SPLIT: on suffering

[ateista]

Ateista, I am short on time right now and will address some of your other reponses later. For now let me ask you do you believe that any spiritual experiences from God or any entity can occur? If not, is it for lack of quantifiable objective evidence? From what you say this seems to be your position on the matter.

So if a Native American says they feel one with the earth in a spiritual way this too you would reject for lack of evidence. The nature of spiritual experiences is not within the scientific worldly realm and thus one cannot expect scientific worldly evidence as proof. What you hold as fact if you don’t get that proof is merely just a closed minded perspective. In no way can one refute spiritual experiences because they don’t fit neatly into the wordly scientific perspective.

When you are in love, do you have a objective criterion to prove that you are in love or do you just know?
Many forum posters have had experiences form God but they are not allowed to share them because they must be verified by the church. Forum administrators just don’t allow it since they have no way of knowing if the church has validated the experience.
That is why you have never heard their testimonies, not because they don’t exist but rather because they are not permitted. Your statements requiring objective evidence as proof is clearly narrow minded because you are expecting worldly evidence from a spiritual realm.
The error in this expectation is that the recipient of such an experience, like myself, can validate it through the church which has the knowledge to discern the experience. The church has been around for 2000 years and thus has great knowledge. I validated this through the church, I hardly think I need to prove it to you. But of course you won’t take my word for it, why should you? You claim the only way to validate the experience is through objective repeated evidence and I claim such thinking is incorrect. One cannot expect wordly evidence from a spiritual realm and thus your argument has unreasonable logic.

I will get back to you later on the rest. Till then have a wonderful day. God Bless.

Ok. I have never experienced anything along those lines. I only have other people’s word for it. As you said, why should I give credence to those testimonials?

I do not reject testimonials out of hand, but I filter them through my experiences and the level of possibilities that I can deduce. The problem is not with the testimonials per se, rather their implications.

Suppose I accept that you you had some some experiences which can be interpreted as a Godly revelation to you. Obviously they can also be interpreted as a delusion (no offense intended, I did not mean that in a pejorative sense) since we all know that the mind can be fooled, especially if someone really wants to believe something.

There are too many examples when people (who really want to believe something) will interpret totally normal, physical experiences as something “transcendent”. When they are confronted with actual proof to the contrary, they experience shock and still attempt to cling to their preconceived beliefs.

All that is natural, and understandable. Of course, all the false experiences (which are proven to be false) do not disprove that some experiences might be real and valid, but they make it very improbable.

To address your specific question: No, I do not believe in anything “spiritual”. As a matter of fact the word “spiritual” is meaningless for me. Not just because such experiences are unverifyable, but because they are undefined in a coherent manner. I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny either.

Concerning your other question: When I am in love, I experience all sorts of physical phenomena. There are all sorts of hormones raging in by body, with easily observable results. There is nothing “spiritual” about love. It is a simple, physical fact.

Yet, all of this is actually irrelevant to the purposes of this thread. this thread is about "suffering" and nothing else. If you wish to speak about other stuff, I would be glad to have a conversation with you in a different thread.

 

[ateista]

Of course. If allowing that person to be used results in a better state for the victim, I would certainly allow it. Suppose that interfering will only cause more emotional damage for the victim. I would not interfere because it would only make the situation worse.

Which is total nonsense. There is nothing worse than being raped, tortured and slaughtered for the sick purposes of a psychopath.

Funny, that all the victims want to avoid being raped, tortured and killed. They desperately want to escape their fate. God allows the free will of the psychopath to override the free will of the victim.

Remember that heaven is the best thing possible for us. It would be better to suffer for a lifetime if that suffering brought about salvation than to live a lifetime of comfort and end up with eternal separation.

That is merely an unsupported conjecture.

God allows us to suffer so that we have to make the choice, and tries everything He can to encourage us to make the right choice.

And, of course allows our free will to be overridden. Because we do not want to suffer. You know it would be nice if you guys would choose: Does God respect our free will or not?

