Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Peter_Plato]

As a non-baptized person in a subordinate position I don’t really have much choice: I either unquestioningly submit to what I am being told and try to get myself to believe it; or I do my best to challenge those supposedly superior to me and get them to prove their supremacy. All religious arguments are ultimately arguments of appealing to authority, so there is minimum room for dialogue.

I guess this is where we differ. You see it as a matter of authority, I see it as a matter of ontology.

It isn’t that we either accept the authority of superiors or go our own way, it is that we come to know and be united to the truth by a process of dialogue, reconciliation (because we are fallen) and assent / covenant.

God is who makes us who we are and it is the love of God that unites us to him. Submission in this sense is much like submitting to the truth or to goodness itself. There is no superior or inferior; just what is, as it is, because God is.

Does that mean we have a “right” of some kind to question to truth? Why would we? It is the truth – what IS in the most ultimate, absolute and final sense.

 

[Lucy107]

Just to offer a wee correction here: since you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with mainly Catholics, you ought to know that Catholics do not use the claim, “I am saved” in the sense that Evanglicals and Fundamentalists do.

Which sense of “baptized and saved” did you mean–the Catholic view, where we have the moral assurance of our salvation, but not the absolute assurance–or the fundamentalist one where “If I died today I would know for certain that I am going to heaven–do you?” presents?

Dealing with actual Catholics, I have to be prepared for all variations of those claims. I know from experience with Catholics that both what you call the “moral assurance of our salvation” and the “fundamentalist” can be thrown at me.

Why the dichotomy where none exists, Lucy?

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

Pffft. I wasn’t born yesterday.

While nowadays, Catholicism isn’t as much about condemnation as it used to be forty and more years ago, the condemnation is still present, although in more subtle ways.

This is a peculiar argument being offered, being that you are here on a CATHOLIC, er, forum…which is established precisely for the purpose of…dialogue.

There sure is talking …

Look, I am not complaining. It’s your (Catholic) forum, your (Catholic) religion, your (Catholic) turf, your (Catholic) rules.

I’ve come here to test the waters a bit, to see how much I can handle at this point.

And given the fact that Catholic universities throughout the world have departments of THEOLOGY, whose purpose is to attempt to apprehend the numinous…and the CC has elevated intellectual giants such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Teresa of Avila to the status of DOCTORS of the Church…

the assertion that religious folks don’t have “room for dialogue” is a curious one indeed.

Unfortunately, it’s not curious at all.
In some elevated realm of the spiritually advanced, what you say above indeed applies. But I, as an outsider or a beginner at best, get no access to that realm. I have to deal with whichever Catholic comes along, and any Catholic gets to have power over me.

 

[PRmerger]

Dealing with actual Catholics, I have to be prepared for all variations of those claims. I know from experience with Catholics that both what you call the “moral assurance of our salvation” and the “fundamentalist” can be thrown at me.

Well, I’ve just given you an apologetics boost, then.

Next time you’re in dialogue with a Catholic who tells you that he has absolute assurance of his salvation, you can tell him that he ought to know his faith a bit better than you know his faith.

Pffft. I wasn’t born yesterday.

While nowadays, Catholicism isn’t as much about condemnation as it used to be forty and more years ago, the condemnation is still present, although in more subtle ways.

Could you be more clear about what you mean by “condemnation”?

There sure is talking …

Huh?

Look, I am not complaining. It’s your (Catholic) forum, your (Catholic) religion, your (Catholic) turf, your (Catholic) rules.

I’ve come here to test the waters a bit, to see how much I can handle at this point.

Fair enough.

But I, as an outsider or a beginner at best, get no access to that realm. I have to deal with whichever Catholic comes along, and any Catholic gets to have power over me.

This is a non-sequitur, Lucy, but ok. I don’t disagree with what you say here, although I should give this caveat: no Catholic has any more or less “power” over you here than you have “power” over her.

 

[Lucy107]

I guess this is where we differ. You see it as a matter of authority, I see it as a matter of ontology.

How nice! The warm fuzzies! I am serious.

I wish it would really be a matter of ontology. That would do away with so many problems, annihilate so many worries.

But the one thing I’ve learned when dealing with Catholics, is that for all practical intents and purposes, it is ultimately a matter of authority.

Not only that, but with many Catholics, I notice a spirit of “Yeah, we say all those things, like that all are invited, and that God loves all people and such. But it’s not like anyone in their right might actually believes that.”

I’ve always found that there is a curious duplicity that appears to be central to religion, the duplicity of saying one thing and doing another, and then being allright with that.
I’ve never been able to master this duplicity, and felt like a loser and outcast because of that.

