Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Peter_Plato]

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.

The “rational” is immaterial and, therefore, lacks physical evidence for it in much the same sense that the “spiritual” does. You seem to have no problem NOT ignoring the “rational.”

Seems a little arbitrary of you to pick and choose the realities for which you insist “compelling evidence” must exist before you consider them.

 

[AyJSimon]

The “rational” is immaterial and, therefore, lacks physical evidence for it in much the same sense that the “spiritual” does. You seem to have no problem NOT ignoring the “rational.”

This is just a game with words. Like asking for a logical argument to demonstrate that one should value arguments which are logical. The concept of rationality doesn’t need to be justified in this way. It can be safely presupposed. If it wasn’t, then you’d have literally no objective basis from which to assert anything about anything.

Seems a little arbitrary of you to pick and choose the realities for which you insist “compelling evidence” must exist before you consider them.

But much, much less arbitrary than, say, a Christian, who would demand that level of evidence for the claims of Islam or Hinduism before considering them.

For my part, I demand the demonstration of compelling evidence for all asserted realities before I consider them. I don’t make a special case out of Christianity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is just a game with words. Like asking for a logical argument to demonstrate that one should value arguments which are logical. The concept of rationality doesn’t need to be justified in this way. It can be safely presupposed. If it wasn’t, then you’d have literally no objective basis from which to assert anything about anything.

But much, much less arbitrary than, say, a Christian, who would demand that level of evidence for the claims of Islam or Hinduism before considering them.

For my part, I demand the demonstration of compelling evidence for all asserted realities before I consider them. I don’t make a special case out of Christianity.

So why must it be “compelling” evidence that is provided to establish the existence of the spiritual, but the same standard of “compelling evidence” is not required to establish the legitimacy and cogency of reason?

Why couldn’t reason of itself – and not necessarily evidence – provide sufficient grounds for accepting the spiritual?

Just calling you on your inconsistency.

Care to explain why reason doesn’t require evidence for acceptance but “spiritual” reality does? Or why reason couldn’t, by itself, demonstrate the spiritual?

 

[estesbob]

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.

Interesting So you have a problem ending “needless” suffering but criticize God for not ending it. Perhaps you are getting an inkling that there is a lot more to life than the physical

 

[AyJSimon]

Interesting So you have a problem ending “needless” suffering but criticize God for not ending it. Perhaps you are getting an inkling that there is a lot more to life than the physical

No, once again, I don’t criticize God for not ending suffering. I criticize the idea of a God who has the power to end needless suffering (or prevent it), and not only doesn’t, but expects praise from his supplicants (or else). I further criticize those freely give him this praise, while suggesting that all those who decline this privilege lack moral fiber.

 

[Lucy107]

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.

The humanist focus on children seems to be relatively new in history. Children haven’t been always and everywhere regarded as some special category that is by default innocent.

For example, in some religions that operate with the concepts of karma and reincarnation/rebirth (such as Hinduism or Buddhism), children are seen as no different than adults as far as innocence goes, children aren’t seen as any more innocent than adults. In their view, a newborn is a being who has loads of karma; being born is proof that one hasn’t exited samsara. If a child is born ill or soon someone commits a crime against the child, that is seen as something that is probably the consequence of that child’s karma (ie. that the person who now happens to be a child has done something bad in a previous lifetime, and now the past is catching up with them).
In these religions, they value human life because they believe that it is only in the human form that one can make the proper efforts to exit samsara.

In the West with the only-one-lifetime-for-action worldview, things are seen differently, obviously. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood)

Asking “Why does God let children suffer?” implies that the Western worldview is taken for granted. To address this question, it would be useful to inquire why this is done, why take this Western worldview for granted.

 

[AyJSimon]

So why must it be “compelling” evidence that is provided to establish the existence of the spiritual, but the same standard of “compelling evidence” is not required to establish the legitimacy and cogency of reason?

Why couldn’t reason of itself – and not necessarily evidence – provide sufficient grounds for accepting the spiritual?

Just calling you on your inconsistency.

Care to explain why reason doesn’t require evidence for acceptance but “spiritual” reality does? Or why reason couldn’t, by itself, demonstrate the spiritual?

