Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Lucy107]

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

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?

I think it is mundane. Whatever has to do with the pyhsical, is mundane.

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.

Not at all. This is just how you interpret it.

If the airplane would fall down, or if the bridge would collapse while I’m on it, or any other such mundane thing, I’d think to myself, “Well, what did you expect? Airplanes crash, bridges collapse, people lie, tsunamis strike. This is how this world is.”
My trust in these things is provisional, and I am prepared that things will go different than what I expected.

This is roundabout how I think.

 

[AyJSimon]

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?

No, because one side is still a giant faith exercise. Stephen Fry’s daughter might not see the wisdom of being vaccinated as a young girl, but she surely will someday, as the evidence of its value is readily available.

The basis for your looking past the same child with terminal bone cancer is the faith (belief absent compelling evidence) that there is a supervising father figure watching over this, who could’ve prevented it but didn’t, and the faith that there’s a commensurate payoff that’s worth all this suffering endured by the child and the people who love her. But that’s only so long as they all continuously love, praise, and thank this supervising father figure. Not to mention the faith that the reason said father figure doesn’t offer an explanation is because we’re all too dumb to comprehend it.

 

[Lucy107]

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?

Because I think that my not being Catholic disqualifies me from using Catholic arguments against Catholics.
As long as I am not Catholic, I have to use my own defenses, or none at all/leave the situation.

This is even more problematic because I feel that way even in the privacy of my own mind. For example, I read a useful bit of advice in The Imitation of Christ, but I don’t feel like I can rightfully apply it, because I am not Catholic.

I also feel unease about the Paternoster, because I cannot rightfully say “our” as I am not a Christian. And I can’t address God as “Father” either, because I am not baptized:

“The “door of faith” (Acts 14:27) is always open for us, ushering us into the life of communion with God and offering entry into his Church. It is possible to cross that threshold when the word of God is proclaimed and the heart allows itself to be shaped by transforming grace. To enter through that door is to set out on a journey that lasts a lifetime. It begins with baptism (cf. Rom6:4), through which we can address God as Father, and it ends with the passage through death to eternal life, fruit of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, whose will it was, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, to draw those who believe in him into his own glory (cf. Jn 17:22).”
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20111011_porta-fidei.html

Since we’re agreed that no one should talk to you that way,

We didn’t agree on that. People can kill, rape, and pillage. It’s not nice if they do that, but it’s their right.

and that it’s irrelevant anyway, as far as apologia for the Church and God’s existence, let’s move beyond that.

Why? Is it not the case that the way God’s people behave is indicative of God’s will?

Is it not the case that disagreement with a Catholic = disagreement with God?

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

I hold no grudge.

 

[PRmerger]

I think it is mundane. Whatever has to do with the pyhsical, is mundane.

LOL! The possibility of crashing in an airplane is “mundane”.

Ok, then.

Can you give an example of something you believe has great import?

If the airplane would fall down, or if the bridge would collapse while I’m on it, or any other such mundane thing, I’d think to myself, “Well, what did you expect? Airplanes crash, bridges collapse, people lie, tsunamis strike. This is how this world is.”
My trust in these things is provisional, and I am prepared that things will go different than what I expected.

There is nothing contrary to Catholicism here, Lucy.

It still doesn’t address the fact that what you object to in others, you reserve for yourself the right to do.

 

[PRmerger]

No, because one side is still a giant faith exercise. Stephen Fry’s daughter might not see the wisdom of being vaccinated as a young girl, but she surely will someday, as the evidence of its value is readily available.

Egg-zactly, Simon!

We, too, “surely will someday” see the value of suffering, of why our child suffered from bone cancer.

 

[Lucy107]

It still doesn’t address the fact that what you object to in others, you reserve for yourself the right to do.

I think I missed a point.

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.

And I never said I oppose the submission to authority. I just need to know first that someone in fact is an authority.

It is impossible not to submit to someone who actually has authority: it’s done simply in that the one with authority actually overpowers others.

But in Catholicism, I see nothing but their claim “We are the authority”, perhaps with the addition “And you’re just dumb or evil if you don’t see it.”

And that’s it, it’s a claim, I currently see no power behind it. This is why I’m challenging them, to see whether there is a proverbial horse under that saddle, or whether it’s all saddle and no horse.

