Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;12762450:

…I would have thought that if AyJSimon wanted

to misstate them or present them in a different form then that could have been EASILY done.
Well, of course he doesn’t WANT to.

Then where’s the problem?

AyJSimon thinks it’s the least worst, the best of a bad bunch of theistic lines of apologetic reasoning yet he/she nonetheless rejects it - just as other counter-apologist philosophers have rejected it, for very well-known reasons that simply dont need to be “restated” or paraphrased or reworded over and over again and again and again.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Suppose I dismiss Kant or Humes counter-arguments on the question of the OA.
And suppose an atheist says to me…restate those counter-arguments in your own words

Well, I ask why they want me to restate them when they are already well-renowned and, like AyJ says, I wouldnt want to reword them lest I be accused of distorting them.

So why are we really asking someone if they understand and can ‘explain’ the OA to us?

I suspect it’s because of an assumption that the only reason someone wouldnt agree with it, is because they must not really understand it properly.

 

[faithsmind]

Yep

 

[PRmerger]

Suppose I dismiss Kant or Humes counter-arguments on the question of the OA.
And suppose an atheist says to me…restate those counter-arguments in your own words

Well, I ask why they want me to restate them when they are already well-renowned and, like AyJ says, I wouldnt want to reword them lest I be accused of distorting them.

Egg-zactly. That shows you don’t understand what you’re rejecting.

 

[michaelmas]

I have read through a number of comments on Fry’s comments and the one answer I am not finding is why?

Why have suffering? Why have any of the **** we have in the world today?

Did God create the world in full knowledge of what would happen and takes pleasure in that creation?

I realize free will and God wants us to choose him and not be mindless drones but how does a loving God create bad things to happen. The argument that God doesn’t do it but our sins do doesn’t hold water for me. Jesus came to save. God created everything, everything, so my question is why. How do you explain that to an unbeliever ?

 

[davidv]

I have read through a number of comments on Fry’s comments and the one answer I am not finding is why?

Why have suffering? Why have any of the **** we have in the world today?

Did God create the world in full knowledge of what would happen and takes pleasure in that creation?

I realize free will and God wants us to choose him and not be mindless drones but how does a loving God create bad things to happen. The argument that God doesn’t do it but our sins do doesn’t hold water for me.

Why should your judgment on this be accepted?

Jesus came to save. God created everything, everything, so my question is why. How do you explain that to an unbeliever ?

For many, it is not explainable because refuse to accept the explanation.

 

[PRmerger]

I have read through a number of comments on Fry’s comments and the one answer I am not finding is why?

Why have suffering? Why have any of the **** we have in the world today?

Did God create the world in full knowledge of what would happen and takes pleasure in that creation?

I realize free will and God wants us to choose him and not be mindless drones but how does a loving God create bad things to happen. The argument that God doesn’t do it but our sins do doesn’t hold water for me. Jesus came to save. God created everything, everything, so my question is why. How do you explain that to an unbeliever ?

How would you create a world in which there was free will but no choice to do evil?

 

[michaelmas]

I understand our view.

But how do you explain why? Is it a mystery of faith?

 

[PRmerger]

I understand our view.

But how do you explain why? Is it a mystery of faith?

It’s both/and.

It is indeed a mystery. But we also shouldn’t just punt the answer to “It’s a mystery. Stop thinking about it.”

There is certainly an answer to the Problem of Suffering, and it is found in the CC. It is found in Christ, in his atoning death on the Cross. It is found in free will.

 

[michaelmas]

It’s both/and.

It is indeed a mystery. But we also shouldn’t just punt the answer to “It’s a mystery. Stop thinking about it.”

There is certainly an answer to the Problem of Suffering, and it is found in the CC. It is found in Christ, in his atoning death on the Cross. It is found in free will.

As you can probably tell it is my own struggle to explain this, thank you for your post.

 

[Achilles6129]

OK, here’s a question for you. I admit I haven’t read this entire thread, but I thought I’d bring up what may be an important point: what if God views everyone equally, and so because of that there’s no difference to him whatsoever between a child suffering and an adult suffering? I would think that if God valued everyone equally (which seems to make sense) then this would be the case. There would be no difference to God between a small child getting cancer and an old person getting cancer. Human beings don’t value everyone equally so they see things differently and think that the child is worth more than the adult. But that may not be the case with God at all.

However, that obviously still wouldn’t solve the problem of evil, which is what this question is really all about. And, of course, one could argue that a young enough child couldn’t possibly have done anything to rebel against God (while an adult could have), and thus could not possibly deserve suffering.