Because “reason,” as we’re defining the term here, is a means to an end, not an end in itself. That we have the capacity to reason does not, for a moment, suggest the existence of a spiritual reality. Animals have a limited capacity to reason - what is the extent of their spiritual reality?

Some truths about our reality must be presupposed, if only because it’s impossible to get underneath them, and if we didn’t presuppose them, simple conversation would prove impossible. Again, if I didn’t value logic or rationality in evaluating truth claims, what would be the logical, rational argument you’d employ to convince be that I should. There would be none.

That there exists a spiritual reality, apart from our physical reality, does not fall into this category of truth claims that we can presuppose. It must be evidenced. And the evidence is sorely lacking.

 

[AyJSimon]

The humanist focus on children seems to be relatively new in history. Children haven’t been always and everywhere regarded as some special category that is by default innocent.

For example, in some religions that operate with the concepts of karma and reincarnation/rebirth (such as Hinduism or Buddhism), children are seen as no different than adults as far as innocence goes, children aren’t seen as any more innocent than adults. In their view, a newborn is a being who has loads of karma; being born is proof that one hasn’t exited samsara. If a child is born ill or soon someone commits a crime against the child, that is seen as something that is probably the consequence of that child’s karma (ie. that the person who now happens to be a child has done something bad in a previous lifetime, and now the past is catching up with them).
In these religions, they value human life because they believe that it is only in the human form that one can make the proper efforts to exit samsara.

In the West with the only-one-lifetime-for-action worldview, things are seen differently, obviously. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood)

Asking “Why does God let children suffer?” implies that the Western worldview is taken for granted. To address this question, it would be useful to inquire why this is done, why take this Western worldview for granted.

I think we take the Western worldview for granted because we (most of us, anyway) live in the West, where “only-one-lifetime” is the prevailing assumption. I would also add that, believing that one life is all we get doesn’t require nearly the leap of faith reincarnation requires.

 

[Lucy107]

I think we take the Western worldview for granted because we (most of us, anyway) live in the West, where “only-one-lifetime” is the prevailing assumption.

If we are to go by “prevailing assumptions,” we’d have to take for granted all kinds of things!
“Prevailing assumptions” or “general consensus” are not sufficient arguments for something to be true. In fact, explicitly appealing to them is considered a logical fallacy.

I would also add that, believing that one life is all we get doesn’t require nearly the leap of faith reincarnation requires.

For a typical Westerner, yes. Not for someone born and raised in an Eastern culture.

If we are going to be open-minded, then why let ourselves be defined by a specific set of cultural assumptions simply because it happens to be the set we are most familiar with or used to?

“I’m used to it, therefore, it is true, or at least most probably true” is fallacious reasoning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because “reason,” as we’re defining the term here, is a means to an end, not an end in itself. That we have the capacity to reason does not, for a moment, suggest the existence of a spiritual reality. Animals have a limited capacity to reason - what is the extent of their spiritual reality?

Some truths about our reality must be presupposed, if only because it’s impossible to get underneath them, and if we didn’t presuppose them, simple conversation would prove impossible. Again, if I didn’t value logic or rationality in evaluating truth claims, what would be the logical, rational argument you’d employ to convince be that I should. There would be none.

That there exists a spiritual reality, apart from our physical reality, does not fall into this category of truth claims that we can presuppose. It must be evidenced. And the evidence is sorely lacking.

Physical reality does not explain its form. Since it doesn’t explain its form it doesn’t explain the reason for its form – the “underneath” of physical reality which you claim is impossible to prove or know. Meaning you assume that it is impossible to prove, but don’t actually know what is possible or not in terms of proof.

Which, by the way, is why you punt to “evidence” as your arbitrarily decreed standard for halting the process of knowing where you have decided it SHOULD be terminated because it safely protects or bolsters your point of view to do so, but not because you KNOW anything at all for certain.

This might “prove” helpful:
youtu.be/bdjjqFSEJ_Y

 

[AyJSimon]

If we are to go by “prevailing assumptions,” we’d have to take for granted all kinds of things!
“Prevailing assumptions” or “general consensus” are not sufficient arguments for something to be true. In fact, explicitly appealing to them is considered a logical fallacy.

