Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[PRmerger]

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.

Have you studied the evidence that Christians have offered over the centuries?

 

[AyJSimon]

Have you studied the evidence that Christians have offered over the centuries?

Yes.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes.

What one do you find the most compelling? (Understood–you are not convinced by any of them, but what’s the best of the worst?)

And just a friendly piece of advice: in the interest of making dialogue more fruitful, one word responses are typically inutile.

When a question like what I posited is posed here, answering “yes” or “no” without further meat is…well, lame.

You know that another question is forthcoming, so better to circumvent that and make things more efficient by simply expounding.

 

[AyJSimon]

What one do you find the most compelling? (Understood–you are not convinced by any of them, but what’s the best of the worst?)

And just a friendly piece of advice: in the interest of making dialogue more fruitful, one word responses are typically inutile.

When a question like what I posited is posed here, answering “yes” or “no” without further meat is…well, lame.

You know that another question is forthcoming, so better to circumvent that and make things more efficient by simply expounding.

I may “know” that another question is forthcoming, but that doesn’t mean I know what that question will be. I’d rather just answer the question that’s being asked than pretend to assume where the conversation will go next. None of which would stop you from writing a preemptive followup to your Yes/No question (since I can only give you one of two possible answers). If discursive efficiency is what you’re after, you’re in just as capable a position to foster it as am I.

In any case, ontological arguments are probably the “best of the worst” arguments that I’ve encountered. But I fear that this is damning with faint praise, as the success of these arguments usually hangs on one’s ability to introduce enough vagueness and muddiness into the discussion as to make it seem as though any conclusion were just as likely as any other.

 

[PRmerger]

In any case, ontological arguments are probably the “best of the worst” arguments that I’ve encountered.

Can you post a synopsis in your own words, as you understand it, of what you believe these ontological arguments to be?

(And here, I am not looking for a “yes” or “no”. And this is not merely a rhetorical question either. I am asking you to post what you believe to be the best arguments for God’s existence that you have considered.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

AyJSimon;127574t40:

I may “know” that another question is forthcoming, but that doesn’t mean I know what that question will be. I’d rather just answer the question that’s being asked than pretend to assume where the conversation will go next. None of which would stop you from writing a preemptive followup to your Yes/No question (since I can only give you one of two possible answers). If discursive efficiency is what you’re after, you’re in just as capable a position to foster it as am I.

In any case, ontological arguments are probably the “best of the worst” arguments that I’ve encountered. But I fear that this is damning with faint praise, as the success of these arguments usually hangs on one’s ability to introduce enough vagueness and muddiness into the discussion as to make it seem as though any conclusion were just as likely as any other.

By “ontogical” arguments you mean which? I am not very aware of many ontological arguments which are generally proposed as “the best,” so it seems odd that you would find them the “best of the worst” when they aren’t generally considered to be nor proposed to be “the best” by very many theists.

 

[AyJSimon]

Can you post a synopsis in your own words, as you understand it, of what you believe these ontological arguments to be?

I can post them (or link to them) as they were written by the folks who proposed them. Reformulating them into my own words seems redundant (at best). Not to mention the possibility that I may (consciously or otherwise) ‘poison the well’ in my attempt re-state them. If these arguments worked in their initial formulation, I don’t see how they could be improved by my re-writing them.

Anyway, Wikipedia has a rundown of the argument as offered by various folks down the centuries: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

 

[PRmerger]

I can post them (or link to them) as they were written by the folks who proposed them. Reformulating them into my own words seems redundant (at best). Not to mention the possibility that I may (consciously or otherwise) ‘poison the well’ in my attempt re-state them. If these arguments worked in their initial formulation, I don’t see how they could be improved by my re-writing them.

Anyway, Wikipedia has a rundown of the argument as offered by various folks down the centuries: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

No. Please post them in your own words so we can see how you understand the arguments.

Let’s say you are in discussion with some anti-vaccine fundamentalists. You ask them if they’ve ever seen the data that supports the efficacy of vaccinations. They say, “Yes”.

And then, of course, you say, “What have you seen? And why don’t you believe the data to be valid?”

And they just send you to a pro-vaccine site…that wouldn’t give you any insight as to where they are coming from.

You want to see them post the arguments* as they understand them* for the efficacy of vaccinations, so you can see where they have misunderstood the arguments. So when they say, “Well, the site says that vaccines are only 20% effective, and it says so right ‘here’, see?”, you can go to that source and see, “Oh. They read that incorrectly. It says that if** a vaccine is not kept at the correct temperature in transport** it is only 20% effective.”

So I’d like to see how you understand the ontological arguments. (And my position is that you don’t understand them at all). And then we can chat.

 

[faithsmind]

Can you post a synopsis in your own words, as you understand it, of what you believe these ontological arguments to be?

(And here, I am not looking for a “yes” or “no”. And this is not merely a rhetorical question either. I am asking you to post what you believe to be the best arguments for God’s existence that you have considered.)

