Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Lion_IRC]

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.

Does Mr Fry want just bone cancer eliminated as the cause of death of children or are abortion clinics also on his list of ‘problems’?

What if greed and hedonism and mankind’s idolatrous, humanist worship of science and technology were, in some mysteriously mutant way, linked to the prevalence of bone cancer in children.

What if God said bone cancer in children will disappear when the last disobedient God-hater is gone from the earth and the Kingdom of God reigns is in everyones’ hearts?

Waddya say Stephen Fry?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

My answer would be to smack Stephen across the face - and then say, “did God do that, or did I?”

We have an enemy - the Devil - and our enemy has the same free will that we have. It chooses to use its free will to harm human beings.

This is no more God’s fault than it would be God’s fault if I were to choose to slap someone across the face.

God doesn’t prevent the suffering, because He chooses that we are not puppets. We freely choose to act or not to act, and the Devil freely chooses to act or not to act.

How, then, do we defeat the Devil?

First, by adding our suffering to the Cross of Jesus Christ, so that it can be used to rescue the souls of the damned.

Second, by prayer. Get to Church, go to Mass, pray the Rosary.

And third, by works of mercy - acting to help heal the sick, comfort the broken-hearted, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, educate the ignorant, visit the lonely, and so on.

That’s my answer - it’s very incomplete, because I don’t understand why God doesn’t step in like a playground supervisor when the Devil is getting out of control like that, and tell it “Enough.”

At the same time, though, I see the grace and courage of these children, and I think, He’s got them in His hands - they’re going to be okay. They’re in the centre of His heart, and He’s going to take them up to Heaven. So, even though the Devil is inflicting astounding physical pain on these kids, it can’t touch their souls.

 

[ericc]

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.

And my point is that not all suffering can be blamed on God. What is your issue if God wills that dinos should die of cancer or some other causes? He shouldn’t?

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.

Of course people do get sick. All organisms age and die. When you age, you become weaker and eventually your immunity system fails you and you succumb to such illness. Or one is born with a weak immunity system and succumb to such illnesses. Viruses evolve and some do get very lethal. So the ones that are not lethal you are ok with it? Like common cold? Then the issue is not whether they are intrinsically bad. It is only bad if you don’t have a cure at the moment. It is only bad if one is exposed to it. If there is an ultra deadly virus hidden somewhere that no one can be exposed to, you don’t have a problem correct? The moment you have a cure, it becomes a non-issue, isn’t it? So if AIDS or cancer has a cure today, we won’t be talking about this today.

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.

Again you are putting blame to the creation of something. If that is the best possible world that he can create, I can accept that. I do not know how to create a better world, but if you think you can do it better than God, you can feel proud of that thought. But so what? You are not the creator, you are just a complainer. DNA A + DNA B = sick baby. Therefore, God’s fault. Great logic. He designed the atom and radioactive materials. He gave us a brain. So smart people put together an atomic bomb and killed many people in Japan. God’s fault again. He knew that when these items get put together , such horrific weapons can be made and used. Try this logic somewhere else, not here.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

People die from all sorts of things. If your issue is that you don’t agree with God that death exist, then start a new thread expounding why death should not exist. Why you think you are owed a perfect and perpetual life. You are just cherry picking items that cause death and blaming that on God while ignoring all the good. That sure is an objective and just way of judging someone. Just chant the mantra that you are the creator, so everything is your fault.
You do not know the impact of removal of certain organisms from the environment. Don’t assume there is none.

God being the Creator does not owe anyone the right to live. He can take it away in any manner he wishes. The world is his creation, he designed it the way he sees fit. You don’t know why he designed it in a certain way and he doesn’t owe you an answer either.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

And my point is that not all suffering can be blamed on God. What is your issue if God wills that dinos should die of cancer or some other causes? He shouldn’t?

How they died isn’t a really a concern- the point is that the ailments that plague humanity predate the fall.

Of course people do get sick. All organisms age and die. When you age, you become weaker and eventually your immunity system fails you and you succumb to such illness. Or one is born with a weak immunity system and succumb to such illnesses. Viruses evolve and some do get very lethal. So the ones that are not lethal you are ok with it? Like common cold? Then the issue is not whether they are intrinsically bad.

Well, no- just because not all viruses are intrinsically bad doesn’t mean that particular ones aren’t. Moreover, I object to the ones which make children suffer- lethal or otherwise.

It is only bad if you don’t have a cure at the moment. It is only bad if one is exposed to it. If there is an ultra deadly virus hidden somewhere that no one can be exposed to, you don’t have a problem correct? The moment you have a cure, it becomes a non-issue, isn’t it? So if AIDS or cancer has a cure today, we won’t be talking about this today.