Suppose someone ran up to you heartbroken by a breakup and demanded that you shoot him or her immediately. Would you immediately shoot the person, or give him or her time to think it over? Such a request would be so crazy that the person is probably out of his or her mind.

Could be. So I would not shoot that person, but would allow her to act as she wishes. It is her life, it is her decision. I would respect her experessed wish. Of course this example is incorrect. The victims of rape never choose to be raped.

 

[RubyT]

Concerning your other question: When I am in love, I experience all sorts of physical phenomena. There are all sorts of hormones raging in by body, with easily observable results. There is nothing “spiritual” about love. It is a simple, physical fact.

Ateista, Thanks for your answers. I understand your perspective much better now. I don’t agree, but thats okay. You are absolutely right this converstaion is off thread topic. So I will keep it brief.
When I said narcisistic I only meant your perspective on this was from a, I don’t have proof and I don’t hear others testimonies etc. I did not mean to make it like a personal attack but rather the perspective itself is from a narcisistic view point. My apologies if it came out that way.
It is much easier to understand your view on all topics including suffering since you don’t believe in anything spiritual. This is difficult to debate but like you said it belongs on another thread.
When I have time I will start a tread, Does the Spiritual realm exist. I will PM you when I do this and we can discuss it further,

Till then be well and have a wonderful day.

Rubyt

 

[Sarpedon]

Bad suffering: suffering which is gratuitous, which has either no good coming from it, or it may have some good coming out of it, but the good does not compensate for the bad part.

Good suffering: suffering which is logically necessary (and this is the crux of the matter) for bringing forth a greater good, and which suffering cannot be lessened without losing that greater good, as well.

The concept of logically necessary means that if you remove the suffering, you will also lose the possible greater good. Since the possible greater good more than compensates for the bad, by removing the bad part, you receive a net loss.

You guys believe that all suffering is good. Therefore it is totally illogical to attempt to interfere, since by removing the logical prerequisite, you also remove the ensuing greater good.

Your observation is partially correct. Voluntarily undergoing suffering does give God the “raw materials” that He can put to a good end. This is the basis for the custom of fasting in Lent.

You argue that if suffering logically leads to the greater good (GG), there is no reason to attempt to alleviate it. The greater good is the collective salvation of souls. You may disagree with this personally, but we are only discussing the internal consistency of Catholic theological thought, and therefore we must use its propositions.

Now in order for the GG to increase, there must be an increase in the numbers of souls in a certain degree of selflessness (state of grace).

Since selflessness is a free choice, the only way the greater good can be increased is by free human actions.

In a nutshell: the GG can only be increased if people sin less. (sin is defined as behavior that increases selfishness.)

So, in order to increase the GG, people must sin less. Each individual can change himself or herself, but not others. All they can do to others is encourage. This is the same for God. He cannot force, only encourage and coax.

Suffering is a very effective way of bringing about selflessness, because it involves endurance at the expense of self and focuses attention on religious matters. God allows suffering to exist for this purpose.

Now comes your argument: if suffering is a tool that God can use in His attempt to increase the GG, why would we try to alleviate any suffering (such as a disease)? Wouldn’t any such attempt decrease the GG?

Remember that an increase in the GG means that there is less sin. Directly allowing suffering for yourself or others that you could alleviate is frequently sinful. The reasons for this vary. For example, it is sinful to ignore a disease because if it hurts you, you will not be able to serve humanity as well as you used to. You will be somewhat incapacitated, and a drain on those who take care of you.

As another example, suppose you were witnessing a rape. You could not morally ignore it to “increase the GG by suffering.” By ignoring it, you are allowing intense physical and emotional damage to happen to another person. This is contrary to God’s plan, so to allow such a contrary thing to happen would be sinful.

Of course, some suffering is moral and beneficial. If you voluntarily fast (without causing physical harm to yourself) you are causing suffering for yourself. You can offer this suffering up as a tool for the GG, as long as this suffering remains in alignment with morality.