For a typical Westerner, yes. Not for someone born and raised in an Eastern culture.

If we are going to be open-minded, then why let ourselves be defined by a specific set of cultural assumptions simply because it happens to be the set we are most familiar with or used to?

“I’m used to it, therefore, it is true, or at least most probably true” is fallacious reasoning.

I agree - but you asked why we take X for granted - meaning, why do we accept it as true without examining the relevant evidence. By definition, we’re talking about fallacious reasoning.

That said, the available evidence for the truth of reincarnation isn’t any different or better in Eastern culture than it is in Western culture. And some theories about what happens to us after we die are objectively less likely to be true than others.

 

[AyJSimon]

Physical reality does not explain its form. Since it doesn’t explain its form it doesn’t explain the reason for its form – the “underneath” of physical reality which you claim is impossible to prove or know. Meaning you assume that it is impossible to prove, but don’t actually know what is possible or not in terms of proof.

Not much to go over here without repeating myself.

Which, by the way, is why you punt to “evidence” as your arbitrarily decreed standard for halting the process of knowing where you have decided it SHOULD be terminated because it safely protects or bolsters your point of view to do so, but not because you KNOW anything at all for certain.

You could end this conversation right now by offering me a compelling evidential argument for the existence of a spiritual reality. Instead, the best you can do is complain about how I’m “arbitrarily” deciding when and where the call for evidence should come into play. You claiming that such a truth claim doesn’t require evidence is like me assuming an alternate universe exists apart from our own doesn’t require evidence. It’s absurd.

 

[Lucy107]

I agree - but you asked why we take X for granted - meaning, why do we accept it as true without examining the relevant evidence.

No, I am not an evidentialist.

I think that in many cases, believing things “on the grounds of evidence” is fallacious reasoning to begin with.

It is only the most mundane issues, like checking whether there is a pair of red socks in a drawer, that one can reasonably talk about “believing something on the grounds of evidence,” as in “I have thoroughly examined the contents of my sock drawer and found one pair of red socks in it. I therefore have good grounds for believing there is a pair of red socks in my sock drawer.”

One can prove or evidence something only in a closed, self-referential system. Meaning that in order to “see evidence for something,” one believes beforehand that the concepts and methods one is working with are valid and adequate for the purpose.

For some mundane purposes, this approach is good enough.

But when it comes to topics where there isn’t an agreement on or commitment to (!) a particular set of definitions and practices, an evidentialist approach is simply misleading if we try to use it before acknowledging its nature.

Religious topics are a parade example of where such an agreement doesn’t exist or people discussing said topics aren’t committed to a particular set of definitions and practices.

The problem isn’t that there is no evidence for God or, for God’s benevolence, or for reincarnation etc.
The problem is when people discussing these topics are operating with definitions of “God” etc. that are different than the definitions that those operate with who believe that “God” exists etc.

Basically, the two camps are using the same words, but take them to mean different things. So it’s no wonder they can’t communicate.

By definition, we’re talking about fallacious reasoning.
That said, the available evidence for the truth of reincarnation isn’t any different or better in Eastern culture than it is in Western culture. And some theories about what happens to us after we die are objectively less likely to be true than others.

Talking about something being “objectively less likely” requires absolute, objective knowledge; it requires knowledge of the whole set of phenomena one is talking about. Without knowing the whole set, it is impossible to ascertain probability.

And please note that I am not trying to bring home the claim that this or that particular Christian doctrine is the one and only right one.
My approach is “How not to worry about things unnecessarily and how not to be perplexed by statements or questions.”

 

[AyJSimon]

Talking about something being “objectively less likely” requires absolute, objective knowledge; it requires knowledge of the whole set of phenomena one is talking about. Without knowing the whole set, it is impossible to ascertain probability.

Not true. Here’s my favorite example (credit: Sam Harris). Consider Mormonism compared to Christianity. Mormonism is essentially Christianity, with some additional silly ideas. For example, Christianity holds that Jesus Christ will one day return to Earth. Mormonism holds that when Jesus does come back, he’ll be spending at least part of his time in the state of Missouri. Now, whatever probability you want to place on the idea that Jesus Christ will ever come back, it seems to me that you must place a lesser probability on him living in Missouri after he does come back. This, among other things I could mention, makes Mormonism objectively less likely to be true than regular Christianity.

