Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Peter_Plato]

My only point is objective truth can exist even without an arbiter. Even though a famous mathematician still has to prove his assertions, his conclusions either objectively follow from his assertions or they don’t. There’s no authoritative arbiter, but we still have objectively true and false statements.

That is the thing, AnimalSpirits, classic theism claims that the ground of all that exists is not mere “brute fact” – not just the way things are – but has the nature of both Authoritative Arbiter AND the way things are, expressed as Ipsum Esse Existens or Actus Purus. God is Existence Itself – which is precisely what must be true in order for morality and truth, itself, to be objective and obligatory.

The assertions of the mathematician are not true because a mathematician asserts them, but because they are grounded in the nature of reality itself – which is Mathematical, Moral, Intelligent, Intentional, Truth Itself, Being Itself and Existence Itself - the Fullness of Being, the Actuality of all Actualities. The mathematician is not the ground of truth and, therefore, not him/herself the final arbiter of mathematics.

Sure, the truth of mathematics is grounded in the way things are, but the question then becomes, “What exactly is ‘the way things are’ that would make not just mathematics, but morality and everything else we know to be true, necessarily true?”

 

[faithsmind]

I can understand a person thinking that a just God would not allow such unjust suffering of children and animals.

But we can’t base our entire world view on suffering. Suffering is not a constant. It has an ending. Nerves exhist to alert the body that there is something out of order of how the body exists on it’s usual basis.

I am a believer because God demonstrated to us (through the account of an incredible amount of witnesses of The Resurrection) that Christian unconditional love conquers all, and suffering withers and fades. I do not allow suffering to be my be-all and end-all, my measuring stick for my world view. Otherwise, I would turn into a cowardice worm, alone in a hole. My goal, as a believer, is to use unconditional love for my measuring stick, instead. And with these eyes, I can fear nothing and am able to overcome everything that life throws my way! Because I try not to react to pain but instead choose to act out of love.

So what about the animal or child who may not have the ability or maturity or wisdom to choose to act out of love and instead can only react to pain? The pain eventually disappears, and is nothing more than an alert system. We have to stop giving pain more credit than it deserves. Especially us spoiled Americans, yikes!

Simply, love is much greater than suffering. True love, like His Catholic Church, his constant bride, will last forever. The Church is the longest surviving institution known to man. Doesn’t that say something for itself?

 

[PRmerger]

I can understand a person thinking that a just God would not allow such unjust suffering of children and animals.

But we can’t base our entire world view on suffering. Suffering is not a constant. It has an ending. Nerves exhist to alert the body that there is something out of order of how the body exists on it’s usual basis.

I am a believer because God demonstrated to us (through the account of an incredible amount of witnesses of The Resurrection) that Christian unconditional love conquers all, and suffering withers and fades. I do not allow suffering to be my be-all and end-all, my measuring stick for my world view. Otherwise, I would turn into a cowardice worm, alone in a hole. My goal, as a believer, is to use unconditional love for my measuring stick, instead. And with these eyes, I can fear nothing and am able to overcome everything that life throws my way! Because I try not to react to pain but instead choose to act out of love.

So what about the animal or child who may not have the ability or maturity or wisdom to choose to act out of love and instead can only react to pain? The pain eventually disappears, and is nothing more than an alert system. We have to stop giving pain more credit than it deserves. Especially us spoiled Americans, yikes!

Simply, love is much greater than suffering. True love, like His Catholic Church, his constant bride, will last forever. The Church is the longest surviving institution known to man. Doesn’t that say something for itself?

Indeed.

And there is a corollary to the OP question for atheists: why aren’t there any atheists who stand in the tradition of great sacrificial love in the manner of St. Maximilian Kolbe?

I propose that this act, of offering one’s life for a complete stranger, out of love, can only be done by a Believer.

 

[Lucy107]

Well, if our exchange is an example of how you dialogued with other religious people, I can say that it is as I suspected: no one was really out to get you. You mistake any refutation of your argument as a personal indictment of your character.

Let me assure you, Lucy, that people can disagree with your assertions/arguments/premises without making any judgement whatsoever about what kind of person you are, how good you are, and your eternal destination.

Gettting offended when someone says, “You are wrong” or “I disagree with you” is otiose here, Lucy.

This forum is for people who can understand that there is much to discuss and learn, and it’s important for members to not get offended when someone refutes her position.

Oh, the high horse!
Pffft.

I can see that I am in dialogue with someone who can’t understand the very basic principles of common sense.

There you go!

 

[Ignatius]

Indeed.

And there is a corollary to the OP question for atheists: why aren’t there any atheists who stand in the tradition of great sacrificial love in the manner of St. Maximilian Kolbe?