PR, not sure why you keep responding to AyJSimom when this person really has not made any logical arguments in response to the explanations made in this thread, and now especially after he/she has just linked to a shallow wiki article. I fear there are other reasons for her beliefs that we may not be able to address here in this thread.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I can post them (or link to them) as they were written by the folks who proposed them. Reformulating them into my own words seems redundant (at best). Not to mention the possibility that I may (consciously or otherwise) ‘poison the well’ in my attempt re-state them. If these arguments worked in their initial formulation, I don’t see how they could be improved by my re-writing them.

Of course, the admission above undermines your claim that these arguments are the “best of the worse” and yet unconvincing, since perhaps they fully “worked” in “their initial formulation” and it is ONLY your ”poisoning" of their pristine initial cogency by YOUR trying to understand them that has made only your rendition of them defective and unconvincing to you.

You should be ENTIRELY candid then, and admit that the arguments could very well be excellent, valid and entirely convincing, just that you are incapable of fully understanding them just as you are unable to properly re-state them.

You ought to be admitting that your critique of the arguments ought to be taken with the same level of consideration that you are giving your ability to re-state them. That would at least be consistent.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Stephen Fry (an English actor/tv presenter) had an interview on an Irish TV programme recently, and when asked about God, this was his answer: youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

It’s a quite standard Atheistic view, or excuse.

But my question is, what would be the best response to something like that?

I have my own thoughts but want some other insights as to how best to respond.

Thanks.

The thought has been doggedly trailing me over the past few days that the same question could be expressed in terms of why God would permit anyone to “spend” – or waste – a life on dissolution, debauchery and pure pleasure seeking. In fact, from a determinably moral perspective, the possibility of wasting such a great and supernal gift as life on self-absorption and debauchery would call into question why the same omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God – the one so maligned by Mr. Fry – would allow the tragic waste of such a gift as life, the despoiling of which far exceeds the moral significance of why he would permit suffering.

How is a life spent at the service of pure pleasure seeking any more intrinsically justifiable in any moral sense than the suffering of a cancer sufferer? Purely on objective terms, it could be argued that considerations for the negative impact (heartbreak, frustration, disappointment) a pure pleasure seeker has on others around them could potentially make such a life far LESS morally defensible than a life which draws out of other moral beings the possibility for empathy, compassion and depth of love far beyond what a debauched life could conceivably generate.

In fact, from the purely external standpoint of objective morality/aesthetics, I can see NO REASON to prefer the life of the stereotypical urban dwelling socialite/playboy type fully immersed in dissolute living over the life of the three year old cancer victim, if pleasure/pain were the sole criteria for making a choice between them.

Perhaps this is the minority view in our so-called modern age, but it certainly isn’t one lacking the hindsight of experience.

 

[AyJSimon]

Of course, the admission above undermines your claim that these arguments are the “best of the worse” and yet unconvincing, since perhaps they fully “worked” in “their initial formulation” and it is ONLY your ”poisoning" of their pristine initial cogency by YOUR trying to understand them that has made only your rendition of them defective and unconvincing to you.

You should be ENTIRELY candid then, and admit that the arguments could very well be excellent, valid and entirely convincing, just that you are incapable of fully understanding them just as you are unable to properly re-state them.

You ought to be admitting that your critique of the arguments ought to be taken with the same level of consideration that you are giving your ability to re-state them. That would at least be consistent.

If you’d like me to be candid, I suppose I can be. Frankly, I doubt your willingness to debate these issues in good faith. Consider this: I read the various OAs, thought about them, considered their rebuttals, and ultimately, was unconvinced by them. Now, you may attribute this result to confirmation bias, or to my own stupidity, or to bad luck, but whatever the case, I did give them due consideration. On the other hand, you’ve assumed, before the fact, that there’s no way I could’ve intelligently understood the arguments, as formulated, and come away unconvinced.

Insisting that I restate a thousand years worth of OAs, “in my own words,” seems less of a legitimate discussion move than a disingenuous debate strategy, and one I’d rather not be a party to.

Sorry I wasn’t more honest in the first place.

 

[ericc]

Consider this: I read the various OAs, thought about them, considered their rebuttals, and ultimately, was unconvinced by them.

What do you think are the best , say top 3 , arguments? I keep on hearing that they are “unconvinced” but I have to get anyone to state clearly which part of the argument is unconvincing. It is frustrating to say the least. I may not be as smart as some of you here, but it would be good to follow through an argument. Is it unconvincing because the conclusion does not follow the argument? Is there an atheist argument that is convincing? If so, please share the argument and let us have a proper discussion. If 3 is too many, let us just select your No 1 For and Against AND with a proper follow through for each argument, rebuttal and counterargument. Hopefully with a detailed and visible argument process flow, we can distinguish the logic of each argument.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you’d like me to be candid, I suppose I can be. Frankly, I doubt your willingness to debate these issues in good faith. Consider this: I read the various OAs, thought about them, considered their rebuttals, and ultimately, was unconvinced by them. Now, you may attribute this result to confirmation bias, or to my own stupidity, or to bad luck, but whatever the case, I did give them due consideration. On the other hand, you’ve assumed, before the fact, that there’s no way I could’ve intelligently understood the arguments, as formulated, and come away unconvinced.