 

[Lucy107]

Just calling you on your inconsistency.

Care to explain why reason doesn’t require evidence for acceptance but “spiritual” reality does? Or why reason couldn’t, by itself, demonstrate the spiritual?

I think such inconsistency emerges when there is a crisis of trust underneath. To illustrate:

A child who is taken care of by his parents, whose parents from birth on provide him with food, shelter, warmth, who comfort him and take care of him in every way – such a child will readily believe whatever the parents tell him, including about spiritual or religious matters. And even if later he doesn’t believe those things anymore, he’ll do so confidently, because he is internally secure.

On the other hand, an adult who is being challenged or requested to believe some “spiritual (or religious) truth” by people who have done him no favor and given him no gift that he himself would consider relevant, will have troubles believing this “truth” or even just considering it. (Even though the religious may believe that they have given him the greatest gift of all, done him the greatest favor possible.)

This is the typical situation of many who grow up in less than ideal religious families, and of those who come into contact with religion for the first time as adults.

I think that if religious people could give the non-religious things that that person already finds relevant (such as a good job or heal a disease of theirs), this could establish that trust necessary for accepting “spiritual (or religious) truths.”

But without such gifts and favors, the non-religious person who is nevertheless somehow interested in spiritual or religious topics has a lot more work to do on their own.

 

[Lucy107]

Talking about something being “objectively less likely” requires absolute, objective knowledge; it requires knowledge of the whole set of phenomena one is talking about. Without knowing the whole set, it is impossible to ascertain probability.

Of course it is true. This is how mathematical probability is calculated.

Here’s my favorite example (credit: Sam Harris). Consider Mormonism compared to Christianity. Mormonism is essentially Christianity, with some additional silly ideas. For example, Christianity holds that Jesus Christ will one day return to Earth. Mormonism holds that when Jesus does come back, he’ll be spending at least part of his time in the state of Missouri. Now, whatever probability you want to place on the idea that Jesus Christ will ever come back, it seems to me that you must place a lesser probability on him living in Missouri after he does come back. This, among other things I could mention, makes Mormonism objectively less likely to be true than regular Christianity.

This isn’t mathematical probability. This is some very culture-specific probability resting on the premise that if Jesus Christ returns to Earth, it could be any place.

In contrast, some people believe that when Jesus Christ returns, it will be to Jerusalem.

You’re working with the the premise that if Jesus Christ returns to Earth, it could be any place. And if you take this premise for granted, it means you are already subscribing, at least in part, to one very specific branch of Christianity.

 

[estesbob]

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.

So you allow for “needless suffering” but mock a God who does the same?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not much to go over here without repeating myself.

You could end this conversation right now by offering me a compelling evidential argument for the existence of a spiritual reality. Instead, the best you can do is complain about how I’m “arbitrarily” deciding when and where the call for evidence should come into play. You claiming that such a truth claim doesn’t require evidence is like me assuming an alternate universe exists apart from our own doesn’t require evidence. It’s absurd.

For the record, I do think there are compelling evidential reasons for thinking Christianity is true, but I don’t think evidence is the only means by which we know things are true. You MUST agree with that because you trust reason in the place of evidence where evidence cannot or does not provide proper grounds for belief. So you subscribe to the belief that evidence isn’t the ONLY grounds for belief. You do, however, CHOOSE to invoke “lack of evidence” to discount things you, personally, don’t believe.

That is arbitrary because you don’t and likely can’t give good reasons why you would discount the existence of “spiritual” things merely because there is (according to you) a lack of evidence. Spiritual things are by definition non-physical. Why would we expect that the existence of spiritual things would depend upon physical evidence? Math facts, value determinations and moral truths are not substantiated by evidence. We don’t know that 1+2=3 by the evidence from the physical world. In fact, if I watch rain falling on the window and drops coming together to form larger drops, relying strictly on physical evidence for my math deliberations, I would conclude that 1+1+1 could equal 1, just as 1+1 could, since raindrops do agglomerate in that way. The evidence would derail my understanding of math if I didn’t use reason properly.