I propose that this act, of offering one’s life for a complete stranger, out of love, can only be done by a Believer.

Surely there is a record of some altruistic Athiest who stood up in a NAZI death camp and offered to take the place of a complete stranger in the death chamber. After all, they claim they can be just as moral without the benefit of belief in God!

Wouldn’t Steven Fry be willing to do the same?

 

[Lucy107]

There are few slight missteps of logic here. Things don’t quite add up, so to speak.

The CC dispensing the clearest, purest water of Life does not mean it is the only water available.

Merely because the CC has “full knowledge of the Truth about God” does not mean you “have none and never could have” unless you, intentionally, make it a point of difference whereby you reject everything the CC teaches and resolve to do so always, regardless of whether it teaches the Truth about God or not.

Why would you do that if the truth about God is what you are seriously interested in? Your personal differences with the CC should make no difference at all if the Truth about God (the Truth Itself) is your only desire and intention, no?

Thank you for your ontological approach.

The point being that the “Truth about God” will be the Truth about God whether or not you find whoever teaches it agreeable or not.

Actually, if we posit that the Truth about God is, among other things, such that all humans are in some way in deep accord with it, it is ultimately not possible that someone could teach the Truth about God and yet not be agreeable to the one who seeks the Truth about God.

In this case, the Church admits it is a hospital for sinners and so the current state of disease within its walls ought not be the criterion by which it is judged since, like all hospitals, it is the sick who need the treatment it offers - so the sick tend to conglomerate there. Being treated badly by the patients may or may not indicate anything about whether proper treatment is being dispensed by the hospital, although it could tell us something about the diseases currently rampant among the patients.

Heh, yes, that’s a good analogy.

If you are neither a patient nor a caregiver, what is your position? Health inspector, perhaps? Sent by whom?

Patient, but that everyone else is healthier than I. I suppose this part about everyone else there being healthier than I is an introjection/ an introjective identification based on the projections that some other - very vocal - patients project onto me.

Just look at the other poster who unilaterally imposed himself as a teacher on me (deeming himself healthier than I), and then when I didn’t comply with that, called me a fancy word for “stupid.”

I am not yet entirely resistant to such things, but I’m getting better.

It occured to me today that when Jesus was talking about bringing the sword, separating parents from children, children from parents etc., and that if anyone loves their family and friends more than Jesus, then such a person is not fit to follow Jesus – he might have also been referring to the sort of situations of attachment (even if that attachment is due to traumatic bonding) that a person may have to the particular person who teaches them about spiritual topics.
That for the sake of Jesus, one ought to cut any undue attachments to one’s worldly religious teachers (and do so by doing one’s best to follow Jesus).

 

[Lucy107]

In this case, the Church admits it is a hospital for sinners and so the current state of disease within its walls ought not be the criterion by which it is judged since, like all hospitals, it is the sick who need the treatment it offers - so the sick tend to conglomerate there. Being treated badly by the patients may or may not indicate anything about whether proper treatment is being dispensed by the hospital, although it could tell us something about the diseases currently rampant among the patients.

Sometimes, I have the feeling that it is the lunatics that have taken over the asylum …

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sometimes, I have the feeling that it is the lunatics that have taken over the asylum …

Yup, WE have.

It is just that those who have come to realize that are so afraid of relinquishing control that WE keep making things worse; those that haven’t figured it out think their best option is "get while the gettin’ is good.”

The saints simply and completely “render to God” all that is his and find eternal joy in the bargain.

 

[PRmerger]

Surely there is a record of some altruistic Athiest who stood up in a NAZI death camp and offered to take the place of a complete stranger in the death chamber. After all, they claim they can be just as moral without the benefit of belief in God!

Yep. This is my favorite thing to do with atheists: play atheist to the atheist.

That is, I find it amusing that the atheist who proposes the above–“surely there is an atheistic equivalent of St. Maximilian Kolbe!”–does so on the basis of FAITH ALONE.

He has faith that such a person exists.

Even if there’s not a single shred of evidence for this phantom equivalent of Maximilian Kolbe’s existence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Surely there is a record of some altruistic Athiest who stood up in a NAZI death camp and offered to take the place of a complete stranger in the death chamber. After all, they claim they can be just as moral without the benefit of belief in God!

Wouldn’t Steven Fry be willing to do the same?

Seems odd that Mr. Fry can claim God is a moral monster for " causing bone cancer in a child,” but he has no problem with abortionists dismembering and disposing of unborn children merely because Mr. Fry thinks women shouldn’t be inconvenienced.

This may not, in fact, be an entailment of Mr. Fry’s position, but unless he can reconcile his public promotion of “a woman’s choice” regarding abortion – his own permission to inflict unnecessary and devastating pain on a child under a woman’s care – with his condemnation of God for permitting severe pain, then his position just seems whimsically and perfidiously incoherent.