Since the GG is a decrease in sin, you cannot sin (first two examples) in order to give God the tools He can use to combat sin. Your suffering may give God the tools He can use to combat sin, but if in the process you increase the thing that needs to be corrected, you are only making the situation worse.

This would be like infecting 50 healthy people in an attempt to make enough medicine to save 3.

 

[Sarpedon]

Which is total nonsense. There is nothing worse than being raped, tortured and slaughtered for the sick purposes of a psychopath.

Funny, that all the victims want to avoid being raped, tortured and killed. They desperately want to escape their fate. God allows the free will of the psychopath to override the free will of the victim.

You are making a pretty broad observation. Suppose the only way you could kill the criminal is by shooting him point-blank in the head right in front of the victim. This could cause more suffering than non-intervention.

This is simply an analogy to explain how sometimes non-intervention is in the best interest of the victim. We can create endless scenarios, but do you agree that in some circumstances it can be better to avoid intervention?

If you believe that we (and God) have a moral obligation to physically stop every single injustice, regardless of circumstances, would you have sent US tanks into Georgia during the Russian invasion? Are there any situations in which refraining from direct intervention is for the greater good?

That is merely an unsupported conjecture.

If heaven exists as the fulfillment of all our desire, then obviously the GG will be having the greatest number of people in that state.

We have been discussing the internal consistency of Catholic theological thought. Therefore, you must accept the premises before you can evaluate its consistency. If you hold a different opinion in regards to the greater good, that’s fine, but you cannot claim that the Catholic Faith is inconsistent based on your own definitions.

And, of course allows our free will to be overridden. Because we do not want to suffer. You know it would be nice if you guys would choose: Does God respect our free will or not?

Free will cannot be overridden by physical coercion. Our bodies can be physically manipulated, but as long as we have control of our intellect we have free will. Free will is not defined by our bodies, but by our minds. Even if we are completely paralyzed, our free will is still intact because we can form free intentions (whether our body will respond to those intentions is another matter)

Could be. So I would not shoot that person, but would allow her to act as she wishes. It is her life, it is her decision. I would respect her experessed wish. Of course this example is incorrect. The victims of rape never choose to be raped.

I didn’t ask whether you would let her kill herself, but rather whether you would pull the trigger. You are expecting God to uncreate people based on a whim in time, so you should be willing to shoot her if you expect God too.

My comment was not about rape. You argued that God should uncreate those who reject Him. I said that this may not be possible in timelessness, so such a choice on the part of the individual person would need to be made in time. Since that person is still in time and could still change his or her mind, I argued that it would be reasonable for God to refrain from pulling the trigger in the hope that the person would come around with time.

 

[ateista]

Your observation is partially correct. Voluntarily undergoing suffering does give God the “raw materials” that He can put to a good end. This is the basis for the custom of fasting in Lent.

Fine. We can agree, if one voluntarily undergoes any kind of suffering, it is his or her own business. That is none of my concernes, I have problems with involuntary suffering.

You argue that if suffering logically leads to the greater good (GG), there is no reason to attempt to alleviate it. The greater good is the collective salvation of souls.

That can only be considered as one possible GG. I accept that it is considered the most important one for you, but the concept of GG cannot be restricted to one phenomenon only.

You may disagree with this personally, but we are only discussing the internal consistency of Catholic theological thought, and therefore we must use its propositions.

Consistency is not basic the question here. The Catholic stance may be internally consistent, but that is just one of the prerequistes for having an acceptable system. Unfortunately the rest of your post depends on the proposition that there is only one GG. And that is not acceptable.

Now in order for the GG to increase, there must be an increase in the numbers of souls in a certain degree of selflessness (state of grace).

Do you really think that it is just a “numbers game”?

In a nutshell: the GG can only be increased if people sin less. (sin is defined as behavior that increases selfishness.)

Selfishness is not necessarily a virtue. To some extent it can be, but the healthy behavior is a proper ratio of selfish and selfless behavior. Total selflessness is simply conterproductive, and it depends on the incorrect assumption that the “other” ones are always more “important” than the “self”, which is sheer nonsense.

