Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter civilwar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is Stephen Fry omniscient, omni-presnt, or all-powerful?

He is very limited, then. Especially in the ‘knowing’ part. Like, he doesn’t know that the pain that comes from a flu shot might actually benefit him, but someone can sit him down and explain to him that there is a bigger picture if the human condition spanning years and years before and years after his life that he will never get to see, and even if he could, he will never be able to comprehend it all with all of its complexities and depth.

Stephen fry sees that there is a way things SHOULD be, which means that everything was created for a certain purpose, but Stephen Fry’s philosophy can not even begin to dream of something or someone creating it for that purpose. Mr. Fry will say, “That’s wrong, that’s all wrong,” but will refuse to answer the question, “well, how do you KNOW that is wrong?”

Nature without God is all senseless suffering and death, with no right or wrong. Nothing “ought to be” in nature unless it evolved that way. Its only when you acknowledge God (Who is outside of nature) are you able to say, “That SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be.”
 
You know what I think is funny - We seem to already understand the benefits of suffering, as limited as that view is in the grand scheme of things, and I would point to our stories as proof of this (limited) understanding.

All of the greatest tales start off with a sense of “something is wrong” or “something went wrong” and then for the main character to make things right a the comfort of the norm must be left behind and a great evil must be faced.

With impending wars and the sense of doom spreading over the land, Frodo must leave the Shire and carry a great weight to its destruction. All that travel with Frodo, including Frodo himself, grow and become better, or refuse to grow and by never letting go of their old habits die from them in shameful deaths.

Which makes me wonder what the atheist tale would be?

On a sunny day, Frodo sat down for second breakfast, not because he was hungry or tired, but because that is how all Hobbits had evolved in their socio-political surroundings. And then he took a nap, because his brain had been thus chemically aligned to entering into that state of rest.
The end.
 
TarkanAttila said:
I have an idea. Why not turn it around? “Yeah. That is a good question. Hey! He made me, and He made you. Why don’t we go help them with their suffering?”
Click to expand...
Because that’s a complete distraction- it doesn’t address the question. I’m not unilaterally preventing child suffering because I’m not all loving, all powerful, or all knowing- let alone all three. But if such a being does exist, then Fry’s question is wholly viable.
 
POJIUJH said:
All suffering comes from the sin of humanity. We’re more responsible for that than He is. It’s fair that He wants to make saints of them too!
Click to expand...
Humans are responsible for disease? For natural disasters?
 
Flagstone said:
That would be great if we actually had a cure for cancer. Unfortunately we don’t and until we do many children will suffer and die. If the Christian God exists the He could cure all these children immediately. The ball is back in His court.
Click to expand...
Alright. Rather than beating around the bush, I’ll just come out with it. Love it or hate it.

In the Catholic Church, suffering is not the ultimate evil, or even on the top ten. Suffering is often a by-product of a much greater evil, that is, a refusal to love. And even when it’s not, as in the case of natural suffering, suffering can be quite good.

I bet that idea - of suffering being good - must absolutely boggle your mind, and the mind of most atheists, who think suffering the ultimate evil, or one of 'em. For not even pleasure can overcome the pain of suffering. Not the greatest reward can justify unneeded suffering.

But before you jeer, or ask questions about something which seems impossible to you, anyway, if I may ask a question of you, that’s been causing me to scratch my head for some time now (well, that or the lice): why is suffering evil?
 
Stephen Fry has lots of money. Why does he let children suffer?
 
If there wasn’t greed in the world and the drive to make as much personal profit as possible off everything - the world would be a different place. We don’t live as God wants us too - we are responsible for the children they are in our care and we don’t do it - only on a small scale - leprosy is an example - there is no reason for anyone to be suffering from this disease and its not expensive to treat and people die and suffer from it everyday - lots have been cured but much too late and live from the damage of the disease - this world is all about money - money is the God most people chase.

We have let down the sick , the children - the poor’

As for natural disasters we know the hurricane season and what might happen - we know when tornado’s might happen but don’t have shelters - we know if you live at the base of a volcano we might be killed - we know there is a possibility of a tidal wave living in an earth quake zone on the edge of the ocean or the earth quake it self - we know a huge earth quake will hit California - we know where the flood plains are and that floods will happen - we have put ourselves in harms way. Areas have been wiped out and what do we do we rebuild and continue to live in the danger zones. We have to take the responsibility of our actions

Last week in the city I live in we had a boiling water advisory (lasted one day) with in six hour every bottle of water in the city was hoarded - I didn’t buy water - I bought a jug of milk and some juice didn’t think of buying water . If there is every a world disaster its going to be a very ugly world - except for maybe Japan the last earth quake that happened there they showed us how we should act.