 

[jmcrae]

Why the dichotomy where none exists, Lucy?

You need not “unquestioningly submit” at all while being a Catholic.

Good heavens, no.

Being Catholic means that you ask questions all the time - the difference is, Catholics ask questions in order to receive information.

 

[PRmerger]

Good heavens, no.

Being Catholic means that you ask questions all the time - the difference is, Catholics ask questions in order to receive information.

Indeed.

One has to wonder how someone could come to a forum called, er, Catholic Answers, yet posit that Catholics can’t question anything theological.

Catholic Answers presupposes that Catholics are…well, questioning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Indeed.

One has to wonder how someone could come to a forum called, er, Catholic Answers, yet posit that Catholics can’t question anything theological.

Catholic Answers presupposes that Catholics are…well, questioning.

Perhaps what is taken to be offensive is that Catholics are… well… offering answers

The preferred option in our “culture" is that answers ought not exist – no fun in having those.

Ignorance, is – apparently – supposed to be “bliss;" not beatitudo, mind you; just the “settled for,” "not anything better available” mindless kind of “bliss.”

This kind…
winteryknight.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/irish-woman-explains-why-she-got-an-abortion-i-wanted-to-travel/

 

[Prodigal_40s]

OP shouldn’t that be?

Why do people allow themselves to suffer by listening to Stephen Fry?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

That’s fine when people agree: WBC is vile and wrong.

But when 2 people disagree about objective truth, then to whom do you, a denier of a final arbiter, appeal?

If they have a common set of assumptions, then it should be possible to puzzle out the truth (or discern that there isn’t enough info for a meaningful answer). If not, then there isn’t a set procedure.

I’d note, though, that I wouldn’t put the WBCs morals in the objectively wrong camp. I’d say they’re objectively wrong about some things (the existence of their god in general), but there’s no central authority to sort out that dispute for us.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

The only insightful thing the UK journalist Julie Burchill wrote was

“Stephen Fry is a stupid person’s idea of what a clever person is”

His unquestioning atheism is hilarious. It goes along the lines of…the World just happened and Man happened to be super intelligent. It all just happened that we evolved from apes. It’s simple and that’s that. Simple…ton

Yep that’s that Sluggy

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Take the conversion of former atheist Leah Libresco:

What was the primary factor that forced Libresco to this theistic conclusion? She explained that morality was the key. Throughout her time as an atheist, she struggled to come to grips with how humans can adhere to a morality that seems objective if there is no God. As she searched for answers among atheistic thinkers and writers, she admitted that their answers were inadequate. She stated:

I’ve heard some explanations that try to bake morality into the natural world by reaching for evolutionary psychology. They argue that moral dispositions are evolutionarily triumphant over selfishness, or they talk about group selection, or something else. Usually, these proposed solutions radically misunderstand a) evolution b) moral philosophy or c) both. I didn’t think the answer was there (2012).

Libresco, Leah (2012), “This is My Last Post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,” patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html.

Quite trenchant!

I find her arguments exceptionally uncompelling. She’s basically arguing that humans feel, quite strongly, that certain moral tenants ate objectively true, therefore objective morality must exist. The story you link falls into the same trap. I agree that humans have strong moral inclinations, but I posit that natural selection among individuals (the species with rampant intra-species killing doesn’t get far) and societies explain why we hold certain principles so dearly- the groups we belong too can only persist if we are socialized that way.

 

[PRmerger]

This kind…
winteryknight.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/irish-woman-explains-why-she-got-an-abortion-i-wanted-to-travel/

Utterly speechless.

#horrifying

 

[PRmerger]

If they have a common set of assumptions, then it should be possible to puzzle out the truth (or discern that there isn’t enough info for a meaningful answer). If not, then there isn’t a set procedure.

And the problem is when someone doesn’t have a common set of assumptions.

All you can do, as a denier of objective morality, is say: you like turnips. I like potatoes. Who’s to say one is better?

I’d note, though, that I wouldn’t put the WBCs morals in the objectively wrong camp. I’d say they’re objectively wrong about some things (the existence of their god in general), but there’s no central authority to sort out that dispute for us.

Well, yeah. They’re objectively wrong about some things, but not everything.

I mean, we can agree that Shirley Phelps-Roper is objectively correct when she says: if you believe that gay sex is ok, then you believe it’s not a sin.

Or when she says that adultery is one of the ten commandments. She’s objectively correct, no?

Or when she calls her daughter, “Grace”. That’s her name, after all, right?

youtube.com/watch?v=qeqYm9DvCDo

 

[PRmerger]

I find her arguments exceptionally uncompelling.

Did you read her entire conversion story?