Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[AyJSimon]

You seem merely to be repeating your assertions. Lemme see if I understand them:

Things that feel good are good. Things that don’t feel good are not good. Or, more sophisticatedly, things that tend towards life and desirable feelings are good, and towards death and undesirable feelings are not good.

Am I understanding you correctly?

No. Human flourishing cannot be so simply equated to what feels good. As I understand it, shooting heroin is said to be among the most pleasurable, desirable feelings one can experience. But we know, as a matter of biology, biochemistry and other sciences, that shooting heroin can do enormous damage to your body (if it doesn’t kill you outright).

Some actions that do result in human flourishing also feel good, but that you feel good doesn’t, in itself, prove that you are flourishing.

What is emesis? Vomiting?

Depending on the situation, I would treat that as the other side of the coin. Vomiting is usually your body’s way of getting something bad out. The act of vomiting can be quite unpleasant, but even a basic understanding of human health tells us that if we weren’t able to do it, we’d wind up getting a lot sicker. So, in this instance, while it feels like a move towards suffering, it’s actually a move in the opposite direction.

Bulimia would be an exception. Bulimics often report how good they feel after they purge. But again, we know as a matter of science just how much damage it does to your body to purge every single day.

Is death flourishing? Is it healthy?

On a personal level, no. But we don’t always need to judge these things on a strictly personal level.

 

[TarkanAttila]

No. Human flourishing cannot be so simply equated to what feels good. As I understand it, shooting heroin is said to be among the most pleasurable, desirable feelings one can experience. But we know, as a matter of biology, biochemistry and other sciences, that shooting heroin can do enormous damage to your body (if it doesn’t kill you outright).

Some actions that do result in human flourishing also feel good, but that you feel good doesn’t, in itself, prove that you are flourishing.

So things that feel good can turn out to be quite bad?

So how do we know, then, that a thing causes flourishing? Your previous post gave examples which point to “feeling” as a guidepost. The diabetic “feeling” better when their blood sugar is raised to a normal level. Me “feeling” bad when I stub my toe on my bed. And now you say that not all things that feel good are good.

So… is there something more to “flourishing”, as you call it?

Depending on the situation, I would treat that as the other side of the coin. Vomiting is usually your body’s way of getting something bad out. The act of vomiting can be quite unpleasant, but even a basic understanding of human health tells us that if we weren’t able to do it, we’d wind up getting a lot sicker. So, in this instance, while it feels like a move towards suffering, it’s actually a move in the opposite direction.

So, you’re saying a thing can cause flourishing, while it may feel like suffering? (And actually vomiting of any kind does cause a sort of suffering, as you would say. The stomach acid corrodes the teeth and anything else it touches. So it is, really, in a way, suffering.)

On a personal level, no. But we don’t always need to judge these things on a strictly personal level.

Alright.

 

[AyJSimon]

So things that feel good can turn out to be quite bad?

So how do we know, then, that a thing causes flourishing?

Pretty much the same way that you determined that vomiting causes “a sort of suffering.” You argued this on the basis of a scientifically derived understanding of the effects of stomach acid on tooth enamel. And you’re not wrong.

In the same way, I’m arguing that we’ve learned there are conditions under which human beings typically flourish or suffer, physically and psychologically. This doesn’t mean we know the effects of all possible conditions. Nor does it mean we can’t possibly discover, some day, that we’re wrong about what certain conditions cause human flourishing or suffering. But certain questions do have answers, and we needn’t pretend otherwise.

 

[Lucy107]

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?

Personally, I don’t there is much of a direct verbal response to such things that would actually be instantly beneficial, because the underlying context of such atheist or humanist statements is a failure to recognize the extent of human free will, failure to recognize the objective conditions necessary to accomodate the extent of human free will, and a failure to recognize the extent to which a human (including the atheist or humanist themselves) is willing to commit evil.
And those failures seem just too big, too delicate for one person to directly confront another person with, without this having some or other negative consequences.

 

[ericc]

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.

How do you know that god is the one doing the punishing? If you believe god doesn’t exist, who do you blame for the suffering? If you blame something else, let’s called it X, for that suffering, and the next day you found God, is X the cause or God the cause of suffering? You have not determined the cause of suffering yet. All you have shown is there are injuries, therefore God. That is not proof. That is scapegoating.