Suffering is a very effective way of bringing about selflessness, because it involves endurance at the expense of self and focuses attention on religious matters. God allows suffering to exist for this purpose.

Another unwarranted assumption. Some suffering, sometimes may incur the behavior you describe, but definitely not all. At the very least, if the suffering results in death, then the sufferer cannot “learn” anything from the experience.

Now comes your argument: if suffering is a tool that God can use in His attempt to increase the GG, why would we try to alleviate any suffering (such as a disease)? Wouldn’t any such attempt decrease the GG?

Remember that an increase in the GG means that there is less sin. Directly allowing suffering for yourself or others that you could alleviate is frequently sinful. The reasons for this vary. For example, it is sinful to ignore a disease because if it hurts you, you will not be able to serve humanity as well as you used to. You will be somewhat incapacitated, and a drain on those who take care of you.

Frequently does not equal always.

As another example, suppose you were witnessing a rape. You could not morally ignore it to “increase the GG by suffering.” By ignoring it, you are allowing intense physical and emotional damage to happen to another person. This is contrary to God’s plan, so to allow such a contrary thing to happen would be sinful.

Now you are talking.

I would agree that to be raped is always traumatic, and there is no causative effect between being raped and becoming less sinful. There is not even a correlation, much less causation. Therefore - by your own argument (which I share) - allowing rapes to happen is never morally justifyable. Whether a human would allow a rape to happen, or God does allow the same rape to happen results in a highly traumatic experinece, which is reprehensible and “sinful” (by your parlance) and “evil” by mine.

 

[ateista]

You are making a pretty broad observation. Suppose the only way you could kill the criminal is by shooting him point-blank in the head right in front of the victim. This could cause more suffering than non-intervention.

Highly doubtful. And God does not have to resort to such crude methods. A sudden heart attack would be much better. Or an aversion by some other means.

This is simply an analogy to explain how sometimes non-intervention is in the best interest of the victim. We can create endless scenarios, but do you agree that in some circumstances it can be better to avoid intervention?

Of course I agree. But the question is not “sometimes” but “never”. You say that “all suffering” results in some greater good, not that “some suffering may” result in greater good. Here is the crux of the problem.

We have been discussing the internal consistency of Catholic theological thought. Therefore, you must accept the premises before you can evaluate its consistency. If you hold a different opinion in regards to the greater good, that’s fine, but you cannot claim that the Catholic Faith is inconsistent based on your own definitions.

No, again not the consistency. A system of principles may be perfectly consistent, yet not sensible.

Free will cannot be overridden by physical coercion. Our bodies can be physically manipulated, but as long as we have control of our intellect we have free will. Free will is not defined by our bodies, but by our minds. Even if we are completely paralyzed, our free will is still intact because we can form free intentions (whether our body will respond to those intentions is another matter)

Now this is a very interesting problem, something that I wanted to explore in a thread of it own.

We could differentiate between the freedom to “will” (or want or desire) something and the freedom to carry out those desires. This second one ought to be called “freedom to act”, as opposed to “freedom of will”.

If you say that they are not really the same (that being physically unable to carry out one’s desire does not infringe on the free will of the person), then God could prevent all the evil deeds, without infringing on the free will of the perpetrators-to-be, They can “want” to do whatever they want, but would be unable to carry them out.

Another poster (a long time ago) said the same thing. When I asked why does God allow the free will of the rapist override the free will of the victim, he said that the victim’s free will is not imparied, just because she is unable to carry out her wish (not to be raped).

Of course this is total nonsense.

If one is unable to carry out what she wants, if one is deprived of all the alternative options, then one’s free will becomes a cruel joke, something like saying: “the victim can always choose to lay back and enjoy the experience”. I would find such a remark in incredibly bad taste and horrifyingly cynical.