If I’d see the power of the Catholic Church (other than in some Catholics treating me poorly), then I’d believe it has authority.

Can you give an example of something you believe has great import?

Things that have to do with God.

 

[PRmerger]

The basis for your looking past the same child with terminal bone cancer is the faith (belief absent compelling evidence) that there is a supervising father figure watching over this, who could’ve prevented it but didn’t, and the faith that there’s a commensurate payoff that’s worth all this suffering endured by the child and the people who love her. But that’s only so long as they all continuously love, praise, and thank this supervising father figure.

Well, that’s a different argument then, than “it’s impossible for a good God to exist if suffering exists”.

What you are already presupposing is that God doesn’t exist.

Do you have any arguments for that?

Not to mention the faith that the reason said father figure doesn’t offer an explanation is because we’re all too dumb to comprehend it.

Well, that’s a crude way to put it, but it’s certainly true.

I would find any father “dumb” who attempted to explain to his daughter the rationale for her being tortured with needles in this way:

“Sweetheart: The incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), caused by the approximately 91 serotypes of Streptococcus pneumoniae (PN), varies geographically and temporally as a result of changing epidemiology and vaccination patterns as well as due to regional measurement differences. Prevnar® (Pfizer), the first licensed pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), comprises polysaccharides (PS) from 7 serotypes conjugated to the mutant diphtheria toxin carrier protein, CRM197. In the United States and elsewhere, this vaccine has been highly efficacious in reducing the incidence of IPD caused by vaccine serotypes, however, the incidence of non-vaccine serotypes (e.g., 19A, 22F, and 33F) has increased, resulting in the need for vaccines with higher valencies. In response, 10- and 13-valent PCVs have recently been licensed. To further increase serotype coverage, we have developed a 15-valent PCV containing PS from serotypes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F, 22F, 23F and 33F conjugated to CRM197 and formulated on aluminum phosphate adjuvant. Vaccine immunogenicity was evaluated in infant rhesus monkeys since they, like human infants, respond poorly to unconjugated PN PS. Infant (2–3 month old) rhesus monkeys were vaccinated three times with PCV-15 or Prevnar® at 2 month intervals, and serotype-specific IgG antibodies were measured using a multiarray electrochemiluminescence (ECL) assay. The results indicate that antibody responses to PCV-15 and Prevnar® were comparable for the 7 common serotypes and that post-vaccination responses to PCV-15 were >10-fold higher than baseline for the 8 additional serotypes.”

If you want to put it as, the 5 yr old is “too dumb” to comprehend it, well, that’s absolutely true.

But I would assign blame to the father for over-reaching a bit in his expectations for his daughter.

Fortunately, God, the Father, doesn’t have the ability to over-estimate in His expectations.

 

[AyJSimon]

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.

I am quite capable of considering the idea of a world beyond our own, where we transition after our deaths, and that this is a wonderful place where we will experience boundless flourishing. But even if I grant that, it doesn’t remove the problem hanging over your head.

I don’t know too many psychologically healthy people who wish to die as soon as possible, and even fewer who wish their children would die as soon as possible. If Christianity is true, than this is what you should want. Strangely, whenever an elderly person contracts a terminal illness, people seem almost sad (isn’t that weird?). And don’t get me started on when it’s a young child with the terminal illness - people treat that like it’s almost a tragedy. Why? Don’t they know what awaits faithful departed souls?

But here’s the problem. Just consider these three groups - the elderly who die after long, painful illness, children who die after long painful illness, and elderly who die suddenly, with minimal discomfort. Assuming they’re all faithful, they all wind up in the same wonderful place. But the child is denied an opportunity at a full life, in the first place, and in the second, is snuffed out over the course of a long, painful illness.

Even if heaven exists, you’re left with the same philosophical problem.

 

[PRmerger]

Strangely, whenever an elderly person contracts a terminal illness, people seem almost sad (isn’t that weird?). And don’t get me started on when it’s a young child with the terminal illness - people treat that like it’s almost a tragedy. Why? Don’t they know what awaits faithful departed souls?

Well, that simply speaks to our emotional responses to suffering.

But we are agreed, then, that having an emotional response to someone suffering doesn’t necessarily conclude: “therefore, heaven doesn’t exist”.

That’s not a logical conclusion, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Because I think that my not being Catholic disqualifies me from using Catholic arguments against Catholics.