Children’ s suffering can be caused by personal choices of parents, grandparents etc. bad living, bad environment, ingesting all kinds of exotic chemicals, smoking, drinking, drugs etc can and do cause genetic changes which may affect the health of future generations. That is the law of genetics and law of chemical effects, ;law of biological effects. If you do A, B may happen. So now the children have problems because the mother was doing drugs while pregnant, whose fault is it? Freewill. And you can do the blame game all the way back to whosoever is at fault. But that won’t do, because some people want to blame God for ALL their ills, regardless.

So after convincing themselves that God doesn’t exist, they ponder why evil and suffering still exist. So they have to revisit the first hypothesis that God was the cause of suffering and have to admit that since god doesn’t exist and evil and suffering is till there even in the absence of God, therefore the first premise has to be wrong. God is NOT the cause of suffering.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Pretty much the same way that you determined that vomiting causes “a sort of suffering.” You argued this on the basis of a scientifically derived understanding of the effects of stomach acid on tooth enamel. And you’re not wrong.

In the same way, I’m arguing that we’ve learned there are conditions under which human beings typically flourish or suffer, physically and psychologically. This doesn’t mean we know the effects of all possible conditions. Nor does it mean we can’t possibly discover, some day, that we’re wrong about what certain conditions cause human flourishing or suffering. But certain questions do have answers, and we needn’t pretend otherwise.

Alright. So what we’ve learned here today is that good and bad feelings - attacks on the physical body and benefits to it - may not be mutually exclusive. Hm. I am learning a lot.

And it seems we’ve come to the point - perhaps slower than we ought to have, on account of my inquisitiveness - of what you really mean by “flourishing” and “suffering”,: physical and psychological…?

Death, possibly?

A bloated, unpreserved corpse, swarming with maggots and bacteria and vermin, could be called “flourishing”, physically speaking. I suppose, however, it would be difficult to argue for such a corpse being psychologically “flourishing”, since the psyche (the soul) has fled the body.

So, just so we’re clear as crystal, when you say “flourishing”, physically and psychologically, you are talking about being alive, I assume?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

How do you know that god is the one doing the punishing? If you believe god doesn’t exist, who do you blame for the suffering? If you blame something else, let’s called it X, for that suffering, and the next day you found God, is X the cause or God the cause of suffering? You have not determined the cause of suffering yet. All you have shown is there are injuries, therefore God. That is not proof. That is scapegoating.

Children’ s suffering can be caused by personal choices of parents, grandparents etc. bad living, bad environment, ingesting all kinds of exotic chemicals, smoking, drinking, drugs etc can and do cause genetic changes which may affect the health of future generations. That is the law of genetics and law of chemical effects, ;law of biological effects. If you do A, B may happen. So now the children have problems because the mother was doing drugs while pregnant, whose fault is it? Freewill. And you can do the blame game all the way back to whosoever is at fault. But that won’t do, because some people want to blame God for ALL their ills, regardless.

So after convincing themselves that God doesn’t exist, they ponder why evil and suffering still exist. So they have to revisit the first hypothesis that God was the cause of suffering and have to admit that since god doesn’t exist and evil and suffering is till there even in the absence of God, therefore the first premise has to be wrong. God is NOT the cause of suffering.

First, you can’t write off all diseases that afflict children as being the fault of their ancestors. You use the example of a mother who does drugs and harms the child- what about children with inherited disorders or cancer? Cancer predates humanity- I believe we’ve found dinosaurs that show signs of bone cancer. Human action can increase the probability, but everyone has a chance of having a few of their cells go over the edge.

The fundamental difference between our two positions is that I don’t think the world’s existence or laws were defined by any intelligent loving being. It would make no sense for me to blame anyone for the existence of disease and natural disasters, because nobody with any say in the matter has ever existed.

But if there’s someone who made all that exists and determined how it would interact, then that entity is ultimately the cause of all that happens. You can’t abate this by saying “it’s not his fault! The rules of nature associate certain actions with certain diseases!” Your god made the rules- cancer, malaria, Huntington’s, and so on only exist because your god made them possible.

Do you think it would have been impossible for your god to create an otherwise identical world where people didn’t get cancer, or where malaria didn’t exist? If so, why? If not, then why did he choose to introduce unavoidable suffering?

Basically, even if all disease is the result of human action, your god is still the one who made the diseases possible. It’s as if he placed all humans in a minefield and commanded them to walk across. Sure, we’re starting to understand where he buried the mines and are getting better at avoiding them- but that’s cold comfort to the untold millions that have suffered and died in the meantime.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Let’s get real specific :

An 11 month old baby is being raped by its father.

Does God watch this, comforted by the fact that after the baby dies, someone reading his story will convert or some other such good?

Does he watch?

That’s what tells me if he is a being worthy of worship.