I didn’t ask whether you would let her kill herself, but rather whether you would pull the trigger. You are expecting God to uncreate people based on a whim in time, so you should be willing to shoot her if you expect God too.

If I could be certain that she sees absolutely no way out of her predicament and if I could be certain that I can get away with it, then, yes I would.

My comment was not about rape. You argued that God should uncreate those who reject Him. I said that this may not be possible in timelessness, so such a choice on the part of the individual person would need to be made in time. Since that person is still in time and could still change his or her mind, I argued that it would be reasonable for God to refrain from pulling the trigger in the hope that the person would come around with time.

If God can “hope”, then God does not know. You can’t have both ways. It would be good to choose which one you express as your view about God.

 

[Sarpedon]

That can only be considered as one possible GG. I accept that it is considered the most important one for you, but the concept of GG cannot be restricted to one phenomenon only.

You accused us of not practicing what we preach. If we preach that there is only one GG, and our system is built on that, we are practicing what we preach. You may personally disagree with what we preach, but that does not mean that Catholicism contradicts itself.

What is the GG, in your estimation?

Do you really think that it is just a “numbers game”?

God loves each of us equally, so naturally He wants all of us to be saved. 50 saved souls is closer to His goal than 25.

This is not utilitarianism because individuals cannot be compromised for the sake of numbers. God wants as many people as possible to be saved, but He will not compromise individuals.

Selfishness is not necessarily a virtue. To some extent it can be, but the healthy behavior is a proper ratio of selfish and selfless behavior. Total selflessness is simply conterproductive, and it depends on the incorrect assumption that the “other” ones are always more “important” than the “self”, which is sheer nonsense.

“Selflessness” does not mean that no care is given to the self. Proper selflessness involves a love of others and a respect of self, but not “worship” of self. This is true for many things. For example, one can have a proper respect for money without allowing it to become a “god” that you serve.

Another unwarranted assumption. Some suffering, sometimes may incur the behavior you describe, but definitely not all. At the very least, if the suffering results in death, then the sufferer cannot “learn” anything from the experience.

Suffering does not have to apply to the victim. It may benefit others, such as the criminal or those involved in it. This does not constitute manipulative usage of people. Having brought man into the world without any obligation, God can take that person out at any point. If the person has lead a good life, this will be the beginning of joy unparalled on earth. I have already addressed the issue of life as a gift with terms vs uncreation in depth.

I would agree that to be raped is always traumatic, and there is no causative effect between being raped and becoming less sinful. There is not even a correlation, much less causation. Therefore - by your own argument (which I share) - allowing rapes to happen is never morally justifyable. Whether a human would allow a rape to happen, or God does allow the same rape to happen results in a highly traumatic experinece, which is reprehensible and “sinful” (by your parlance) and “evil” by mine.

God has more power and oversight than we do. Therefore, He can choose to act for the GG in a way that may not be obvious to us. From our perspective, stopping a rape is usually the best way to bring about a return to morality. From God’s perspective, He may see complicating factors that we cannot forsee. Since we are ignorant of such matters, we must assume that our intervention is warrented. If God deems otherwise, He will intervene.

This is not a double standard for God. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgement of God’s broader perspective.

Also, we need to remember that we do not know how often God intervenes, because the mere fact that they do not happen means that we usually don’t know about it.

This debate is getting bogged down. I would like to request that you return to two things I have discussed, which I think will clarify the argument. These two things are the CS Lewis quote and the observable fact that religion is more popular is poor societies, and more frequently ignored in developed societies.

 

[Sarpedon]

Of course I agree. But the question is not “sometimes” but “never”. You say that “all suffering” results in some greater good, not that “some suffering may” result in greater good. Here is the crux of the problem.

Yes, exactly. I say that we cannot judge how suffering fits into the big picture if we can only view a tiny segment of it. You are saying that we can know the whole picture based on your perception of a tiny part of it. This sounds an awful lot like the “fallacy of composition” you mention frequently. Observing that the tile is diamond-shaped does not mean that the whole floor is diamond-shaped. Observing that there is no obvious immediately apparant good result from suffering does not mean that there is not one.