 

[Lucy107]

My goodness, how could I have possibly FAILED to see the reasonableness of your approach on the topic of God’s existence?

From this moment forward, it is necessary ONLY to claim to have read and found atheist arguments against the existence of God unconvincing to thoroughly refute them. No need to ACTUALLY make a case, vicarious argumentation has henceforward become the new standard for “discussion.”

A far more reasonable approach all around, I suppose.

Perhaps what the other poster is looking for is “to be impressed,” “to be swept of their feet” or some such universal emotional (but I don’t mean emotional in a derogatory sense) effect.

Maybe they want to feel, be given a “burning in the bosom,” and for this, going through arguments is pretty much beside the point.

Maybe they want to feel there is mutual trust, and that feeling won’t come from discussing fancy arguments.

Just because someone seems like an “intellectual type” doesn’t exclude that they may actually be more interested in emotional, social, or even mystical experiences.

 

[PRmerger]

OK, here’s a question for you. I admit I haven’t read this entire thread, but I thought I’d bring up what may be an important point: what if God views everyone equally, and so because of that there’s no difference to him whatsoever between a child suffering and an adult suffering? I would think that if God valued everyone equally (which seems to make sense) then this would be the case. There would be no difference to God between a small child getting cancer and an old person getting cancer. Human beings don’t value everyone equally so they see things differently and think that the child is worth more than the adult. But that may not be the case with God at all.

However, that obviously still wouldn’t solve the problem of evil, which is what this question is really all about. And, of course, one could argue that a young enough child couldn’t possibly have done anything to rebel against God (while an adult could have), and thus could not possibly deserve suffering.

Well, I think in posing the question, what is understood is that children are absolutely INNOCENT. Pure. Not deserving of any suffering.

Adults, however, may have done something to warrant their suffering–such as eating too much and thus, as a natural consequence of their obesity, having a heart attack.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Egg-zactly. That shows you don’t understand what you’re rejecting…

I don’t reject the basic formulation of the ontological argument. I think it is quite sound.

But our atheist friend found it unpersuasive. And I don’t see why there is an assumption, on your part, that people like AyJ who reject the OA must simply not understand what they are rejecting. There are countless philosophers with objections to the OA none of whom are ignorant or incapable of ‘restating’ its premises and conclusions.

You were asking that he/she ‘restate’ the ontological argument when the more important question is WHY AyJ finds it unpersuasive.

 

[PRmerger]

But our atheist friend found it unpersuasive. And I don’t see why there is an assumption, on your part, that people like AyJ who reject the OA must simply not understand what they are rejecting.

I don’t have that assumption.

I simply don’t know. I have no evidence either way.

That’s why I am asking for evidence to help me determine whether he’s actually rejecting the ontological argument, or a misrepresentation of it.

Now, I will say that the fact that he is unable to offer his own articulation of the argument is indeed a piece of evidence that leans towards this: he doesn’t really know what the argument is.

But I leave that to be determined.

 

[jmcrae]

I have read through a number of comments on Fry’s comments and the one answer I am not finding is why?

Why have suffering? Why have any of the **** we have in the world today?

Did God create the world in full knowledge of what would happen and takes pleasure in that creation?

I realize free will and God wants us to choose him and not be mindless drones but how does a loving God create bad things to happen. The argument that God doesn’t do it but our sins do doesn’t hold water for me. Jesus came to save. God created everything, everything, so my question is why. How do you explain that to an unbeliever ?

Evil isn’t a “thing” that anyone - God, devil, or human being - can create or has created. Evil is the absence of, or a lack of, good, in the same way that “dark” is an absence of light, and thus, has no measurable qualities.

We have evil in the world because sin causes imbalance in the order of Creation - we have sickness and suffering because the choice to commit sin throws everything out of whack - a kind of cosmic butterfly effect - just as there’s no readily observable connection between butterflies in Japan and tornadoes in Oklahoma, yet, the correlation exists, so also, there is a correlation between the choice on someone’s part to commit a “harmless little” sin and the suffering of children in the world.

God doesn’t will it, nor cause it - it is the effect of human free choice to commit sin, and unbalance the Creation.

 

[Achilles6129]

Correct (to PRmerger). So the basic question is really: Why does God let those who aren’t in conscious rebellion against him suffer?

Any ideas?