Another question one might ask, is are YOU a being from whom worship would be possible?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Another question one might ask, is are YOU a being from whom worship would be possible?

A further question would be, who is anyone to say that that cannot be overcome?

It takes a dogmatic despair to say God can’t possibly exist or be worthy of worship* in the face of even such an evil. It takes a hard agnosticism to face such a thing, and still have hope that good will defeat evil someday.

*That so-called atheists have a concept of “worthy of worship” that God must meet seems to indicate that they really could believe in God; they would just hate Him. But it has nothing to do with the question of whether He does exist.

 

[AyJSimon]

Alright. So what we’ve learned here today is that good and bad feelings - attacks on the physical body and benefits to it - may not be mutually exclusive. Hm. I am learning a lot.

And it seems we’ve come to the point - perhaps slower than we ought to have, on account of my inquisitiveness - of what you really mean by “flourishing” and “suffering”,: physical and psychological…?

Death, possibly?

A bloated, unpreserved corpse, swarming with maggots and bacteria and vermin, could be called “flourishing”, physically speaking. I suppose, however, it would be difficult to argue for such a corpse being psychologically “flourishing”, since the psyche (the soul) has fled the body.

So, just so we’re clear as crystal, when you say “flourishing”, physically and psychologically, you are talking about being alive, I assume?

Most of the time, an act that produces flourishing would be coincident with (though not strictly defined by) one that preserves or extends life. But I think there are exceptions. Imagine that someone is suffering from a terminal illness, but absent informed consent, they are being kept alive with heroic medical procedures. Is the additional suffering they endure outweighed by the fact that, at least, they’re alive to experience it? I would argue that it’s not.

 

[ericc]

First, you can’t write off all diseases that afflict children as being the fault of their ancestors. You use the example of a mother who does drugs and harms the child- what about children with inherited disorders or cancer? Cancer predates humanity- I believe we’ve found dinosaurs that show signs of bone cancer. Human action can increase the probability, but everyone has a chance of having a few of their cells go over the edge.

First I didn’t claim all diseases that afflict children as being the fault of their ancestors. I gave an EXAMPLE of how children sicknesses may come about. And you swoop down on it as if I made a claim for ALL diseases. And you are moving away from the discussion by talking about cancer in dinos. I don’t care about that. I want to see you prove that God is punishing these children. I am suggesting there are other reasons. Mutation is one way nature evolves. Those that don’t mutate and transform to a stronger organism dies. The environment changes. Those that can adapt survive. Read Darwin. Children genes are inherited. If a parent with a defective gene combines with the DNA of another parent also with some sort of mutation, the combination may be deadly. And thousands of many other deadly combinations as well. Smoking and health doesn’t mix. Bad living habits are a recipe for diabetes and obesity, DNA damage and so on. These laws of nature obey God’s design. The world must operate consistently otherwise it will be a malfunctioning world. If you want to live in a certain way, God actually let you. That’s freewill. His gift to us. If you want to do evil, he won’t stop you. If mankind wants to destroy the environment, he let you have your way. So when hurricanes and tornadoes and bad weather results and people get killed, who do you want to blame? When you mix things with certain inherent properties, you should expect certain results. And that includes living beings since we are all DNA based.

The fundamental difference between our two positions is that I don’t think the world’s existence or laws were defined by any intelligent loving being. It would make no sense for me to blame anyone for the existence of disease and natural disasters, because nobody with any say in the matter has ever existed.

Even if our positions are different, somehow it made sense for you to blame my God for punishing children? And you just stated above that it makes no sense for you to blame anyone? Do you realize you are contradicting yourself? You are accusing my God of wrongdoing and the next you say it is nobody fault. And not having to prove it? Big majestic type statements get you nowhere on CAF. It just invites additional questions for you to answer.

But if there’s someone who made all that exists and determined how it would interact, then that entity is ultimately the cause of all that happens. You can’t abate this by saying “it’s not his fault! The rules of nature associate certain actions with certain diseases!” Your god made the rules- cancer, malaria, Huntington’s, and so on only exist because your god made them possible.

You are saying the one who made a widget is responsible for all the misuse that arose from using that widget? Cars kill, so we shouldn’t invent cars. Drugs, knives, nuclear devices, radiation devices all can kill if misused. But we agree that these bring a greater Good. Bacteria and fungi decompose garbage and dead matter. That is good. It can also kills. So now what, no bacteria should be created? Definitely there are things that can be good but we may not have found a good use for it yet. Penicillin was only discovered last century.