It isn’t that we either accept the authority of superiors or go our own way, it is that we come to know and be united to the truth by a process of dialogue, reconciliation (because we are fallen) and assent / covenant.

Maybe you get to talk to Catholics - I mean in real life, outside of such forums - but I never did. Often, I’d get shot down before I’d even open my mouth. Relationships with Catholics were set in advance, where the Catholic was per default right, because they were Catholic, and I was per default wrong, because I am not. And this in all matters, from the most mundane to the theological.
This is how they have treated me ever since I was little. I suppose you don’t know what it is like to grow up as the only non-Catholic among Catholics, literally in a one-against-all, all-against-one situation, on the receiving end of all the gall that Catholics have for non-Catholics. What it is like to be bullied at school and by some members of the extend family, for something that you don’t even understand, and can only guess from their tone of voice and expression on their face that they mean something really really bad about you.

God is who makes us who we are and it is the love of God that unites us to him. Submission in this sense is much like submitting to the truth or to goodness itself. There is no superior or inferior; just what is, as it is, because God is.

Does that mean we have a “right” of some kind to question to truth? Why would we? It is the truth – what IS in the most ultimate, absolute and final sense.

At this point, I am not sure that I would survive another bout of what I got when I was growing up.

 

[AyJSimon]

Let’s see if he would.

If Fry had children, would he immunize them?

Let’s presume he would, (as the overwhelming majority of rational-thinking people do.)

He takes his 5 yr old daughter in for her pre-k checkup, and she needs 5 shots. He lays her on the table, and holds her down while strangers stab her, over and over again.

He could alleviate her suffering–quite easily, in fact. He just has to open his mouth and say, “Stop!”

But he doesn’t.

Imagine this from the 5 yr old’s POV. “Why doesn’t my daddy alleviate my suffering?”



Now, the response that is often forthcoming is: * how can you equate vaccinations with incurable cancer?*

My example is an analogy ONLY.

I am in no way saying they are equal.

Just like Jesus’ parable of the weeds is in no way saying that people* are the same as* weeds. Someone who says, “How dare Jesus compare a human person, with inherent dignity and worth, with a shrub!” clearly can’t think in the abstract.

It’s simply an example that limns my argument.

Trust me - I can think in the abstract, and this is a ridiculous analogy. It doesn’t even matter that the suffering isn’t on equal terms. Given that the whole point of vaccinations is to prevent someone from getting sick later on, this analogy fails on general principle. If you can show me a greater flourishing that results from the same child dying of terminal bone cancer, then your analogy might hold.

 

[PRmerger]

But the one thing I’ve learned when dealing with Catholics, is that for all practical intents and purposes, it is ultimately a matter of authority.

Well, yes and no.

There are some things we believe because of the authority of the Church–to wit: the canon of Scripture. There is NO OTHER way to discern what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

On the other hand, we reason ourselves to submission to this authority.

Incidentally, to eschew “it is ultimately a matter of authority” is to eschew your own manner of epistemology.

You submit to authority each and every time you profess something which you have no first hand knowledge of. For example, unless you have actually been to Kathmandu and have seen the Nepalese govt in action, you accept,* by the authority of your 4th grade teacher,* that Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal.

 

[PRmerger]

Trust me - I can think in the abstract, and this is a ridiculous analogy. It doesn’t even matter that the suffering isn’t on equal terms. Given that the whole point of vaccinations is to prevent someone from getting sick later on, this analogy fails on general principle. If you can show me a greater flourishing that results from the same child dying of terminal bone cancer, then your analogy might hold.

Try explaining to your 5 yr old why she needs these vaccinations.

I can assure you that no explanation, including, “It’s going to help form antibodies to certain diseases, that, trust me, you don’t want to get” will suffice. She just doesn’t get immunoglobulins, humoral vs cell-mediated immunity, exogenous antigenic catalysts…

All your 5 yr old is going to think, esp if she’s bratty, is “I hate you! You’re a big meanie!”

Similarly, there may be no explanation that our finite human brains could comprehend re: the purpose of suffering with terminal bone cancer.

See the analogy?

While the analogy does indeed break down at some point, as all analogies do, it actually fails in the opposite direction than what you propose. It is not applicable enough to demonstrate the inability of a child to comprehend the father’s purposes.

The gulf between a 5 year old and an adult is finite, compared to the infinite gulf between the human father authorizing suffering for his child and the Divine Father authorizing suffering for His children.

 

[Lucy107]

Next time you’re in dialogue with a Catholic who tells you that he has absolute assurance of his salvation, you can tell him that he ought to know his faith a bit better than you know his faith.