Another poster (a long time ago) said the same thing. When I asked why does God allow the free will of the rapist override the free will of the victim, he said that the victim’s free will is not imparied, just because she is unable to carry out her wish (not to be raped).

I already answered this (Swan’s question) in the CS Lewis quote explanation that you have not yet addressed.

If one is unable to carry out what she wants, if one is deprived of all the alternative options, then one’s free will becomes a cruel joke, something like saying: “the victim can always choose to lay back and enjoy the experience”. I would find such a remark in incredibly bad taste and horrifyingly cynical.

Free will only exists so that we are capable of love. No physical condition can restrict this mental capacity, as long as the intellect is intact.

If I could be certain that she sees absolutely no way out of her predicament and if I could be certain that I can get away with it, then, yes I would.

What if you judge that she is mentally unstable?

If God can “hope”, then God does not know. You can’t have both ways. It would be good to choose which one you express as your view about God.

As I already explained, perhaps there is nothing to know If God does not give her the opportunity.

 

[ateista]

What is the GG, in your estimation?

Anything and everything that increases the well being of humans and animals, and/or decreasing the pain and suffering. It is good to come up with a new vaccine to cure hitherto uncurable diseases. It is good to have more food to alleviate hunger. It is good to experience love and not hate. To achieve these does not necessarily entail pain and suffering.

Sometimes pain and suffering can have beneficial consequences. But definitely not always. And our lack of omniscience does not preclude us from making judgments.

God loves each of us equally, so naturally He wants all of us to be saved. 50 saved souls is closer to His goal than 25.

This is not utilitarianism because individuals cannot be compromised for the sake of numbers. God wants as many people as possible to be saved, but He will not compromise individuals.

And yet you say that God can compromise the human dignity of a rape victim.

Suffering does not have to apply to the victim. It may benefit others, such as the criminal or those involved in it. This does not constitute manipulative usage of people.

It most certainly does. I cannot force you to undergo a kidney removal (against your wishes) just so I can have it implanted into someone else.

In this example there is a clear and obvious net gain. One can easily live with one kidney, the process of the removal is relatively painless (with good medical technology) and we save another person’s life. The gain is obvious. The pain is minimal. And the process is still considered unacceptable, because it violates the unwilling “donor’s” bodily intergrity. It would constitute the “usage” of the donor’s body, against his wishes.

God has more power and oversight than we do. Therefore, He can choose to act for the GG in a way that may not be obvious to us. From our perspective, stopping a rape is usually the best way to bring about a return to morality. From God’s perspective, He may see complicating factors that we cannot forsee. Since we are ignorant of such matters, we must assume that our intervention is warrented. If God deems otherwise, He will intervene.

This line of argument is pure speculation. The fact is that millions of instances of rapes, murders and tortures are happening all over the world. It is also a fact that millions of instances of natural disasters happen, with untold amount of pain and suffering. And God does not interfere. That is the fact, pure and simple.

This debate is getting bogged down. I would like to request that you return to two things I have discussed, which I think will clarify the argument. These two things are the CS Lewis quote and the observable fact that religion is more popular is poor societies, and more frequently ignored in developed societies.

Religion’s popularity has nothing to do with the problem of suffering. And the C.S. Lewis quote is just fiction. The problem of allowing the suffering and death of a tortured rape victim is very real.

But I agree that the conversation is becoming repetitive and useless.

Since you assert that the usage of one human’s suffering to benefit someone else is permissible for God (even if it is not permissible for us) there is no common ground for us.

 

[Fran65]

I concluded that some posts ago.

I happened to read a relevant scripture this morning.

Know this first of all, that in the last days scoffers will come (to) scoff, living according to their own desires and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? 2Peter. 3:3

I don’t know about ‘last days’, but I’ve met lots of scoffers on this board.

 

[Sarpedon]

I’m not going to respond to your points, since we are both repeating eveything over again.