Well, Lucy, that’s an arbitrary impediment you’ve imposed upon yourself.

That’s like saying, “Because I think that my not being a Math professor disqualifies me from using mathematical arguments”.

That would be really weird, right, to hear someone say that?

All truth, mathematical, religious, historical, etc etc etc belongs to all people.

 

[AyJSimon]

Well, that’s a different argument then, than “it’s impossible for a good God to exist if suffering exists”.

What you are already presupposing is that God doesn’t exist.

Do you have any arguments for that?

I’m not presupposing that God doesn’t exist. I’m saying the evidence for his existence is conspicuously lacking, and therefore his existence must be accepted on faith, if it’s to be accepted at all.

Further, I’m saying that the evidence that God can still be good while orchestrating (or failing to prevent) apparently needless human suffering, is also conspicuously lacking, and must be accepted on faith, if it’s to be accepted at all.

Egg-zactly, Simon!

We, too, “surely will someday” see the value of suffering, of why our child suffered from bone cancer.

You hope. Not much else you can do, if you’re a Christian.

 

[PRmerger]

Is it not the case that the way God’s people behave is indicative of God’s will?

Wow.

I am not certain where you get this bizarre idea, but let relieve that misapprehension right here.

Abusus non tollit usum.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not presupposing that God doesn’t exist. I’m saying the evidence for his existence is conspicuously lacking, and therefore his existence must be accepted on faith, if it’s to be accepted at all.

What arguments for God’s existence have you considered, Simon?

 

[Lucy107]

Well, Lucy, that’s an arbitrary impediment you’ve imposed upon yourself.

No, the Christians did, when they criticized me for using their own doctrine against them.

That’s like saying, “Because I think that my not being a Math professor disqualifies me from using mathematical arguments”.

There you go! So there is a vital difference between a math professor and an ordinary person who uses some math?
So there is a vital difference between a Catholic and a non-Catholic.

That would be really weird, right, to hear someone say that?

Yes, but only because mathematics is mundane.
Religion isn’t, so different rules apply.

All truth, mathematical, religious, historical, etc etc etc belongs to all people.

In that case, you seem to be arguing for a kind of religious democracy, religious freedom. This means you’re up against numerous people who believe in religious exclusivism, religious elitism, religious separatism.

 

[AyJSimon]

Well, that simply speaks to our emotional responses to suffering.

But we are agreed, then, that having an emotional response to someone suffering doesn’t necessarily conclude: “therefore, heaven doesn’t exist”.

That’s not a logical conclusion, right?

Well, we may not be smart enough to understand the purpose of apparently needless suffering, but we’re all clearly smart enough to conceive of a heaven, where boundless, eternal flourishing awaits all of those with the good sense to die as faithful believers in God and the Living Christ.

Assuming you believe with certainty that such a place exists, it’s a little strange to respond to one’s eminent death with the sort of misery that we commonly see.

 

[PRmerger]

We didn’t agree on that. People can kill, rape, and pillage. It’s not nice if they do that, but it’s their right.

We’re not talking about personal rights here.

We are talking moral rights. Should and shouldn’t.

Are we agreed that people shouldn’t treat you badly because they disagree with your rejection of their religion?

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, we may not be smart enough to understand the purpose of apparently needless suffering, but we’re all clearly smart enough to conceive of a heaven, where boundless, eternal flourishing awaits all of those with the good sense to die as faithful believers in God and the Living Christ.

Assuming you believe with certainty that such a place exists, it’s a little strange to respond to one’s eminent death with the sort of misery that we commonly see.

Let’s be clear: it’s possible for heaven to exist even if a mom mourns the diagnosis of terminal cancer in her child, yes?

There is no logical contradiction, right?

 

[Lucy107]

Is it not the case that the way God’s people behave is indicative of God’s will?

If the Catholic Church is the one with the monopoly on the truth about God (as it claims), then whatever the Catholic Church does is indicative of God’s will.

 

[PRmerger]

I hold no grudge.

Excellent. I hope you do invite them into your kitchen to discuss religion sometime soon.

 

[AyJSimon]

Let’s be clear: it’s possible for heaven to exist even if a mom mourns the diagnosis of terminal cancer in her child, yes?

There is no logical contradiction, right?

Correct, I wouldn’t say there’s a logical contradiction.