As to corroborating evidence not existing for Christianity, there is a cold case detective who disagrees vehemently with your assumptions and since he is much more of an expert on evidence and what conclusions can properly be supported by it, he makes a far more compelling argument than your mere assertion that no evidence for Christianity exists. He claims the evidence is robust and “beyond reasonable doubt,” as do I, your handwaving notwithstanding.

coldcasechristianity.com

 

[Lucy107]

As to corroborating evidence not existing for Christianity, there is a cold case detective who disagrees vehemently with your assumptions and since he is much more of an expert on evidence and what conclusions can properly be supported by it, he makes a far more compelling argument than your mere assertion that no evidence for Christianity exists. He claims the evidence is robust and “beyond reasonable doubt,” as do I, your handwaving notwithstanding.

coldcasechristianity.com

On me, this approach has exactly the opposite effect as intended - it produces disbelief.

Looking for and finding justifications for believing something is always a matter of trying to justify oneself to someone, per that person’s standards. Of course, those standards could have been so deeply internalized in oneself that one doesn’t even notice them or recognize them as being someone else’s standards. Nevertheless, this way, one’s belief remains a matter of justifying oneself per some human standard.

To justify belief in God per human standards creates an internal inconsistency in one’s mind. Because God being defined as the One Being who contextualizes all other beings, including oneself, and being the One Being according to whose will everything happens (including an individual’s real or presumed belief in God), human standards are necessarily subject to that, and cannot somehow stand on their own.

This here from the website you link to is circular reasoning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

On me, this approach has exactly the opposite effect as intended - it produces disbelief.

Looking for and finding justifications for believing something is always a matter of trying to justify oneself to someone, per that person’s standards. Of course, those standards could have been so deeply internalized in oneself that one doesn’t even notice them or recognize them as being someone else’s standards. Nevertheless, this way, one’s belief remains a matter of justifying oneself per some human standard.

To justify belief in God per human standards creates an internal inconsistency in one’s mind. Because God being defined as the One Being who contextualizes all other beings, including oneself, and being the One Being according to whose will everything happens (including an individual’s real or presumed belief in God), human standards are necessarily subject to that, and cannot somehow stand on their own.

I think I understand where you are going with this, but I disagree. CS Lewis’ point about the light by which we see the truth of everything counters what you say above. The “One Being” which contextualizes all other things also contextualizes evidence so that we begin to understand how everything fits together.

This fits very well into J Warner Wallace’s view of how evidence is used to establish a case being tried in court. Yes, the evidence does support the verdict in the sense of proving it correct, however THAT is not ALL that it does. It also explains what happened, the wheres, hows, and whys, in such a complete way that the evidence accurately rebuilds the event by sufficiently explaining all of the details. Not merely “proving” it, but making it more comprehensible.

Reason and evidence helps us to more completely understand why the physical world exists and helps us to better understand our purpose in it. I don’t think you have fully considered what evidence is and what it does.

This here from the website you link to is circular reasoning.

I don’t think it is. It only appears to be circular reasoning and Wallace explains why in several other articles. When viewed objectively as a piece of evidence in its own right, each Gospel, for example, can be assessed for its reliability and accuracy on its own merit. This only appears to be circular reasoning to those who have a bias against using the Gospels as evidence to begin with.

That is, as Wallace points out, similar to discounting a witness to a crime because the witness is convinced by what they saw that the murderer is the one guilty of murder. The witness is not engaging in circular reasoning and neither would the prosecution lawyers be by calling the witness to the stand, unless you want to claim that the witness is no longer impartial because their testimony is biased because of what they saw by their own eyes. That would mean everyone who knows anything relevant to the case would be disqualified from being a witness because what they know has coloured their judgement. Which is ridiculous, no?

Wallace’s larger point is that the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament can be shown to be reliable eye witness testimony, just as depositions of witnesses can be considered reliable eye witness testimonies if these were properly taken. Wallace shows that the writings in the NT can be shown to be remarkably solid eye witness testimony based upon the same criteria he would use as a cold case detective.

His points should not be so easily dismissed based upon reading one article - he substantiates everything he says throughout his web site and in the books he has written. He applies to unravelling the evidential case for Christianity everything he learned as an expert detective. I wouldn’t dismiss his work so easily.