Religion’s popularity has nothing to do with the problem of suffering.

What? It has everything to do with it. If religion is the way man is saved, and suffering encourages people to follow this method, it is very relevant to the question.

And the C.S. Lewis quote is just fiction. The problem of allowing the suffering and death of a tortured rape victim is very real.

It is written as fiction, but the fiction merely transmits the philosophic ideas contained within. I would like to you address the ideas, not the literary aspects.

This quote that you have not addressed is probably the key to my argument. If you will not address the fundamental ideas contained in the quote, I will not be able to convince you of anything.

You say that a rape is “very real.” The quote substitutes a hypothetical war for your hypothetical rapes. You have been using hypothetical rapes all along, so just substitute a war instead.

Since you assert that the usage of one human’s suffering to benefit someone else is permissible for God (even if it is not permissible for us) there is no common ground for us.

Perhaps not.

 

[ateista]

What? It has everything to do with it. If religion is the way man is saved, and suffering encourages people to follow this method, it is very relevant to the question.

Is it? You stopped your analysis one step too soon.

The logical last step is: If suffering encourages people to turn to religion, and religion is the only way for people to get “saved”, then we should increase the suffering (and not fight against it) in order to encourage people to turn to religion (and thus get “saved”).

Just as I said before: if all suffering is good, then we should not fight against it, we should increase it. Let’s go out and torture and rape, just so that people would have a better chance to become religious, and increase their chance to get saved.

You cannot argue both ways. And I did not twist your argument, I simply brought it to the logical conclusion.

It is written as fiction, but the fiction merely transmits the philosophic ideas contained within. I would like to you address the ideas, not the literary aspects.

This quote that you have not addressed is probably the key to my argument. If you will not address the fundamental ideas contained in the quote, I will not be able to convince you of anything.

You say that a rape is “very real.” The quote substitutes a hypothetical war for your hypothetical rapes. You have been using hypothetical rapes all along, so just substitute a war instead.

This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy’s motives for creating a dangerous world-a world in which moral issues really come to the point.

Well, then let’s encourage war, let’s encourage rape and torture. My answer does not change: be it rape or war, if these instances increase the “moral” awareness of humans, then all these serve the “greater good” (in your usage of this expression) and thus, they are ultimately “good”.

Do you see how ridiculous that is? Not to mention that the assumed result does not follow logically, it is merely one possibility.

And since I did answer your objection, here comes mine:

If all suffering logically leads to a greater good, then this concept also applies to the suffering of damned in hell. What kind of “good” can come out of eternal suffering (whatever it may be)? If God only allows necessary suffering, then suffering in hell must have some good coming out of it…

 

[Fran65]

Ateista,

I have concluded that you are being disingenous rather than plain silly.

You cannot see how ridiculous your argument is to increase suffering since good comes out of it? I don’t think so.

Rather, you are trying to convinvce us of how silly our own belief is that good comes out suffering.

Come now sir. You are unmasked. Let’s have no more of your folderol.

 

[ateista]

Ateista,

I have concluded that you are being disingenous rather than plain silly.

You cannot see how ridiculous your argument is to increase suffering since good comes out of it? I don’t think so.

It is meant to be ridiculous.

Rather, you are trying to convinvce us of how silly our own belief is that good comes out suffering.

Exactly.

Now, please remember, that I agreed that there are instances when some good will necessarily come out of some suffering. We all can bring up supporting arguments that there are such cases.

What is ridiculous is to assert that ALL sufferings WILL result in some good, that there are NO sufferings which are unneccessary. Because if that WOULD be the case, then we SHOULD go and increase the suffering. That is the inescapable, logical conclusion.

This line of argument is called reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Fran65]

Suffering is undesirable. We should not therefore seek to increase it. If we deliberately set out to increase suffering (as humans) we would be doing evil.

Before you make the obvious assertion, no, God is not evil.
How do we know that?
It is one His attributes. (One for another thread)

My dog learnt not to run at the front door when the post arrives by knocking herself out very painfully the last time she did it.I’m still not going to use pain and discomfort to teach her! (i use positive reinforcements).

