all Natural pains, suffering, and death will become bearable. This is a matter of faith, since souls cannot be seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled. We only know them through the conjecture produced by our experience of human life, which includes art, architecture, music, poetry, literature, dawn, dusk, wind, rain, fire, earthquake, tornado, and blizzard.

We are what we are. Pain and death are mysterious. We will not penetrate their mysteries by playing Devil’s Advocate.

 

[Linux]

We are what we are. Pain and death are mysterious. We will not penetrate their mysteries by playing Devil’s Advocate.

If you have a problem with people asking uncomfortable questions and demanding reasonable answers, don’t go on the philosophy forum. Thats all i can suggest.

 

[zro_x]

So you are saying that a child should be put in a room with a human eating lion if it benefits society? This is scary stuff. No reasonable atheist would ever accept what you are saying here. It just shows us how far you are willing to go to blind yourself to the horrific nature of things for the sake of faith. It is certainly true that human beings would throw a child to the lions if they thought they could have heaven that way; that is all that has been made evident by this claim. Kind of like Pagans sacrificing virgins to keep the God’s wrath from their villages. But they were doing it for the greater good so its okay.

According to the old testament, God actually did command people to commit genocide. they were doing it for the greater good, so it was okay.

Thats a circular argument. That God has perfect knowledge of consequences does not tell me if a God is justified in creating negative circumstances that lead to positive circumstances.

I meant that the reason why God commands us to live by rigid rules, both in our holy book and in our conscience, is that we can not be fully aware of the consequences of our actions. Well-being is maximized if beings with imperfect knowledge live by strict moral rules. It is not okay for us to make exceptions for these rules, even for what we think is the greater good for society, because we might be in error.

It is not clear to me at all that that it is true. It seems obvious to me that putting a child in a cage with a lion is wrong and is not about the well being of the child under any circumstance. Its ridiculous to think thats okay just because it might make him stronger. In fact its going to make the child justifiably hate the person who put him in a cage.

love, by definition, is the desire for the well-being of others.

an omnibonevolent being, then, wishes to maximise well-being, through any means necessary.

If such a being is also omniscient, and knows that by taking action x (such as putting a child into a room with a lion) a net positive result will come about, then love demands that this being take that action.

If such an action is immoral, then you seem to be arguing that omnibenevolence is immoral. To my mind, love is the basis for morality.

 

[Back2Church]

If you have a problem with people asking uncomfortable questions and demanding reasonable answers, don’t go on the philosophy forum. Thats all i can suggest.

Claiming that a mystery is impenetrable some how means he has a problem with questions? How did you come up with that conclusion?

Anyways, I take it you find my earlier answer sufficient? You haven’t responded to it, but I was hoping for more dialog, because, well… That’s how ideas are developed.

 

[Richca]

The problem of natural suffering.

What excuse can be given for allowing Natural suffering?

True, the necessity of freewill explains Moral Evil.

However, it is not at all clear or self evident that natural suffering is necessary.

Why would a loving God create an evolving world full of dangerous things, suffering, death, disease, organisms consuming each-other, and then put humans beings in the thick it, essentially leaving humanity to the whim of nature “red in tooth and claw”?

What reasonable theodicy can seriously be given for this?

This to me seems like a malicious God evidently, therefore i reject the existence of a loving God.

It was not God’s original intention that human beings should suffer. Catholic theologians generally admit that one of the preternatural gifts that God disposed on Adam and Eve when He created them and placed them in the Garden of Eden was freedom from suffering.
Natural suffering such as death, disease and all such like things are a result of Adam and Eve’s sin as well as the combined and personal sins of human beings since the fall of Adam and Eve.

Human beings are not God. We need His help and since God is our creator, we are subject to Him.

Natural suffering such as death, disease and the like is natural to our created nature. Since we have been created out of nothing, we would return to nothing but for God’s sustaining power.

Jesus has made known to us that suffering can have a redemptive value.

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

Natural suffering such as death, disease and all such like things are a result of Adam and Eve’s sin as well as the combined and personal sins of human beings since the fall of Adam and Eve.

…]

So a child’s birth defects might have been caused by her parents’ personal sins?

 

[zro_x]

So a child’s birth defects might have been caused by her parents’ personal sins?

Not just any parent. I don’t think that the sinfulness of a parent is going to add to the possibility of birth defects in their children. I think Jesus says as much in the bible.

Three people are in the position to have their personal actions affect the souls of all other human beings. Adam and Eve, as the first parents of our race, and Jesus, as the head of the body of christ. Just as in one man we are condemned, so in another we are saved.