I wouldn’t dare to stand up against a Catholic like that, certainly not in person. I am sure they’d feel deeply offended and would give me a dose of “You’re a heathen and you’ll burn in hell for all eternity!”

Could you be more clear about what you mean by “condemnation”?

The blatant forms are “You’re a heathen and you’ll burn in hell for all eternity!” and “I’m going to go to heaven and you’ll burn in hell!” and such.
And then there are more subtle ones, depending on the situation.

Huh?

This is a non-sequitur, Lucy, but ok. I don’t disagree with what you say here, although I should give this caveat: no Catholic has any more or less “power” over you here than you have “power” over her.

Do you really believe that??
I’ve never met a Catholic who would.

It’s almost tragicomical sometimes: I start talking to a Catholic, or another kind of Christian, begin to say just a little about myself, and then, based on those few informations, it’s as if the Christian creates themselves an image of me, and from then on, only sees that image, and presses me to comply with it. And if I object to this in any way, if I point out that this or that assumption they have made about me is not correct, they get offended, accuse me of lying and such. It’s as if they have this fixed idea of what a “non-Christian” is like, and once I note that I am not a Christian, this idea gets activated in their mind, and I stop existing for them.
And since they can always rub it into my face that they are Catholic/Christian and I’m not, I have no say in the conversation anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

I wouldn’t dare to stand up against a Catholic like that, certainly not in person. I am sure they’d feel deeply offended and would give me a dose of “You’re a heathen and you’ll burn in hell for all eternity!”

Then it would be amusing for me to watch you come back (and here I am giving you another apologetics boost ) with: well, you ought to learn your faith even better, dear Catholic, because your Church says that it beyond anyone’s paygrade to discern whether someone is in hell or not.

 

[Lucy107]

Well, yes and no.

There are some things we believe because of the authority of the Church–to wit: the canon of Scripture. There is NO OTHER way to discern what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

On the other hand, we reason ourselves to submission to this authority.

Are you a cradle Catholic?
I think that cradle Catholics are in an entirely different category than people who (attempt to) convert as adults.

Incidentally, to eschew “it is ultimately a matter of authority” is to eschew your own manner of epistemology.

How?

You submit to authority each and every time you profess something which you have no first hand knowledge of. For example, unless you have actually been to Kathmandu and have seen the Nepalese govt in action, you accept,* by the authority of your 4th grade teacher,* that Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal.

Not at all. I treat all mundane issues with the proviso that whatever was claimed at one point or by one person, could be denied at some other point or by some other person.
I treat all mundane matters as provisional.

 

[PRmerger]

The blatant forms are “You’re a heathen and you’ll burn in hell for all eternity!” and “I’m going to go to heaven and you’ll burn in hell!” and such.

See above response.

It’s a shame that you weren’t familiar with Catholicism enough to counter with actual Catholic teaching.

Or that you weren’t savvy enough to ask: could you please point me to the Catholic teaching which states that I am going to burn in hell for all eternity?

But now you are better equipped for the next time you’re told that by a Catholic.

You’re welcome.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Trust me - I can think in the abstract, and this is a ridiculous analogy. It doesn’t even matter that the suffering isn’t on equal terms. Given that the whole point of vaccinations is to prevent someone from getting sick later on, this analogy fails on general principle. If you can show me a greater flourishing that results from the same child dying of terminal bone cancer, then your analogy might hold.

Presuming that temporal flourishing is all there is.

Perhaps you can think in the abstract, but what you seem to be unable to do is think beyond the physical world.

Note: I am not speaking of fear of loss or hell or anything like that. I am speaking of the possibility of eternal existence and human flourishing beyond all hope. The fact that you don’t or won’t accept that puts you in precisely the same position as the five year old who cannot – because of her current state of knowing – accept that the needles causing her suffering can possibly have any redeeming purpose.

 

[PRmerger]

Presuming that temporal flourishing is all there is.

Perhaps you can think in the abstract, but what you seem to be unable to do is think beyond the physical world.

Note: I am not speaking of fear of loss or hell or anything like that. I am speaking of the possibility of eternal existence and human flourishing beyond all hope. The fact that you don’t or won’t accept that puts you in precisely the same position as the five year old who cannot – because of her current state of knowing – accept that the needles causing her suffering can possibly have any redeeming purpose.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s almost tragicomical sometimes: I start talking to a Catholic, or another kind of Christian, begin to say just a little about myself, and then, based on those few informations, it’s as if the Christian creates themselves an image of me, and from then on, only sees that image, and presses me to comply with it. And if I object to this in any way, if I point out that this or that assumption they have made about me is not correct, they get offended, accuse me of lying and such. It’s as if they have this fixed idea of what a “non-Christian” is like, and once I note that I am not a Christian, this idea gets activated in their mind, and I stop existing for them.
And since they can always rub it into my face that they are Catholic/Christian and I’m not, I have no say in the conversation anyway.