It depends on your framework. If we’ve cured it, then it’s no longer a practical concern, so you’re right that I don’t care in that respect. BUT I’d still see at as problem for the supposed existence of a supposedly perfectly good being. I’ve been using smallpox in this manner- sure, not a huge problem today, but it ravaged humans for millennia. It’s nice for us that we don’t have to worry about, but too late for the millions of children that suffered and died as a result of this particular (supposed) creation of your god. I’d still say these things are intrinsically bad (from the human POV), but we’ve just found ways to mitigate them.

Again you are putting blame to the creation of something. If that is the best possible world that he can create, I can accept that.

Who says that it is? It seems quite blindingly obvious that it isn’t. Has the Vatican stated this belief publicly somewhere?

I do not know how to create a better world, but if you think you can do it better than God, you can feel proud of that thought. But so what? You are not the creator, you are just a complainer. DNA A + DNA B = sick baby. Therefore, God’s fault. Great logic.

Well, yes. To return to the minefield example- your logic is basically “well, ya mines explode when they’re stepped on. Not god’s fault!” The fact that bad combinations of DNA exist is wholly the fault of your god, since he is the one that determined what DNA would look like and how different combinations would interact.

He designed the atom and radioactive materials. He gave us a brain. So smart people put together an atomic bomb and killed many people in Japan. God’s fault again. He knew that when these items get put together , such horrific weapons can be made and used. Try this logic somewhere else, not here.

This would be a separate argument that I’m not going to tackle right now- thus far, we’ve only taken aim at pieces of your gods creation that cause suffering in children entirely naturally.

People die from all sorts of things. If your issue is that you don’t agree with God that death exist, then start a new thread expounding why death should not exist. Why you think you are owed a perfect and perpetual life. You are just cherry picking items that cause death and blaming that on God while ignoring all the good. That sure is an objective and just way of judging someone. Just chant the mantra that you are the creator, so everything is your fault.

I’m not arguing that your god is bad, just imperfect. Moreover, I haven’t objected to death, just suffering in children.

You do not know the impact of removal of certain organisms from the environment. Don’t assume there is none.

We more or less removed smallpox from the environment on our own- is your god less capable than human scientists? We live in a post-smallpox world right now. Why didn’t your god just create it that way?

God being the Creator does not owe anyone the right to live. He can take it away in any manner he wishes. The world is his creation, he designed it the way he sees fit. You don’t know why he designed it in a certain way and he doesn’t owe you an answer either.

I’m not asking him for an explanation. Perhaps I could try, but I suspect he’d invoke his 5th amendment rights. Instead, I’m asking you, why this supposedly perfect being seems to create innocent people and then hoist suffering upon them.

 

[Lucy107]

Instead, I’m asking you, why this supposedly perfect being seems to create innocent people and then hoist suffering upon them.

With questions that keep pressing on one’s mind, it is sometimes good to ask oneself how come one is asking them; what it is that one hopes to achieve by getting a reply (not necessarily an answer) to them …

 

[AyJSimon]

With questions that keep pressing on one’s mind, it is sometimes good to ask oneself how come one is asking them; what it is that one hopes to achieve by getting a reply (not necessarily an answer) to them …

I’m sure the goal is to get respondents to re-examine their beliefs in the process of responding.

 

[Lion_IRC]

"…Instead, I’m asking you, why this supposedly perfect being seems to create innocent people and then hoist suffering upon them."

Babies suffer during the stress of childbirth.

Why doesn’t God just ‘will them into existence’ by divine fiat, then keep them in an existence of perpetual bliss never knowing what it means to ‘suffer’, and never knowing anything of the suffering of others lest that very same knowledge become a cause of suffering?

PS - God, could You also please give those babies free will so they can freely decide whether or not
to love and thank You for the absence of that unknown thing called ‘suffering’
…oh WAIT, they wouldn’t even have a word for it in their vocabulary.

 

[Mystophilus]

Does he watch?

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

Thank you for asking the real question about suffering, for not trivialising the genuine horrors which occur in this world.

Would you consider God worthy of worship if God experienced (not just watched) such atrocities, abhorred them utterly, but were unable to intervene (because giving us free will meant not preventing us from perpetrating evil)?

 

[TarkanAttila]

I’m sure the goal is to get respondents to re-examine their beliefs in the process of responding.

Is that a bad thing?

I feel for you. Really, I do. I don’t like to hear that the meaning of my life is wrong, and that I need to rethink who I am, and what my purpose is. There is pain in dealing with atheists, Protestants, Mormons, Moslems, and the like, because y’all have good points. And I do sometimes wonder, or fear, that I might be wrong.

But I can’t forget about the Resurrection. I mean that. I am convicted of it, intellectually. I can’t forget what that means - that this guy, Jesus, knows what Life is, and even death cannot stop Him. I will always remember this, and that He wants my happiness, too. My life’s not cherries and whipped cream. But these things keep me going.

But most importantly, when I remember all those dusty dogmas, I remember that you, and all the atheists and Protestants and the rest, who raise valid points - we don’t ignore those points. Very often we agree with the valid points, and make them our own. We don’t shun a good idea because it’s not Catholic. We take the atheist cry against God of evil very seriously.