Suffering occurs in our fallen world. God brings good out of it.

I don’t find this ridiculous.

You do know that faith isn’t compulsory btw? You haven’t got to keep arguing the same point(s)!

 

[Sarpedon]

The logical last step is: If suffering encourages people to turn to religion, and religion is the only way for people to get “saved”, then we should increase the suffering (and not fight against it) in order to encourage people to turn to religion (and thus get “saved”).

If such encourgement of suffering undercuts the salvation it is trying to encourage, there is no point and it will almost certainly work against the religion. You cannot encourage a reduction of sin by sinning. It’s as simple as that.

Well, then let’s encourage war, let’s encourage rape and torture. My answer does not change: be it rape or war, if these instances increase the “moral” awareness of humans, then all these serve the “greater good” (in your usage of this expression) and thus, they are ultimately “good”.

The quote is talking about God, not man. God is not encouraging the rape or torture, only allowing it. This is a major difference. You consider it the same, but I disagree. I personally would refrain from stopping something bad if a far greater good came out of it. At the same time, I would not do any intrinisically immoral actions that directly decrease the greater good- such as directly aiding the raper. Refraining from action, depending on the circumstances, is a different thing.

Rape and war can increase the moral awareness of humans, and thus in some cases God allows it to happen (other times, He stops it). This is all for the sake of moral awareness. No one, God or man, can encourage morality by directly violating it. This is simply counter-productive.

And since I did answer your objection, here comes mine:

If all suffering logically leads to a greater good, then this concept also applies to the suffering of damned in hell. What kind of “good” can come out of eternal suffering (whatever it may be)? If God only allows necessary suffering, then suffering in hell must have some good coming out of it…

No good comes out of the suffering of hell. At the same time, this is voluntary suffering, and you have said you have no problem with this, only involuntary suffering.

 

[Sarpedon]

What is ridiculous is to assert that ALL sufferings WILL result in some good, that there are NO sufferings which are unneccessary. Because if that WOULD be the case, then we SHOULD go and increase the suffering. That is the inescapable, logical conclusion.

This line of argument is called reductio ad absurdum.

You need to address the logical proposition that encouraging suffering for the GG in most cases intrinisically decreases the GG you are trying to increase. This is pointless.

 

[Sarpedon]

I will be gone until Thursday visiting Newport, RI.

 

[ateista]

Suffering is undesirable. We should not therefore seek to increase it. If we deliberately set out to increase suffering (as humans) we would be doing evil.

Naturally, I agree with this.

Before you make the obvious assertion, no, God is not evil.
How do we know that?
It is one His attributes. (One for another thread)

Yes, it would be. But only if it is treated as a hypothesis, and not as an axiom.

My dog learnt not to run at the front door when the post arrives by knocking herself out very painfully the last time she did it.I’m still not going to use pain and discomfort to teach her! (i use positive reinforcements).

Very smart. Positive reinforcements work much better than negative ones.

Suffering occurs in our fallen world.

No one denies this.

God brings good out of it.

This is the point of contention.

But your summary is a bit incorrect. The usual “defense” against the problem of evil is different. It does not say that “evil” exists and God somehow, mysteriously “patches” the world to bring forth something “good” out of it.

Rather it says that there are some highly desirable, very good goals, which cannot be actualized without allowing or causing “evil” means. The usual example is the “no pain no gain” principle for athletes, who value the development of their muscles, and to achieve that they must resort to painful methods (exercise). If one values the muscle development, one must accept the painful method to get it. The “evil” of suffering is a logical prerequisite to the good of having a better body.

Let me reiterate (and risk your disapproval): the logically necessary suffering means that God values some highly desirable goal, which he cannot bring forth (despite his omnipotence) without allowing / imposing suffering on us. This second part is the crux of the matter.

There is a huge difference between the two approaches. I wonder if you were aware of this distinction.