Do you think it would have been impossible for your god to create an otherwise identical world where people didn’t get cancer, or where malaria didn’t exist? If so, why? If not, then why did he choose to introduce unavoidable suffering?

God made the best possible world in which he thinks is the best that allows his creatures to love , have free will and so on. No he wouldn’t make a world in which he intervenes every time somebody were to get hurt. That would make a very inconsistent world. Laws of nature must operate consistently. Otherwise the resulting mess is insanity. And that won’t be the best possible world. No he didn’t make a world to grant everyone their wishes to make them happy. Because there will be no happy people as a result. Christians believe that this broken world is the result of Man’s disobedience to God. God initially created it good but man broke it and it remain broken ever since. But that is religion and I wouldn’t want to bore you.

Basically, even if all disease is the result of human action, your god is still the one who made the diseases possible. It’s as if he placed all humans in a minefield and commanded them to walk across. Sure, we’re starting to understand where he buried the mines and are getting better at avoiding them- but that’s cold comfort to the untold millions that have suffered and died in the meantime.

You have to admit bacteria, fungi, germs have good uses other than causing diseases. So each time you catch a cold , you blame God? One person who practices good healthy living doesn’t catch a cold when exposed to the virus but another who engage in bad living catches it because of his weaker immunity system. should the one who fell sick blame God for catching a cold? Making something possible is not the same as making it happen. You are just trying to find a scapegoat. Drugs can heal as well as kill. The inventor of the drug can not be held responsible. If you do, I don’t think many people would find engaging in such discussion enlightening or worth their while.

 

[Cathoholic]

AnimalSpirits.

You said:

QUOTE:
None of which has anything to do with why your god requires innocents to suffer.

Well what is the problem with innocent people or animals suffering (since you said “innocents” and not “innocent people” I won’t assume you meant “people”)?

Incidentally. I agree there is a problem with “innocents” suffering, but I might not agree with your “why” concerning what you think is wrong with suffering.

Do YOU think “innocents” suffering is AOK AnimalSpirits?

If not why not? Is it just your “feelings” or is there more? What is the problem with innocents" suffering AnimalSpirits?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

First I didn’t claim all diseases that afflict children as being the fault of their ancestors. I gave an EXAMPLE of how children sicknesses may come about. And you swoop down on it as if I made a claim for ALL diseases. And you are moving away from the discussion by talking about cancer in dinos. I don’t care about that. I want to see you prove that God is punishing these children. I am suggesting there are other reasons.

I feel like you’re being exceedingly disingenuous, or not actually reading my posts. My point is that you can not blame the existence of disease on “the fall.” The dinos point is that we know for a fact that disease predates human sentience.

Mutation is one way nature evolves. Those that don’t mutate and transform to a stronger organism dies. The environment changes…

And my point here is twofold- one, you said earlier in this very post “I didn’t claim all diseases that afflict children as being the fault of their ancestors.” Okay. So do you accept that some humans get a disease 100% naturally, not caused by any human action? If a child got smallpox in 100 AD, it would seem like nobody is at fault. Even if you didn’t claim that all children get diseases as a result of the deeds of their ancestors, those seem to be the only cases which you’re willing to talk about.

Second, this goes back to the minefield point. If your god exists, then ultimately you can’t use “not god’s fault, it’s natural!” If two parents get together and unknowingly create a child with a heretofore unknown crippling genetic disorder, your god is ultimately the one responsible. Why? Because DNA is his invention and he is all knowing. He knew that if he created DNA in its current form, there would be immense human suffering resulting from its imperfections.

If you want to live in a certain way, God actually let you. That’s freewill. His gift to us. If you want to do evil, he won’t stop you…

Again, more dis-ingenuity. Yes, people have the capability to impact their environment. But hurricanes and tornadoes long predate our current emissions patterns. You might blame humanity for hurricane Sandy, but hurricanes and tornadoes in the 1700’s are squarely on your god’s shoulders.

Even if our positions are different, somehow it made sense for you to blame my God for punishing children? And you just stated above that it makes no sense for you to blame anyone?..

It’s exceedingly simple. In my day to day life, I don’t blame your god for anything. I’d no sooner blame your god for AIDS than I would blame gremlins for stealing my shoes (“I know I left them right here!”). I don’t blame things I view as fictional for real problems. In my worldview, nobody is actually at fault for suffering- suffering just existence in our randomly formed world.

But what I’m doing here is saying IF your god exists, THEN he is to blame.