 

[davidv]

Correct (to PRmerger). So the basic question is really: Why does God let those who aren’t in conscious rebellion against him suffer?

Any ideas?

I would guess that it is the same reason he allowed His Son to suffer. To demonstrate that we are sojourners in a foreign land.

 

[Lucy107]

OK, here’s a question for you. I admit I haven’t read this entire thread, but I thought I’d bring up what may be an important point: what if God views everyone equally, and so because of that there’s no difference to him whatsoever between a child suffering and an adult suffering? I would think that if God valued everyone equally (which seems to make sense) then this would be the case.

There would be no difference to God between a small child getting cancer and an old person getting cancer. Human beings don’t value everyone equally so they see things differently and think that the child is worth more than the adult. But that may not be the case with God at all.

I think this is a good point!

However, that obviously still wouldn’t solve the problem of evil, which is what this question is really all about. And, of course, one could argue that a young enough child couldn’t possibly have done anything to rebel against God (while an adult could have), and thus could not possibly deserve suffering.

Maybe, like in Job’s case, the hardship is not a matter of whether it is deserved or not.

Secondly, who knows what those innocent people feel when they are experiencing all those hardships.

So the basic question is really: Why does God let those who aren’t in conscious rebellion against him suffer?

Here’s an approach to this from a Hindu monotheism:

A queen who has been through much hardship says:

I wish that all those calamities would happen again and again so that we could see You again and again, for seeing You means that we will no longer see repeated births and deaths.

and the scriptural commentary says:

*Generally the distressed, the needy, the intelligent and the inquisitive, who have performed some pious activities, worship or begin to worship the Lord. Others, who are thriving on misdeeds only, regardless of status, cannot approach the Supreme due to being misled by the illusory energy. Therefore, for a pious person, if there is some calamity there is no other alternative than to take shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord. Constantly remembering the lotus feet of the Lord means preparing for liberation from birth and death. Therefore, even though there are so-called calamities, they are welcome because they give us an opportunity to remember the Lord, which means liberation.
One who has taken shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord, which are accepted as the most suitable boat for crossing the ocean of nescience, can achieve liberation as easily as one leaps over the holes made by the hoofs of a calf. Such persons are meant to reside in the abode of the Lord, and they have nothing to do with a place where there is danger in every step.

This material world is certified by the Lord in the Bhagavad-gītā as a dangerous place full of calamities. Less intelligent persons prepare plans to adjust to those calamities without knowing that the nature of this place is itself full of calamities. They have no information of the abode of the Lord, which is full of bliss and without trace of calamity. **The duty of the sane person, therefore, is to be undisturbed by worldly calamities, which are sure to happen in all circumstances. Suffering all sorts of unavoidable misfortunes, one should make progress in spiritual realization because that is the mission of human life. *The spirit soul is transcendental to all material calamities; therefore, the so-called calamities are called false. A man may see a tiger swallowing him in a dream, and he may cry for this calamity. Actually there is no tiger and there is no suffering; it is simply a case of dreams. In the same way, all calamities of life are said to be dreams. If someone is lucky enough to get in contact with the Lord by devotional service, it is all gain. Contact with the Lord by any one of the nine devotional services is always a forward step on the path going back to Godhead.

vedabase.net/sb/1/8/25/en

(emphases mine)

In this monotheism, they believe that the world is full of calamities, full of dangers. Living beings suffer from harm done to them by themselves; from harm done to them by others; and from harm done to them by nature.

Owing to ignorance, one does not know that this material world is a miserable place where there are dangers at every step. Out of ignorance only, less intelligent persons try to adjust to the situation by fruitive activities, thinking that the resultant actions will make them happy. They do not know that no kind of material body anywhere within the universe can give life without miseries. The miseries of life, namely birth, death, old age and diseases, are present everywhere within the material world. But one who understands his real constitutional position as the eternal servitor of the Lord, and thus knows the position of the Personality of Godhead, engages himself in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. Consequently he becomes qualified to enter into the Vaikuṇṭha planets, where there is neither material, miserable life nor the influence of time and death. To know one’s constitutional position means to know also the sublime position of the Lord.

vedabase.net/bg/2/51/en

 

[Achilles6129]

I would guess that it is the same reason he allowed His Son to suffer. To demonstrate that we are sojourners in a foreign land.

In the case of Christ suffering, however, the suffering had a specific purpose and point. Remember that Christ asked God to take the cup away from him but was denied the request. In the case of someone who’s not in conscious rebellion against God suffering, what’s the point?