But at the same time, we know that death - that thing which is so difficult to admit to, as undoing all goodness and all evil, if there’s nothing else after we’ve lived - death, the ultimate evil, the ultimate suffering, can be undone by God, and all evils with it. Because Christ rose, and wants us to rise with Him, we have a hope. And no matter the evil, I cannot forget that hope.

 

[Ignatius]

I have a question. Since he doesn’t believe that there is a God, shouldn’t it be Stephen Fry that alleviates children’s suffering?

 

[AyJSimon]

I have a question. Since he doesn’t believe that there is a God, shouldn’t it be Stephen Fry that alleviates children’s suffering?

I have a feeling that if Stephen Fry could alleviate the suffering of children as easily as God could, he would.

 

[Nick44]

This question has always been a tricky one to deal with. My feeling is that if we really understood the full reason, we would be privy to information that we are not supposed to know in this world. When we’re fully brought up-to-speed, I think we’ll say…“Of course! Now I understand. It all makes so much sense!”

“Theologians have frequently made the observation that God could easily force us to reverence and to stand in awe of Him, if He wished. But He does not wish to win man’s reverence and awe and love by any forceful means. The initiative must come from man himself.” -Stanwood Cobb (became a Baha’i in 1906)

“Anybody can be happy in the state of comfort, ease, health, success, pleasure and joy; but if one will be happy and contented in the time of trouble, hardship and prevailing disease, it is the proof of nobility.” -Abdu’l-Baha

“As to the subject of babes and infants and weak ones who are afflicted by the hands of oppressors: This contains great wisdom and this subject is of paramount importance. In brief, for those souls there is a recompense in another world and many details are connected with this matter. For those souls that suffering is the greatest mercy of God. Verily that mercy of the Lord is far better and Preferable to all the comfort of this world and the growth and development of this place of mortality.” -Abdu’l-Baha

“… Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.” -Baha’u’llah

 

[estesbob]

I have a feeling that if Stephen Fry could alleviate the suffering of children as easily as God could, he would.

Since you and Mr Fry believe that children should never suffer do you believe children who have genetic defects should be aborted?

 

[AyJSimon]

Since you and Mr Fry believe that children should never suffer do you believe children who have genetic defects should be aborted?

You appear to have missed the point. If there exists an all-powerful God who’s unwilling to alleviate the suffering of children he created, then that would simply be a reality that we’d all have to contend with.

But strictly speaking, that isn’t Fry’s criticism. What he finds problematic is that this God demands unceasing worship as a requisite for eternal salvation, and it appears that hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people across the world seeing nothing wrong with offering this praise.

 

[estesbob]

You appear to have missed the point. If there exists an all-powerful God who’s unwilling to alleviate the suffering of children he created, then that would simply be a reality that we’d all have to contend with.

But strictly speaking, that isn’t Fry’s criticism. What he finds problematic is that this God demands unceasing worship as a requisite for eternal salvation, and it appears that hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people across the world seeing nothing wrong with offering this praise.

You didn’t answer the question. the problem ,again,is the contention that our self worth and ability to be happy is dependent on our physical well being.When one rejects the Spiritual their narrow world view limits their ability to understand where joy and happiness really comes from.

 

[AyJSimon]

You didn’t answer the question. the problem ,again,is the contention that our self worth and ability to be happy is dependent on our physical well being.When one rejects the Spiritual their narrow world view limits their ability to understand where joy and happiness really comes from.

The above question was a non sequitur, so I ignored it. And there’s no compelling evidence that the “spiritual” (as you define it) exists in the first place, so it’s quite rational to reject such considerations when considering the value of apparently needless suffering.

 

[davidv]

The above question was a non sequitur, so I ignored it. And there’s no compelling evidence that the “spiritual” (as you define it) exists in the first place, so it’s quite rational to reject such considerations when considering the value of apparently needless suffering.

Nor is suffering evidence contrary to the existence of the spiritual.

 

[AyJSimon]

Nor is suffering evidence contrary to the existence of the spiritual.

Didn’t say that it was.

 

[estesbob]

The above question was a non sequitur, so I ignored it. And there’s no compelling evidence that the “spiritual” (as you define it) exists in the first place, so it’s quite rational to reject such considerations when considering the value of apparently needless suffering.

It is duly noted you won’t answer the question

So your benchmark for quality of life is solely physical? Should we not then euthanize anyone who is “needlessly” suffering

 

[AyJSimon]

It is duly noted you won’t answer the question

So your benchmark for quality of life is solely physical? Should we not then euthanize anyone who is “needlessly” suffering

As I pointed out elsewhere, these parameters needn’t be personal. Imagine we had no spiritual concerns in life. Would you be indifferent to living in a world where even the terminally ill were systematically killed off, without their consent? Because I do live without your spiritual concerns, and I would have a problem with that.