I am indeed sorry that you’ve had this experience with some Catholics/Christians.

But we can certainly agree that all of the above is irrelevant as to whether God exists, right?

And we would have to agree that all of the above is irrelevant as to whether Catholicism is true, yes?

 

[Lucy107]

Then it would be amusing for me to watch you come back (and here I am giving you another apologetics boost ) with: well, you ought to learn your faith even better, dear Catholic, because your Church says that it beyond anyone’s paygrade to discern whether someone is in hell or not.

From what I’ve seen, dealing with members of different religions, is that group dynamics trump doctrine.
For example, in a dispute between a member and an outsider, the group will always side with the member, no matter what the dispute is about. Even if the member is objectively guilty by the group’s doctrine, the group will side with him.

 

[PRmerger]

How?

I explained already. Your 4th grade teacher. Kathmandu.

Not at all. I treat all mundane issues with the proviso that whatever was claimed at one point or by one person, could be denied at some other point or by some other person.
I treat all mundane matters as provisional.

Really. So you’ve investigated the structural integrity of every bridge you drive over?

We can agree that your safety isn’t a “mundane matter”, yes?

Do you check out the qualifications of the airline pilot for each and every flight you book? Do you want to make sure she didn’t actually cheat on her job application? Or even cheat on her final exams and isn’t actually qualified to fly an aircraft?

That’s also not a “mundane matter”, yes?

If you don’t do that, (and I’m going to go out on a limb, using my reason, to say: you’ve never done that. Not even once), then you are doing exactly what you say you oppose in Catholics: submitting to authority.

You submit to the authority of the county govt to assure you that it keeps its bridges safe. You submit to the authority of the airlines to assure you that it hires competent pilots.

 

[PRmerger]

From what I’ve seen, dealing with members of different religions, is that group dynamics trump doctrine.
For example, in a dispute between a member and an outsider, the group will always side with the member, no matter what the dispute is about. Even if the member is objectively guilty by the group’s doctrine, the group will side with him.

Try it one on one. In your kitchen.

That way you have home field advantage.

 

[Lucy107]

It’s a shame that you weren’t familiar with Catholicism enough to counter with actual Catholic teaching.

Or that you weren’t savvy enough to ask: could you please point me to the Catholic teaching which states that I am going to burn in hell for all eternity?

Oh, I was familiar with the Catholic teaching. On a few occasions, I did fight back that way. Whew! You should see the Christian’s reaction! Who do I think I am to use their doctrine against them, oh, and the outrage.

Using Christian doctrine against Christians was like poking an angry dog. Not a good idea.

But now you are better equipped for the next time you’re told that by a Catholic.

Meh, I don’t want to get into a fight of this sort. Thanks anyway.

I am indeed sorry that you’ve had this experience with some Catholics/Christians.

I’m not sure if there’s anything to be sorry for, because -

But we can certainly agree that all of the above is irrelevant as to whether God exists, right?

And we would have to agree that all of the above is irrelevant as to whether Catholicism is true, yes?

That’s just it! Perhaps it it relevant.

For example, if the Calvinists are right, then you have nothing to be sorry for. If I am simply not one of the chosen ones, then this is why I get all the trouble and condemnation.

I’m not saying something like, “I have had bad experiences with some Christians, therefore, God doesn’t exist/is evil/doesn’t love me/Catholicism is false.”

It’s a simple description of my state that I don’t feel strong enough to deal with Christians as a prospective member of an actual Christian group.
I also don’t feel confident enough to study the Bible and the CCC or any other Catholic text on my own, much less in a group with others, because I have this fear that some Christian is going to come along - even if just as a mental voice in the back of my mind - and say that whatever I do, doesn’t matter and doesn’t count, that all my efforts are for naught, and that first I need to get this Christian’s approval. And that God will side with this Christian, always.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I was familiar with the Catholic teaching.

Really?

Then why didn’t you simply tell them that it’s above their paygrade for Catholics to declare someone is in hell?

And why didn’t you know that Catholic don’t believe that they can lose their salvation?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not saying something like, “I have had bad experiences with some Christians, therefore, God doesn’t exist/is evil/doesn’t love me/Catholicism is false.”

It certainly* sounds* that way.

You’ve mentioned it here no less than 5 times already, how hateful religious people have been to you when discussing religion.

Since we’re agreed that no one should talk to you that way, and that it’s irrelevant anyway, as far as apologia for the Church and God’s existence, let’s move beyond that.

It is established: you were treated poorly by Catholics. I am sorry for that.