Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter civilwar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re Lucy107’s comment:
Religion tends to make the difference in how one cares for another person.

No - it doesn’t.
 
Why does God allow fools to live in fame and luxury?
Dostoevsky put this question much more passionately than Stephen Fry and the fact that he thinks he's out - thought or out - felt Dostoevsky suffices for response.
 
MFHMFH said:
Re Lucy107’s comment:
Religion tends to make the difference in how one cares for another person.

No - it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
It would help if you learned how to use the “QUOTE” feature.

There are numerous threads detailing how to do this.

Quick tutorial: click on the “QUOTE” icon at the bottom of the thread to which you wish to respond.
 
MFHMFH said:
Re Lucy107’s comment:
Religion tends to make the difference in how one cares for another person.

No - it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Well, it could be argued that religion provides a completely different set of ground rules for what “another person” definably is.

An atheist, presumably, adheres to some form of metaphysical naturalism, meaning that a “person” is nothing but the chemical processes that make up the physical “body” that is the human being.

Nothing “super” to nature exists, therefore the entire metaphysical grounds for valuing the “person” lies in the value attributable to the biochemical processes that make up any particular human being.

If that is the entire story behind what it is that makes other human beings valuable, the “grounds” for valuing seem rather limited.

If, however, God exists, then what it is that makes any human being “valuable” is found in the metaphysical “super” nature of reality and the eternal essence of what it means to be human that grounds the value others irrevocably have, in themselves. The grounds for valuing others take on an infinitely unique paradigm.

Does that mean all atheists are constrained to devaluing others? No, because atheists don’t necessarily ground their ethical system in what can reasonably be drawn from metaphysical naturalism, but that doesn’t mean they can derive warrant for their ethical beliefs in their metaphysical presumptions – obviously they can’t.

Does that mean all theists necessarily see the moral implications that come from the metaphysical grounds implicit in theism? No, precisely because humans are not morally impeccable or perfect.

The question, again, relates to the metaphysical grounds for each belief system and what moral implications can be reasonably teased out of those grounding metaphysics.

Atheism is on decidedly shaky grounds since it provides NOTHING (or very little) in respect to what moral principles inevitably flow from it.

Sure, you can insist that atheism makes NO DIFFERENCE with respect to how others are valued, but that claim cannot be sustained from atheism itself, nor from what atheism claims other persons are as “entities" to be accorded value. The value of others becomes an entirely subjective determination – with NO objective grounds for that determination even possible.
 
clem456 said:
Thanks for the second chance. I can repost. great…I love reposting for clarification…
The context, which was not set my me, was how to relate to atheists in this area. Here’s what I posted. I hope clarification happens.
Click to expand...
You started off by saying -
clem456 said:
If suffering simply is, how do we convince an atheist that God still exists and is good?
Click to expand...
You were wondering how to convince an atheist.
To which I commented that it doesn’t seem to be the individual Catholic’s job to convince atheists of God’s existence and goodness.
clem456 said:
I think the bottom line is not a particular doctrine, but the witness of a person (Christ) who has compassion with us. The person of Christ cannot always be explicitly expressed in a satisfactory way through doctrines which seem senseless.
We witness the person of Christ by living as he did, by having compassion with others in their suffering, buy not exempting ourselves and looking the other way.
This is the primary challenge of life. At least for me it is.
Click to expand...
What exactly is it that you wish to accomplish by witnessing?

That some atheist to whom you witness would convert?
 
Lucy107 said:
You started off by saying -

You were wondering how to convince an atheist.
Click to expand...
No, I was restating th question that was on the board through the last few posts.
To which I commented that it doesn’t seem to be the individual Catholic’s job to convince atheists of God’s existence and goodness.
Click to expand...
Right. Didn’t say it was.
What exactly is it that you wish to accomplish by witnessing?
Click to expand...
That some atheist to whom you witness would convert?
Click to expand...
No.
That’s not it.
 
I would also have to ask someone who made this objection what the cut-off date is for beginning to suffer? Should God prevent suffering until the 8th or 9th birthday? Should 3 year olds not suffer, but 5 year olds have to start to learn how to take it?
Also those who ask this question are all for inflicting suffering on the child before birth to prevent him or her from being born. ‘Kill it lest it suffer’ is the contradictory way of sentimental pagans.
 
CarmelJerome said:
Code: 
Also those who ask this question are all for inflicting suffering on the child before birth to prevent him or her from being born. 'Kill it lest it suffer' is the contradictory way of sentimental pagans.
Click to expand...
The difference is that people who are pro-choice don’t portray themselves as being perfectly moral creatures, nor expect to be worshiped as such by the rest of humanity.
 
AyJSimon said:
The difference is that people who are pro-choice don’t portray themselves as being perfectly moral creatures, nor expect to be worshiped as such by the rest of humanity.
Click to expand...
Not sure how promoting a moral principle such as the basic right of all human beings to life constitutes an expectation of being worshiped.

Or are you claiming that just having any moral principles whatsoever necessarily means that an expectation of being worshiped goes along with them?

Care to make a case for such an eventuality, or are you suggesting that just stating it is sufficient to make it true?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Not sure how promoting a moral principle such as the basic right of all human beings to life constitutes an expectation of being worshiped.

Or are you claiming that just having any moral principles whatsoever necessarily means that an expectation of being worshiped goes along with them?

Care to make a case for such an eventuality, or are you suggesting that just stating it is sufficient to make it true?
Click to expand...
I was not making an argument that ostensibly promoting moral virtues, on its own, creates an expectation of being worshiped.
 
AyJSimon said:
I was not making an argument that ostensibly promoting moral virtues, on its own, creates an expectation of being worshiped.
Click to expand...
Then, your point was?

That pro-choicers don’t expect to be worshiped? Okay.

What does that have to do with the truth of their claims?
 
AyJSimon said:
The difference is that people who are pro-choice don’t portray themselves as being perfectly moral creatures, nor expect to be worshiped as such by the rest of humanity.
Click to expand...
Do you see the problem, Simon, that we see Believers have when an pro-choice atheist is criticizing a god for permitting suffering, while also sanctioning the suffering of unborn children?
 
PRmerger said:
Do you see the problem, Simon, that we see Believers have when an pro-choice atheist is criticizing a god for permitting suffering, while also sanctioning the suffering of unborn children?
Click to expand...
I certainly see the problem that you think you have, but again, this is not a valid comparison. God is portrayed (and portrays himself) as infallible, endlessly benevolent, and eternally worthy of praise. A pro-choice atheist is not and does not.

My problem is not with the idea of a God who allows (or even orchestrates) needless human suffering. My problem is with the idea of a God who allows (or orchestrates) needless human suffering, THEN expects us to insist that he’s infallible, omni-benevolent, and eternally worthy of praise.
 
AyJSimon said:
My problem is with the idea of a God who allows (or orchestrates) needless human suffering, THEN expects us to insist that he’s infallible, omni-benevolent, and eternally worthy of praise.
Click to expand...
Is there any reason at all you can see for God permitting suffering?
 
AyJSimon said:
Certainly. He might not be able to prevent it, or he might not care enough to prevent it.
Click to expand...
Well, then, Simon, I reject this god just as you do.

It’s interesting to note that I am an atheist as well, if this is what kind of god you mean. :hmmm:
 
PRmerger said:
Well, then, Simon, I reject this god just as you do.

It’s interesting to note that I am an atheist as well, if this is what kind of god you mean. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I’m actually not an atheist because a God supervising this universe is more likely to be unable or unwilling to prevent suffering. I’m an atheist because there’s no compelling evidence to support the existence of any God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top