Insisting that I restate a thousand years worth of OAs, “in my own words,” seems less of a legitimate discussion move than a disingenuous debate strategy, and one I’d rather not be a party to.

Sorry I wasn’t more honest in the first place.

Think about it this way:

If I claimed that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is just bad science because it introduces vagueness and muddiness (a la your post #425) into the far more simple, clear and precise Newtonian physics that preceded it – giving NOTHING more than THAT as my argument – wouldn’t YOU have legitimate reason to wonder if I really knew anything at all about General Relativity?

AND if I subsequently declined to provide anything like even the most meagre of an argument in defense of my position that Einstein was wrong – on the grounds that doing so would be redundant and only serve to “poison the well” (a la your post #428) – wouldn’t YOU begin to doubt that I had anything at all to offer with respect to ANY discussion on the topic?

Of course, my taking the unprecedented step (as you do in your post above) of terminating all discussion whatsoever by merely insisting that I have read much of Einstein’s work and don’t find it in the least convincing, THAT SHOULD – any reasonable person would suppose – properly exonerate me of any need at all to provide any defense at all for my stand on the matter.

Yes, my word and my insistence to that effect SHOULD be sufficient to persuade all and sundry that I am correct in my assessment of Einstein, as your word and insistence SHOULD provide all readers of this thread proper assurance that God does not exist based upon your say so.

My goodness, how could I have possibly FAILED to see the reasonableness of your approach on the topic of God’s existence? :doh2:

From this moment forward, it is necessary ONLY to claim to have read and found atheist arguments against the existence of God unconvincing to thoroughly refute them. No need to ACTUALLY make a case, vicarious argumentation has henceforward become the new standard for “discussion.”

A far more reasonable approach all around, I suppose. :tiphat:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Frankly, I doubt your willingness to debate these issues in good faith. Consider this: I read the various OAs, thought about them, considered their rebuttals, and ultimately, was unconvinced by them.

Okay, I’ll bite.

As a sign of my “good faith,” I’ll make a sacrificial offering, of sorts.

Do you suppose a necessary being is possible?

 

[faithsmind]

PR, not sure why you keep responding to AyJSimom when this person really has not made any logical arguments in response to the explanations made in this thread, and now especially after he/she has just linked to a shallow wiki article. I fear there are other reasons for her beliefs that we may not be able to address here in this thread.

If an entity was able to plan and actually create everything that exists… it’s most likely that no one alive would be able to understand that entity’s genius anyhow, (can I even call it genius?) unless they reveal to us directly what they know/think.

Anyhow, I understand! It is confusing and muddy. I just ask Our Father to place His hands on our souls and heal them from anger, guilt, and emptiness. Thank you, Father, for your constant love and gentle mercy. Let us rest in your heart for eternity,

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Insisting that I restate a thousand years worth of OAs, “in my own words,” seems less of a legitimate discussion move than a disingenuous debate strategy, and one I’d rather not be a party to.

I’ve gotta stand up for AyJSimon here and agree that it doesn’t seem fair or legitimate to demand that a quota of (very well-known) ontological arguments be ‘restated’.

AyJSimon isn’t reinventing or misstating them. There’s no false flag going on here.

Asking an atheist to say which theistic argument for God seems to be the ‘most’ persuasive (or as the atheist would say…the least worst, the best of a bad bunch,) is a fair question. And AyJSimon answered unconditionally, citing an uncontroversial link to the argument which is already well-known to those asking.

I agree. The classical OA is very difficult to dispute emphatically.

…especially if your paradigm doesn’t routinely include metaphysics.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve gotta stand up for AyJSimon here and agree that it doesn’t seem fair or legitimate to demand that a quota of (very well-known) ontological arguments be ‘restated’.

AyJSimon isn’t reinventing or misstating them.

Well, how do you know if he’s misstating them?

That’s our point.

As I cited in my earlier parallel, some folks may reject vaccine efficacy because they are in actuality rejecting a misstatement.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Well, how do you know if he’s misstating them?

That’s our point.

As I cited in my earlier parallel, some folks may reject vaccine efficacy because they are in actuality rejecting a misstatement.

I would have thought that if AyJSimon wanted to misstate them or present them in a different form then that could have been EASILY done.

But instead, AyJ presents them in their stock standard form without any qualification…

I can post them (or link to them) as they were written by the folks who proposed them.
*Reformulating them into my own words seems redundant (at best). Not to mention the possibility that I may
(consciously or otherwise) ‘poison the well’ in my attempt re-state them.
If these arguments worked in their initial formulation, I don’t see how they could be improved by my re-writing them.

Anyway, Wikipedia has a rundown of the argument as offered by various folks down the centuries: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

*Emphasis added

I have emphasized the part which shows that, if anything, AyJ implicitly agrees with the standard method of understanding and presenting the ontological form of argument.

 

[PRmerger]

I would have thought that if AyJSimon wanted to misstate them or present them in a different form then that could have been EASILY done.

Well, of course he doesn’t WANT to.

But instead, AyJ presents them in their stock standard form without any qualification…

Nope.

I have no idea if what he’s rejecting is actually a correct formulation of the ontological argument.