We need to look at ourselves and our conduct before looking at God.

I hope I don’t anger anyone - it my opinion and what I see.
 
TarkanAttila said:
Alright. Rather than beating around the bush, I’ll just come out with it. Love it or hate it.

In the Catholic Church, suffering is not the ultimate evil, or even on the top ten. Suffering is often a by-product of a much greater evil, that is, a refusal to love. And even when it’s not, as in the case of natural suffering, suffering can be quite good.

I bet that idea - of suffering being good - must absolutely boggle your mind, and the mind of most atheists, who think suffering the ultimate evil, or one of 'em. For not even pleasure can overcome the pain of suffering. Not the greatest reward can justify unneeded suffering.

But before you jeer, or ask questions about something which seems impossible to you, anyway, if I may ask a question of you, that’s been causing me to scratch my head for some time now (well, that or the lice): why is suffering evil?
Click to expand...
I don’t think suffering is always evil, necessarily. Sometimes it can be something you must endure on your way to greater experiences of well-being.

But often, people endure suffering to a degree that appears unnecessary. A child who dies of terminal bone cancer may get fast-tracked to Heaven (you know, assuming they’re Catholic), but that doesn’t really explain anything. Was God simply not willing to risk letting the child grow up and enjoy their life, and possibly fall away from His Grace? To say nothing of the Asian Tsunami which wiped out over 225,000 people in 2004. Neither of these cases, nor any of the others I could name - appear necessary to achieve a greater height of well-being. You may judge me ill-equipped to make that determination, but I would say the same of you. The difference is that only I am following the evidence where it leads.

Fry’s point is not to judge God for orchestrating (or allowing) this suffering to occur. It’s to judge those who would worship this God, and insist he is all-loving, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
Flagstone. You said (parenthetical addition mine) . . . .
Maybe if God were to do this (eliminate pain and suffering) it would draw people to Him.
Click to expand...
If Christianity is right (and it is), God DOES do this Flagstone. God DOES eliminate pain and suffering for those that turn to Him.

But in His own time-table and in His own way. And it DOES draw people to Him.

The next question is WHY would God do it this way? I don’t know the answer entirely why. But one reason is, it SHOWS the effects of transgression of an all-Holy God. It shows us where we DON’T want to be.

We cause pain to ourselves when we reject God. Pain and suffering are not the final goal are they?

The freedom to reject God is necessary for the freedom to accept God too.

If humanity were mere (as per Jimmy Akin’s example) “Stepford Wives” that is NOT freedom.

God couldn’t make us Lamb Chop and Topo Gigio and us still have human dignity could He? (See Lamb Chop here and Topo Gigio here and Shari, Ed, Lamb Chop, and Topo Gigio here.

And if we have freedom, and reject God anyway, that is not loving God but rather . . . well . . . rejecting God.
 
And that gets to the issue with some atheists and agnostics… they lack the capability to see outside of themselves. Everything is “me, me, me” “I, I, I” . They don’t understand that they, like the rest of us, are just small parts of an infinite creation. It’s a somewhat vain POV. It’s like “really? YOU know what’s best for all of mankind”??

And, all one has to do to understand good coming thorugh pain is look at a crucifix and see the pain that Jesus had to go through in order to offer us eternal life.
 
DaddyGirl said:
He’s not using it as an excuse…it’s quite a valid question.
And it’s not a question only Atheists ask, to be sure. Many Theists would like to have a better answer to that very same question, and ask it when their child or others suffer immeasurable pain and suffering.
.
Click to expand...
I find his question disingenuous. All one has to do is use those little gray cells. We know from science why people suffer, due to illness or disease. We also know why those diseases and illnesses exist.

So the REAL question Steven Fry is asking is why isn’t our life here on earth a paradise?

To automatically accuse of God of selfishness or pettiness etc. is calculated to stir up emotional responses, but hardly intelligent ones.

But getting back to the REAL question; that is precisely the questions ALL religions try to answer.

If you reject the idea of a Deity, and/or Revelation, all one can do is cast about in angry tones cursing the darkness. 🤷
 
AyJSimon said:
I don’t think suffering is always evil, necessarily. Sometimes it can be something you must endure on your way to greater experiences of well-being.
Click to expand...
As vague and meaningless as this statement is, I don’t think I’d disagree with it.
But often, people endure suffering to a degree that appears unnecessary. A child who dies of terminal bone cancer may get fast-tracked to Heaven (you know, assuming they’re Catholic), but that doesn’t really explain anything.
Click to expand...
Hold the phone. What makes you say “assuming they’re Catholic”?
To say nothing of the Asian Tsunami which wiped out over 225,000 people in 2004. Neither of these cases, nor any of the others I could name - appear necessary to achieve a greater height of well-being. You may judge me ill-equipped to make that determination, but I would say the same of you. The difference is that only I am following the evidence where it leads.
Click to expand...
Second, sorry, but if you don’t mind, I would like to ask you another one of these hair-scratching questions:
What on God’s green Earth does “a greater height of well-being” mean, and why is it good?
 