You are saying the one who made a widget is responsible for all the misuse that arose from using that widget? Cars kill, so we shouldn’t invent cars. Drugs, knives, nuclear devices, radiation devices all can kill if misused…

I have never said bacteria/fungi should not exist. You seem to imply that harm only results when these things are “misused”, again trying to implicitly put the blame for disease on human action. What’s the proper use of smallpox? Of the bubonic plague?

God made the best possible world in which he thinks is the best that allows his creatures to love , have free will and so on.

Okay Candide. So that implies that if your god changed this world, one of two things would happen: the world would get worse, or we would no longer be able to love/have free will.

So imagine if your god had just decided to remove smallpox from existence (from the begging). Would the world be worse? Would our freewill be impaired? Both?

No he wouldn’t make a world in which he intervenes every time somebody were to get hurt. That would make a very inconsistent world. Laws of nature must operate consistently. Otherwise the resulting mess is insanity. And that won’t be the best possible world. No he didn’t make a world to grant everyone their wishes to make them happy…

And that view is absurd and goes back to what I’ve been saying- human sinfulness cannot possibly be blamed for the existence of all the parasites, viruses, flaws in our own DNA, and so on, that plague mankind. It could be that your god introduced these things as punishment- but then this paints him as one who is punishing the innocent for the crimes of their ancestors.

You have to admit bacteria, fungi, germs have good uses other than causing diseases. So each time you catch a cold , you blame God? …

The existence of bacteria is not equivalent to the existence of the common cold- first and foremost, the common cold is virus driven. It’s improper to think that infectious disease is a misuse of viruses/bacteria/fungus. The common cold, the flu, the measles, smallpox, and so forth exist for one purpose: to multiply. In order to do that, they need human hosts. It just so happens that they have a negative impact on their hosts. Nothing is being misused- they are doing what nature intended. Or, if there’s a creator, they are doing their creator’s will. Because if there is a creator of all things, then he is also created the viruses just mentioned, and we aren’t the only things that were told to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[estesbob]

Again the problem with Mr. Frys attitude is twofold . One is his belief that suffering is bad and the other is the insistence that our happiness and self-worth is based solely on our physical well-being.

 

[Lucy107]

Again the problem with Mr. Frys attitude is twofold . One is his belief that suffering is bad and the other is the insistence that our happiness and self-worth is based solely on our physical well-being.

… and that the way things are in this world is the ultimate measure of all things for all eternity.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Most of the time, an act that produces flourishing would be coincident with (though not strictly defined by) one that preserves or extends life.

There. Now we have it. The obvious statement that needed to be laid out. Life is flourishing.

But I think there are exceptions. Imagine that someone is suffering from a terminal illness, but absent informed consent, they are being kept alive with heroic medical procedures. Is the additional suffering they endure outweighed by the fact that, at least, they’re alive to experience it? I would argue that it’s not.

Now, why is this? We’ve established that a thing is good if it promotes physical and mental life in a human being, have we not?

 

[AyJSimon]

There. Now we have it. The obvious statement that needed to be laid out. Life is flourishing.

Now, why is this? We’ve established that a thing is good if it promotes physical and mental life in a human being, have we not?

No, “we’ve” not established any such thing. I said “most of the time,” because “most of the time,” maintaining and extending life really is coincident with flourishing. And sometimes, it’s not. I’m happy to grant that things would be simpler if maintaining and extending life was “always” coincident with flourishing, but those simply aren’t the cards we’re dealt in this reality.

 

[Flagstone]

I think Mr. Fry’s response is quite reasonable. He would ask God a question. “Bone Cancer in children? What’s that about?” Is anybody here not interested in God’s answer? Are you all so sure God would just say “Free Will” or “It’s part of my mysterious plan.” Do those answers satisfy you? I don’t think they satisfy Mr. Fry and they wouldn’t satisfy me.

 

[TarkanAttila]

No, “we’ve” not established any such thing. I said “most of the time,” because “most of the time,” maintaining and extending life really is coincident with flourishing.

My apologies. I misread.

And sometimes, it’s not.

Why not?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think Mr. Fry’s response is quite reasonable. He would ask God a question. “Bone Cancer in children? What’s that about?” Is anybody here not interested in God’s answer? Are you all so sure God would just say “Free Will” or “It’s part of my mysterious plan.” Do those answers satisfy you? I don’t think they satisfy Mr. Fry and they wouldn’t satisfy me.

There is no mysterious plan. It is clearly spelled out.

"See, the home of God is among mortals.
He will dwell with them;
they will be his peoples,
and God himself will be with them;
he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
for the first things have passed away.”

And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
(Rev 21:15)