POJIUJH said:
Actually, yes. If it weren’t for the sin in Eden there would be no suffering in the world.
Click to expand...
Then the question becomes why does your god feel the need to punish children with parasites, injuries, and cancer just because two adults sinned thousands of years ago.
 
AnimalSpirits said:
Then the question becomes why does your god feel the need to punish children with parasites, injuries, and cancer just because two adults sinned thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
God’s peace. Punish? When rational beings possessed of intelligence and free will make decisions, consequences follow. Chief among these consequences is death, and everything leading up to death: aging, sickness, injuries, parasites, predators, all of it. Everything God has done since that terrible Fall has been directed toward repairing the damage done to themselves, their offspring, and all creation by our original parents. However, because God is who he is, and is the very ground of all good, supreme and total good, the end result of his plan will be to exalt mankind far above what he was at the beginning. As Augustine said, “Oh happy fault–for so glorious a Redeemer.”

Atheists always want to know why God (if he exists) doesn’t have us living in paradise. The answer is: we had that at the beginning, and chose to throw it away. Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~
 
Br.Carlo said:
God’s peace. Punish? When rational beings possessed of intelligence and free will make decisions, consequences follow. Chief among these consequences is death, and everything leading up to death: aging, sickness, injuries, parasites, predators, all of it. Everything God has done since that terrible Fall has been directed toward repairing the damage done to themselves, their offspring, and all creation by our original parents. However, because God is who he is, and is the very ground of all good, supreme and total good, the end result of his plan will be to exalt mankind far above what he was at the beginning. As Augustine said, “Oh happy fault–for so glorious a Redeemer.”
Click to expand...
Early humas did not have supernatural powers. Eating a piece of fruit did not create cancer or a host of parasites that pain humans- these would have to be imposed by the divine add punishment. Moreover, the things which plague humans predate humanity- natural disasters and disease are far older than humanity.
Atheists always want to know why God (if he exists) doesn’t have us living in paradise. The answer is: we had that at the beginning, and chose to throw it away. Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~
Click to expand...
Who is “we”? I made no such choice, as it was not offered to me- why is a child with an incurable disease being held accountable for decisions made in the distant past? Is that justice, in your mind?
 
God’s peace. Actions have consequences, and the actions of humans have eternal consequences. The first human pair made decisions that affect us all. This Christians accept because the Church teaches it as it was revealed by God. This is faith. You can bring up all the atheistic reasons it can’t be true that you wish, but the fact remains that since you begin with the presupposition that there is no God and I begin with the opposite, we will never agree. Reconciliation begins with belief in the revelation of God as taught by the Church, which informs our reason, as Augustine noted long ago. Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~
 
I begin with no such presumption. Our prehuman ancestors suffered, if you accept evolution. If this issue suggests that evolution is inconsistent with catholicism, that’s an interesting conclusion.

Moreover, it might be that your god would not have inflicted natural disasters and disease upon humanity had early humans not sinned, but it is still this supposedly perfectly good being persists in the inflicting of this pain on innocent people and children in particular. it’s absurd to claim that the existence of cancer and small pox can be the natural consequence of human sinfulness, so god is not to blame. But even so, didn’t your god create nature? If hundreds of thousands of painful deaths for an infants is the natural consequence of two sins, thousands of years ago, then I claim that this violates the belief that your god is both good and wise. Maybe he’s one, but not both.
 
TarkanAttila said:
Second, sorry, but if you don’t mind, I would like to ask you another one of these hair-scratching questions:
What on God’s green Earth does “a greater height of well-being” mean, and why is it good?
Click to expand...
The character of conscious experience exists on a continuum. If you move (or are moved) in one direction, you experience more suffering. In the other, you experience more flourishing.

In the Asian tsunami example, “a greater height of well-being” would be a state of consciousness where, collectively, we experience greater flourishing as a direct result of 225,000+ people being drowned than we could have achieved had this event not taken place.

‘Why is flourishing is better than suffering’ is an odd question - a bit like asking why is being healthy better than being sick. Once you’ve hit philosophical bedrock, you arrive at a first principle that can’t be gotten beneath.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top